# Anti-Feminism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 17, 2015, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390 "2015-07-17T06:05:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/181 "2015-07-19T21:26:31Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > … As a reasonable person, I can’t see feminism as anything but an essential, necessary moral compass to make this world as fair and equitable as possible. > But how much progress can a movement which seeks to improve human nature ever be, when it still resorts to the worst aspects of human nature? … > [@LinusK](#): > > I wanted to address the bolded part, because I want to explicitly point out to you that men are also faced with murder and rape and thwarted lives. [According to the FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain), for example, 77.4% of murder victims were men. Men are also raped (although reliable figures are hard to come by, for various reasons), and there are certainly vast numbers of men leading “thwarted lives”. _Most men lead lives of quiet desperation._ -Henry David Thoreau. > If you want to ignore “worst aspects” of feminism as long as crime and thwarted lives exist, you’ll be ignoring them forever. Because crime and thwarted lives will always exist. In other words: there is no end-date. In your reply to Slithy Tove, you appear to be invoking Henry David Thoreau as an authority speaking on the topic of comparing of men and women\*, with respect to the challenges and dangers each gender may encounter. Do I understand correctly that you believe Thoreau was indeed writing on the topic of a comparison between males and females? The quote you offer, by the way, is commonly-seen on the Internet but is not actually what Thoreau wrote (in his 1854 book _Walden_, of course). In Chapter One, we find, in paragraph nine: > [@](#): > > The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation. From the desperate city you go into the desperate country, and have to console yourself with the bravery of minks and muskrats. A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work. But it is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things. \*\* Again, is it your claim that in this or in the text that comes just before this, Thoreau was making a point about the lives of men as compared with the lives of women? - In the exchange between you, S.T. had said that some less-than-admirable aspects–“the worst aspects of human nature” that allegedly exist in feminism, get excused on the grounds that females face dangers. You replied to the effect that men face the same dangers–“murder and rape and thwarted lives,” in your words. And, therefore, the less-than-admirable aspects of feminism should not be excused. If this is not a reasonable interpretation of your post, please say so (and offer a better). \*\* [http://thoreau.eserver.org/walden1a.html](http://thoreau.eserver.org/walden1a.html) ---
**Author:** ![erez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@erez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erez)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/182 "2015-07-19T21:28:35Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > No, he is wrong. “Women should be able to punch men without consequences” is not anywhere on any feminist’s agenda, nor is it a female-friendly stance. Having very different consequences than for men **is** on the agenda: [We should stop putting women in jail. For anything.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/we-should-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/) Written by an associate professor at a state-funded university. Great arguments are made in the article, such as: > [@Patricia O’Brien](#): > > The argument is actually quite straightforward: There are far fewer women in prison than men to start with — women make up just 7 percent of the prison population. This means that these women are disproportionately affected by a system designed for men. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/183 "2015-07-19T21:32:35Z")
If only that author had gone on immediately to say > [@](#): > > Essentially, the case for closing women’s prisons is the same as the case for imprisoning fewer men. It is the case against the prison industrial complex and for community-based treatment where it works better than incarceration. But there is evidence that prison harms women more than men, so why not start there? … suggesting that the consequences she has in mind aren’t very different for men than for women. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/184 "2015-07-19T21:34:39Z")
> [@erez](#): > > Having very different consequences than for men **is** on the agenda: [We should stop putting women in jail. For anything.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/06/we-should-stop-putting-women-in-jail-for-anything/) Explain to me why you think that what this feminist wrote is “on the agenda” for feminism in general? ---
**Author:** ![erez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@erez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erez)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/185 "2015-07-19T21:35:07Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > … suggesting that the consequences she has in mind aren’t very different for men than for women. …but that’s not what she actually suggested. Why should we try to guess what she has in mind eventually? She tells us clearly what she wants done. ---
**Author:** ![erez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@erez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erez)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/186 "2015-07-19T21:36:36Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Explain to me why you think that what this feminist wrote is “on the agenda” for feminism in general? I see that you did not read carefully. The post I was responding to: “is not anywhere on any feminist’s agenda” Different than “feminism in general,” no? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/187 "2015-07-19T21:37:44Z")
> [@erez](#): > > I see that you did not read carefully. The post I was responding to: > “is not anywhere on any feminist’s agenda” > Different than “feminism in general,” no? While I did miss that, it doesn’t change the fact that you wrote “on the agenda,” not “on one person’s agenda.” What you wrote, even given the aspect of the context that you highlighted just now, is reasonably interpreted as indicating this is what you think feminism stands for. Do you? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/188 "2015-07-19T21:39:48Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Private donations to and public spending on breast cancer appears to be much higher than on any other form of cancer, so it does seem that there is a widespread opinion that breast cancer is the worst. > > [Donations vers. Deaths](http://thebullelephant.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Donating.vs_.Death-Graph.0.jpg) > > [NCI Spending](http://image.asbestos.com/uploads/blog-images/2014/11/spending-by-cancer-type-2013.jpg) > > [The UK too](http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9771355.ece/alternates/w460/graph.jpg) Based on the first graph alone, and if my math is right (always a big if), that’s $6232 per death from breast cancer vs. $90 per death from heart disease. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/189 "2015-07-19T21:41:47Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Based on the first graph alone, and if my math is right (always a big if), that’s $6232 per death from breast cancer vs. $90 per death from heart disease. What does this prove beyond very skilled marketing by the anti-breast-cancer forces? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/190 "2015-07-19T21:44:39Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > What kind of evidence would convince you otherwise? Perhaps the following: identification of all the genesets responsible for high and low intelligence, and a detailed analysis to compare the presence of these various genesets in individuals and their IQ test scores which shows a positive correlation that is entirely unaffected by categories like race, ethnicity, gender, etc.; such that two individuals with the same genesets for intelligence will score very similarly on these tests. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/191 "2015-07-19T21:47:47Z")
> [@erez](#): > > …but that’s not what she actually suggested. Why should we try to guess what she has in mind eventually? She tells us clearly what she wants done. So, you think she goes as far as to explicitly acknowledge that the same case can be made, in broad terms, about men, and refers to “the prison industrial complex” overall, and says that we should “start” by not incarcerating women, but you think it’s ambiguous and requires guesswork to figure out whether or not she wants “very different consequences” for women than for men, _and_ this is your Exhibit A for feminists who want different consequences? I guess I would really dislike feminists if I were you, too. ---
**Author:** ![erez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@erez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erez)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/192 "2015-07-19T21:51:02Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > While I did miss that, it doesn’t change the fact that you wrote “on the agenda,” not “on one person’s agenda.” What you wrote, even given the aspect of the context that you highlighted just now, is reasonably interpreted as indicating this is what you think feminism stands for. Do you? I haven’t done any polling among third-wave feminists, have you? This is an opinion piece in a leading newspaper written by a current professor at a state-funded university, and together with the linked BBC article, where other supporters of this idea are mentioned, it is clearly on the agenda of more than one person. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/193 "2015-07-19T22:01:05Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > His points and his logic are lousy, but I wish we’d get away from the notion that men turn weird and bitter because they aren’t having sex. Indeed. But our poor OP has obviously been damaged by _something_ that turned him weird & bitter. ---
**Author:** ![erez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@erez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erez)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/194 "2015-07-19T22:04:38Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > So, you think she goes as far as to explicitly acknowledge that the same case can be made, in broad terms, about men, and refers to “the prison industrial complex” overall, and says that we should “start” by not incarcerating women, but you think it’s ambiguous and requires guesswork to figure out whether or not she wants “very different consequences” for women than for men, _and_ this is your Exhibit A for feminists who want different consequences? > > I guess I would really dislike feminists if I were you, too. The goal of the writer is very clear: to close women’s prisons. The only one who is trying to introduce any ambiguity here is you. If she thought that men’s prisons should also be closed, she would say it. Instead, she makes a small allowance that “fewer men” should be imprisoned: > [@](#): > > Essentially, the case for closing women’s prisons is the same as the case for imprisoning fewer men. Please explain how the consequences for men and women would be the same if she gets her way and women’s prisons are completely closed but only fewer men are imprisoned. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/195 "2015-07-19T22:05:50Z")
> [@erez](#): > > I haven’t done any polling among third-wave feminists, have you? This is an opinion piece in a leading newspaper written by a current professor at a state-funded university, and together with the linked BBC article, where other supporters of this idea are mentioned, it is clearly on the agenda of more than one person. “It” being, if you were being at all sensibly responsive to **even sven** , the idea that men and women should, ultimately, ideally, receive differential treatment for the same offenses. The piece you linked to does not establish that even one person thinks this. Even if it did, “there is more than one person who advocates for this” is _at best_ a semantic gotcha in your conversation with **even sven** , and has no significance for anything wider than scoring points in that conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/196 "2015-07-19T22:08:45Z")
> [@erez](#): > > The goal of the writer is very clear: to close women’s prisons. The only one who is trying to introduce any ambiguity here is you. If she thought that men’s prisons should also be closed, she would say it. Instead, she makes a small allowance that “fewer men” should be imprisoned: > > Please explain how the consequences for men and women would be the same if she gets her way and women’s prisons are closed but only fewer men are imprisoned. “The case for closing women’s prisons is essentially the same as the case for imprisoning fewer men” is wholly compatible with the view that men’s prisons should also be closed. Here’s an argument often given for X. By X’s logic, I’d say Y. But also, I’d go further than X anyway, to Z. Notice that the piece mentions “community detention centers” for women. I’d count someone who is in a “community detention center” as “imprisoned” even if the thing isn’t called by the label, “prison,” wouldn’t you? Perhaps what she has in mind are community detention centers for everybody, in the end. "Start"ing (her word) with women, to be sure. We’d have to ask her. Anyway, all of this is very much beside any important point. Even if you’re right about everything, what you’ve accomplished is to score one point in the semantic gotcha game. Congratulations? Meanwhile let’s talk about something important. ---
**Author:** ![nearwildheaven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90db22/32.png) [@nearwildheaven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nearwildheaven)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/197 "2015-07-19T22:14:14Z")
How about this? There’s a lot of discussion about, and studies on, men who leave disabled wives. Out of curiosity, I looked for research on women who leave disabled husbands, and couldn’t find any. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/198 "2015-07-19T22:16:47Z")
> [@nearwildheaven](#): > > How about this? > > There’s a lot of discussion about, and studies on, men who leave disabled wives. Out of curiosity, I looked for research on women who leave disabled husbands, and couldn’t find any. > > :dubious: So, how about it? ---
**Author:** ![thirdname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@thirdname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdname)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/199 "2015-07-19T22:17:29Z")
If someone wrote an article entitled “White people should not go to prison”, and at one point they mentioned “perhaps we should also send fewer black people to prison, at some point in the future,” would you people say that they aren’t advocating racial discrimination? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/200 "2015-07-19T22:24:49Z")
> [@thirdname](#): > > If someone wrote an article entitled “White people should not go to prison”, and at one point they mentioned “perhaps we should also send fewer black people to prison, at some point in the future,” would you people say that they aren’t advocating racial discrimination? No. If someone said “White people shouldn’t go to prison. The case for ending white people’s imprisonment is similar to the case for imprisoning fewer black people” then I would not assume that this person ideally wants black people imprisoned and white people not imprisoned–since it would seem a logical conclusion, from the argument given by these two sentences, that black people also shouldn’t be imprisoned. I would also have a lot of questions about what the person is actually proposing. And I would suspect the person is being hyperbolic in order to jump-start conversation. And I would question the wisdom of the framing of the issue, on purely rhetorical grounds. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=11)