# 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:** 16
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/301 "2015-07-21T21:09:31Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > And the act chosen was rape. So the FINAE supporters offered up the Amherst case, in which the male was expelled (in December 2013; the incident in question had occurred in February 2012). > > For the FINAE side to successfully make their case that this is supportive evidence, it must consist of a genuine reversal: a case of a female raping (or sexually assaulting) a male– **and there must be evidence that “feminists” have spoken in support of the female or at least, failed to condemn her conduct and/or call for her prosecution**. (Bold added.) Okay, this part I don’t know. I didn’t see that particularly mentioned in the Amherst material I read, that any Vast Feminist Conspiracy had chimed in on the case on her behalf. I didn’t consider that that was very specifically the core topic of this thread, so maybe the whole Amherst discussion here is off-topic. Is that what your saying here? The suggestion that his defense fails because he couldn’t remember any of it is weak, and the weaker the better, because it’s also damn dangerous, wouldn’t you think? Can anyone get away with rape now simply by getting the other party drunk enough not to remember what actually happened? Of course not (I hope). It would be a disaster if that could be a defense. ---
**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 21, 2015, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/302 "2015-07-21T21:11:00Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > But this case won’t work for the FINAE purpose. It’s not a clear-cut case of a female sexually assaulting a male. What keeps this from being a clear-cut case of a female assaulting a male: > > 1: The male has (he claims) no memory of the incident. > 2: The female claims that though the encounter began with her consent, she withdrew consent but was forced by the male to continue (this is from page 13 of the expelled-guy’s lawsuit, by the way; it’s referred to in the post from Frylock that’s quoted at the bottom of this post) : > > 3: The male has no counter for the female’s assertion that he forced her to continue the sex act, because–according to his own testimony–he has no memory of the event. 1. Incredibly bad reporting that conflates the timeline of the alleged events (what people knew when is pretty important when you’re accusing feminists of championing and/or ignoring a story), is sloppy about terminology, and leaps to a lot of conclusions about what happened. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/303 "2015-07-21T21:11:45Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > Srsly? In the more usual (or at least more stereotypical) case, the _male_ is the active party, the initiator, the one using (or threatening) force. In those cases, sure, I’m sure you’re right. No dispute there. If the guy if physically pushing her around, knocking her down (or up), on top of her, humping away and _won’t stop despite her requests_ then of course. > > But this Amherst case? He’s too drunk to consent (I’m still pretty sure that “blacked-out” is drunk enough to be too drunk to consent), and _she_ is the active party, the initiator, but she decided she wants to stop and he somehow prevented her? Did he threaten violence? Did the transcript actually say that? For my remark you quoted, the transcript isn’t relevant, I was responding to your general claim about what is plausible and what isn’t plausible. You don’t find it plausible that a woman could initiate sex, then decide to stop, then be coerced into continuing. I can’t make sense of this. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/304 "2015-07-21T21:13:25Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I am failing to see the puzzle here. **jsgoddess** is more than clear in her answer to this question, so clear that repeating her is all that is needed: Okay, so we just have a difference of opinion here. I can’t imagine that one can be drunk enough to engage in actions and not remember them later, and yet still be considered capable of giving consent. ---
**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 21, 2015, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/305 "2015-07-21T21:19:30Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > (Bold added.) Okay, this part I don’t know. I didn’t see that particularly mentioned in the Amherst material I read, that any Vast Feminist Conspiracy had chimed in on the case on her behalf. > > I didn’t consider that that was very specifically the core topic of this thread, so maybe the whole Amherst discussion here is off-topic. Is that what your saying here? Yes. The Amherst case is off-topic, here–or to say it a different way: it fails to support the “feminism is not about equality” position. It just doesn’t work for the “feminism is not about equality” argument because it’s not a clear-cut case of a female sexually assaulting a male. That’s what the FINAE side needs, as a first stage in supporting their argument. We don’t even come to the next stage of the FINAE argument–which would be looking for evidence of feminists hypocritically failing to condemn a female for doing the same thing they do condemn males for. That stage would come into play ONLY after coming up with a clear-cut case of a female sexually assaulting a male (which the Amherst case fails to be). > [@jsgoddess](#): > > 1. Incredibly bad reporting that conflates the timeline of the alleged events (what people knew when is pretty important when you’re accusing feminists of championing and/or ignoring a story), is sloppy about terminology, and leaps to a lot of conclusions about what happened. Agreed–that’s a fair fourth point (that I should have included!) ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/306 "2015-07-21T21:38:33Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Yes. The Amherst case is off-topic, here–or to say it a different way: it fails to support the “feminism is not about equality” position. > > It just doesn’t work for the “feminism is not about equality” argument because it’s not a clear-cut case of a female sexually assaulting a male. That’s what the FINAE side needs, as a first stage in supporting their argument. > > We don’t even come to the next stage of the FINAE argument–which would be looking for evidence of feminists hypocritically failing to condemn a female for doing the same thing they do condemn males for. That stage would come into play ONLY after coming up with a clear-cut case of a female sexually assaulting a male (which the Amherst case fails to be). Okay, if this thread is that specifically about FINAE and not about anti-feminist rebuttals that feminism has run amuck more generally, then I’ll buy that. I think I’m responding to a real and serious argument (that the pendulum in adjudication of alleged sexual assault cases has swung way to far), but maybe that’s outside this thread. I still feel that we have a reasonably good case of female-assaults-drunken-male here (and maybe she was drunken too), so I acknowledged that this case isn’t the right FINAE case for the other reason – that I saw no mention of any feminist consensus chiming in on the case on her side. But I didn’t see any feminist outcry on the other side of this case either. The suggestion that anybody who is too drunk to remember what happened loses the case thereby is seriously dangerous, and this supports my claim that anybody too drunk to remember is also too drunk to give consent. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/307 "2015-07-21T21:43:11Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > But this case won’t work for the FINAE purpose. It’s not a clear-cut case of a female sexually assaulting a male. What keeps this from being a clear-cut case of a female assaulting a male: > > 1: The male has (he claims) no memory of the incident. > 2: The female claims that though the encounter began with her consent, she withdrew consent but was forced by the male to continue (this is from page 13 of the expelled-guy’s lawsuit, by the way; it’s referred to in the post from Frylock that’s quoted at the bottom of this post) : > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Sandra Jones testified that although she and plaintiff had engaged in consensual oral sex, at some point during the event she no longer wished to continue and told him to stop, but he went on nonetheless, holding her head until he finished. See. Ex. 3 at 43. She said that the assault was “terrifying and traumatic for me and took me a long time to name, let alone tell anyone about it.” Ex. 3 at p. 42 > > 3: The male has no counter for the female’s assertion that he forced her to continue the sex act, because–according to his own testimony–he has no memory of the event. I’m an ERA bracelet wearing life long feminist, and former rape crisis advocate, and I have a problem with this case, because the accuser lied to the college and withheld evidence. In the quote from the transcript, she says she “didn’t tell anyone about it for a long time” and that is a lie: She texted her friend right afterwards and told her about it. She withheld this from the investigators and the college. She also stated in her testimony that she knew the accused was “very drunk”, but says that she herself was only somewhat tipsy. So she was aware that the accused was in an impaired state when the encounter began. The college itself defines a “blacked out state” as being one where consent cannot be given, and the college accepted that the accused was in a blacked out state. Regardless of who wants to semantically argue the meaning here, the college’s definition should be the deciding criteria in this case. I would be outraged if anyone considered convicting someone of rape when the sole evidence is the testimony of a witness who lied and withheld evidence. Whatever sympathy I might have for her regret later on about the situation, she fucked up her case when she did that, and I would tell anyone I counseled as an advocate the same thing. I don’t know who gets to decide what “the point of this thread” is, but you do a disservice to rape victims and rape advocacy when you ignore these facts in your arguments. IMO, this case does have bearing on the point of this thread, because if the situation was reversed, and it was the woman who was in an accepted blacked out state, the man would be liable for initiating the act if he admitted to being aware she was incapacitated. ---
**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 21, 2015, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/308 "2015-07-21T21:46:32Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > I still feel that we have a reasonably good case of female-assaults-drunken-male here (and maybe she was drunken too), so I acknowledged that this case isn’t the right FINAE case for the other reason – that I saw no mention of any feminist consensus chiming in on the case on her side. But I didn’t see any feminist outcry on the other side of this case either. I’d never heard of this case until you linked to it. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/309 "2015-07-21T21:50:37Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Quote: > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK > > **To the extent the video is related to the thread it’s this: that he got arrested and she didn’t was patriarchy.** No way the police come to a bar and see a video where man #1 punches man #2 and man #2 punches him back and they arrest the only the second guy. That she didn’t go to jail that night was because she was a woman. > > What’s funny is that you are wrong about this. The idea that women play by different rules is, for lack of a better word, patriarchy. The idea that feminists are fighting for women to be able to punch men all the time is bizarre. What?! Where did I say “feminists are fighting for women to be able to punch men all the time”? Seriously, though, when you mischaracterize what I say, instead of addressing what I **do** say, it just shows you’re not arguing in good faith. Also, if you look back at what I **did** say, you’ll see that I said it **was** patriarchy. Look right above, in the very first sentence of the post \*\*you \*\*quoted. I bolded it for you, to help you find it. Remember my OP: feminists misconstrue patriarchy as a conspiracy to oppress women. It’s actually no more than a recent form of a evolutionary/biological imperative to protect them. That’s why he went to jail, and she didn’t: patriarchy. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/310 "2015-07-21T22:04:18Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > I still feel that we have a reasonably good case of female-assaults-drunken-male here (and maybe she was drunken too), so I acknowledged that this case isn’t the right FINAE case for the other reason – that I saw no mention of any feminist consensus chiming in on the case on her side. But I didn’t see any feminist outcry on the other side of this case either. Well, as I said I’m a card carrying feminist and my post is an outcry, so there you go. Listen, these situations are tough: In many cases, there is simply not enough evidence, even when the witness is perfectly credible, and that is a big problem in obtaining justice. But when a woman lies, she not only hurts her own case, but she hurts the man who was falsely accused _and_ the credibility of every other woman who comes forward, and that injustice needs to be fought as well. BTW, this is in no way an endorsement of the OP’s conclusions about feminism. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/311 "2015-07-21T22:29:39Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I’m starting to wonder how many times I have to repeat myself. > > “Blacked out” means “I don’t remember the events.” It does not mean “I was not conscious” or “I was too drunk to consent.” . . . There may be regional variations. I understand the term to mean “fell over unconscious.” ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/312 "2015-07-21T22:32:53Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Well, as I said I’m a card carrying feminist and my post is an outcry, so there you go. Well shucks, you just blew my recent participation in this thread right out of the water! 🙂 Thank you for speaking up as you did. Let me add a comment (or rather, a question) about your post: > [@camille](#): > > IMO, this case does have bearing on the point of this thread, because if the situation was reversed, and it was the woman who was in an accepted blacked out state, the man would be liable for initiating the act if he admitted to being aware she was incapacitated. If one party is too drunk to consent (including being “blacked out”) and the other isn’t, is _any_ sexual activity thus considered a sexual assault, regardless of who initiated it, or “who did what to whom”? And regardless of which party initiated it, or which party “did it”, if that is considered an assault, then is the not-so-drunk party necessarily always culpable? Or is it the active, or initiating, party (the one who did unto the other) who should be culpable, regardless of which is the drunk one? In the extreme case, where one party is literally unconscious and the other party commits a sex act, then the committing party is absolutely guilty, right? If the male is too drunk to consent and he rapes the female, he is certainly absolutely guilty regardless of the state-of-mind of the female, right? But if the female is too drunk to consent and the male rapes her, then he is guilty in that case too, right? The sensible rule would seem to be, it’s the initiator or active party who is culpable, regardless of which of them is the drunk one. Is there an established body of cases that establish that logic? If so, the problem with the Amherst case (at least on the surface) is that it seems to violate that logic. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/313 "2015-07-21T22:34:24Z")
A blackout drunk is someone who under the influence of alcohol that he or she has no memory of when sober. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/314 "2015-07-21T23:12:42Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > A blackout drunk is someone who under the influence of alcohol that he or she has no memory of when sober. Which, regional colloquialism notwithstanding, is pretty much the standard definition as used by the AMA, CDC, Alcoholics Anonymous, etc, and it’s been used at least since the 1940s. Further, there is no direct correlation between [alcohol-related amnesia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_(drug-related_amnesia))–blacking out–and amount of alcohol consumed. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/315 "2015-07-21T23:41:47Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Which, regional colloquialism notwithstanding, is pretty much the standard definition as used by the AMA, CDC, Alcoholics Anonymous, etc, and it’s been used at least since the 1940s. Further, there is no direct correlation between [alcohol-related amnesia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackout_(drug-related_amnesia))–blacking out–and amount of alcohol consumed. That’s disturbing. If being black-out-drunk is not correlated with BAC, then someone could be black-out-drunk without being very drunk at all (this is what **jsgoddess** has been saying), and they might not be recognizably drunk by other people around (specifically, a potential sex partner). And yet according to the Amherst definition (which I imagine is pretty much standard), black-out-drunkness IS sufficient to make one incapable of consent – yet with no way for a potential partner to detect this. What next? Affirmative consent now requires a blood or urine sample to be tested for BAC? Well, no, even that doesn’t work, if BAC is not even closely correlated with black-out state. So what then? Now, does affirmative consent require that the partners spend (and document) at least 8 hours in each others’ presence (or in the presence of other Credible Witnesses) and to document that no incapacitating chemicals were ingested by either party during that interval? Everyone knows, that isn’t going to happen. How will this work? (ETA: I suppose this really belongs in the “NY Affirmative Consent” thread, but the above comment follows up on earlier posts in this thread, so I put it here.) ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/316 "2015-07-22T00:23:40Z")
Just Asking Questions? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/317 "2015-07-22T00:23:49Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > That’s disturbing. If being black-out-drunk is not correlated with BAC, then someone could be black-out-drunk without being very drunk at all (this is what **jsgoddess** has been saying), and they might not be recognizably drunk by other people around (specifically, a potential sex partner). Well, inebriation on the whole is notoriously subjective. (Dunno if you’re a drinker, but I’ve certainly experienced the whole “woo, two beers and I’m buzzed, WTF?” phenomenon, as well as “Great Ghu, I’ve had enough to fell an ox but I’m pretty ok, WTF?”) Blackouts seem to be [similarly subjective](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696300/). Which is just to say that _neither amount of alcohol consumed nor the experience of blackout can be reliably tied to degree of intoxication._ (Apologies for all the unsupported assertions here; I’m in and out today and not taking much time to provide citations. Happy to oblige on request.) . ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/318 "2015-07-22T00:27:58Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > 1.) Feminists are not really interested in empowering women. If they were, they’d be saying “Hey! Don’t get drunk and do stupid shit you’ll regret later!” What they want is for women to be perpetual victims: objects who are not responsible for their own actions. > > I’ve heard feminists offer similar advice, but that’s not all they say. They rightly point out that the predators in most such instances (not all, but most – and they equally condemn female sexual predators and predation) are men. And they rightly point out that there’s not enough emphasis in many places on accurately describing such encounters as rape and educating boys and men that it is as wrong as any other form of rape. I’d like to know what you mean by “predators”. What does “predator” means to you? And, when you say there’s not enough emphasis on on accurately describing “such encounters” as rape, are you talking about two drunk people having sex? And if so, do you think both should go to prison for rape, be labelled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives… or just the men? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 2.) Feminists are not interested in equality. If they were, they’d be pushing to have women arrested for having sex with drunk men. They’re not. > > Many in fact are. I’m not sure if you’re interested in hearing from feminists that disagree with your straw-man-fantasy-version of feminism (considering how often they’ve been referred to in this thread and been ignored by you), but they exist. Your characterization of feminism and feminists are, at best, accurate for no more than a fringe of feminism and feminists. Can you provide a cite, please, showing feminists pushing for more women to be arrested for rape? And I haven’t ignored them: I’ve asked for evidence. None’s been provided. Hopefully, that evidence will be provided later on in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/319 "2015-07-22T00:50:16Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > And I haven’t ignored them: I’ve asked for evidence. None’s been provided. Hopefully, that evidence will be provided later on in the thread. You seem to have ignored the citations of NOW decrying males being raped in prison (both by males and females). I was eager to see your response to those posts. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2015, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/320 "2015-07-22T01:15:30Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Just Asking Questions? Well, yeah, that was a whole compendium of seeming silly questions I put there – but there was a point to that. We see all those people claiming things like “These new laws make ALL sex illegal!” and stuff like that. Exaggerated a bit maybe, but there’s a point there. The vast majority of sex acts occur in amicable circumstances, presumably, and don’t give rise to accusations after-the-fact. These cases were never the problem to begin with. Those were never the cases we needed laws to address. The cases where an accusation arises after the fact are the problems. The new rules purport to address those cases by prescribing a set of protocols for having sex that should protect all parties from non-consensual sex AND protect all parties from accusations of non-consensual sex. But the new rules, as our dear MRA-type friends point out, are highly unworkable, often with no way to figure out if they are being followed. Case in point here is the rule that black-out inebriation invalidates any consent (sounds perfectly reasonable, right?) while at the same time, there’s no way to detect black-out inebriation. And sure, the questions I asked: Should we require BAC tests now? Should we require 8-hour witnessed alcohol quarantines? – are silly questions. They are rhetorical questions, **Frylock**. You know what those are. They are meant to demonstrate the absurdity of some of the new rules, because they can’t accomplish what they mean to accomplish short of going to absurd lengths. Sure, it isn’t a “real” problem most of the time. It’s the cases where it’s a problem that it’s a problem, and then the rules don’t work well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=17)