# 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:** 23
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2015, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/441 "2015-07-23T20:48:36Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > . . . It occurs to me to wonder how many feminists accept that one can desire, and actively work towards, gender equality without being a feminist? Since desiring and working toward gender equality is one of the more common definitions of feminism, it’s kind of hard to see how. How can one desire and work for equality…and still be a bigot? I guess it may be possible, but it’s hard to fathom. ---
**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 23, 2015, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/442 "2015-07-23T20:51:52Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Since desiring and working toward gender equality is one of the more common definitions of feminism, it’s kind of hard to see how. If someone wants and works toward gender equality but doesn’t want to call themselves a feminist, I won’t make them. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2015, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/443 "2015-07-23T20:54:00Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Is it your status as moderator that leads you to believe your reading of that article is more valid than mine? Or you just arguing for the sake of holding up the biased and fact-lite feminist position on genital mutilation? I am simply posting as poster. > [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > I am impressed, though, with your ability to speed read a scholarly treatise _and_ follow up all the links and references. Oh no, hang on, you clearly didn’t. You just threw up a quick and dirty ‘Nothing to see here!’ in case anybody else was tempted to educate themselves. Well, since I never said anything resembling “nothing to see here,” I guess we can now consider your claims to be the sort of which you are attempting to accuse me. > [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Your final point eludes me, . . . Do tell. ---
**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 23, 2015, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/444 "2015-07-23T20:59:52Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Southern California is VERY richly represented with good people _preen_ > [@](#): > > (also a few dipshits.) Fuck. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2015, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/445 "2015-07-23T21:04:26Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > I see now that I’d been misguided in basing my claim on facts What fucking facts? Your say-so isn’t “facts”, pal. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2015, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/446 "2015-07-23T21:17:06Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Since desiring and working toward gender equality is one of the more common definitions of feminism, it’s kind of hard to see how. > > How can one desire and work for equality…and still be a bigot? I guess it may be possible, but it’s hard to fathom. It’s also a definition of ‘egalitarian’. The difference between an egalitarian and a feminist has been addressed above: the former wants equality for all, the latter wants it ‘for women’, which would require a novel definition of ‘equality’. As to your question, I cannot say. I suspect you’re falling for the popular confusion also discussed above, that somehow ‘feminism=women’ (though if we’re free to redefine ‘equal’ as we see fit, as feminists insist, then perhaps it does). I prefer the old school meaningful meaning of ‘equals’ and ‘equality’ and so forth. I wonder, if I were a bigot, whether your calling me one would offend me? I expect not. Since I am not (try to pay attention, I’m condemning a political ideology while supporting equality for all regardless of gender and other accidents of birth), I’m equally (in the dictionary sense) unoffended by your error. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2015, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/447 "2015-07-23T21:22:43Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > What fucking facts? Your say-so isn’t “facts”, pal. Are you the same chap that swore earlier? I can’t say I care to check, given that talking to either of you (or just the one) looks like a particularly unappealing proposition, ‘pal’. Seriously, ‘pal’?? As though this were the saloon bar and you might be able to beat some sense into me? I will concede that ‘my say-so’ isn’t ‘facts’ (unless we’re redefining equality with a feminist fluidity). Which facts were you confused by, such that you mistook them for ‘say so’?\* \*This is, necessarily, a rhetorical question. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2015, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/448 "2015-07-23T21:27:02Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I am simply posting as poster. That wasn’t the question, as well you know. No, sorry, I retract that, perhaps you really don’t know. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Well, since I never said anything resembling “nothing to see here,” I guess we can now consider your claims to be the sort of which you are attempting to accuse me. I begin to suspect your posting simply as a simpleton… > [@tomndebb](#): > > Do tell. Well the decent thing would have been to attempt a clarification, but I suppose as a simple poster there’s no requirement on you to act decently? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2015, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/449 "2015-07-23T21:27:42Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Are you the same chap that swore earlier? I can’t say I care to check, given that talking to either of you (or just the one) looks like a particularly unappealing proposition, ‘pal’. Seriously, ‘pal’?? No worse than ‘chap’, mate. > [@](#): > > As though this were the saloon bar and you might be able to beat some sense into me? I wouldn’t even know where to begin to try anything of the sort. > [@](#): > > I will concede that ‘my say-so’ isn’t ‘facts’ (unless we’re redefining equality with a feminist fluidity). Which facts were you confused by, such that you mistook them for ‘say so’? I wasn’t confused, as there were no facts in your post, just your assertions. ---
**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 23, 2015, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/450 "2015-07-23T21:33:54Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I answered this question already, but since you ask: it’s evidence that society values the safety and well-being of women over men. Why? That’s one explanation, but why is that a better explanation than the superiority of breast cancer marketing? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2015, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/451 "2015-07-23T23:00:53Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > For the record: what I’m doing is criticizing feminism, not attacking women. So says the man who claimed that there’s a bunch of important jobs that no woman on earth can do now, and that we couldn’t manage to learn even if all of our lives literally depended upon it, because…we’re too afraid of bugs? > [@LinusK](#): > > On the other hand, if all men suddenly disappeared, women would find themselves in a different world from the one they currently live in. One without truckers or farmers or ranchers or miners or plumbers or sanitation workers or garbage men or engineers. Considering that many women get freaked out by the sight of a roach, I think they’d get pretty unhappy pretty soon, once the lights went out, their toilets stopped working, and the stuff at the grocery store disappeared. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2015, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/452 "2015-07-23T23:33:22Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > That wasn’t the question, as well you know. No, sorry, I retract that, perhaps you really don’t know. > > I begin to suspect your posting simply as a simpleton… > > Well the decent thing would have been to attempt a clarification, but I suppose as a simple poster there’s no requirement on you to act decently? Jack, you’re relatively new here so I’ll go easy. Do not insult other posters in Great Debates. Doing so can earn you warnings and potentially lead to a loss of your posting privileges. ---
**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 23, 2015, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/453 "2015-07-23T23:35:10Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > I meant that we’d seen, right here in this thread, some kneejerk responses from feminists assuming that an attack on a political philosophy is an attack on women. But we’ve already stumbled over your comprehension issues. What you said was different – you said that anyone who attacked feminists was labeled a misogynist. This was a false assertion. > [@](#): > > Civil rights activists called for racial equality, _not_ ‘equality for black people’. The conflation of ‘sexism and racism’ is a handy marker for when people got engaged with feminism (as if, when the Titanic went down, anyone called out “Niggers and pakis first!”). What’s reasonable, when calling for sex equality, is to fight for the underdog (or at the very least to call for equality _regardless of gender_). This is [trivially](http://www.blackpast.org/1949-ralph-j-bunche-barriers-race-can-be-surmounted) [easy](http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/martinluth162495.html) to disprove. Civil Rights leaders quite clearly called for both racial equality and equality for black people (mostly because they’re the same thing). > [@](#): > > Yay, I’m a feminist! A feminist anti-feminist! We have so much in common… I congratulate you for being a feminist, but I don’t know what a “feminist anti-feminist” means. > [@](#): > > I don’t have a version of feminism. Nor am I ‘smug’ - I just confidently disagree with you, while you avoid engaging with any argument that doesn’t suit you and slide slowly towards the expected _ad hominem_. ‘Smug’? So, you know some nice feminists who are busy fighting for equality for men (but less than busy policing those misandrists who dominate the representation of feminism). Good for you. Check the link - you’re all doing feminism wrong… You still haven’t established why my feminism is ‘wrong’ and these others are ‘right’. Obviously, I feel differently. I’ll ignore accusations of ad hominem attacks from someone who engages in them quite frequently (e.g. ‘comprehension issues’, ‘simpleton’, and the like). ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2015, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/454 "2015-07-23T23:51:53Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > **LinusK** , you have, pages ago, drawn from my posts to support you position. Yet you haven’t told us what you, personally, not philosophically, have against feminism. I will tell you why I can’t consider myself a feminist. > > It’s because of Cheryl Dahlen, who was briefly my girlfriend when I was in 7th grade. I was being bullied mercilessly (the reason being that I admitted I’d smoked weed, so I was the evil addict) and she was bullied too, as the designated school slut. In 5 years everyone who trashed our lockers and spit on us and tripped us on the stairs and dumped trash over the bathroom stalls onto each of us would be smoking weed and fucking too, but that never mattered. Seventh grade was one big, vicious animal that had singled us out. Girls wouldn’t accept her as a friend, boys treated her barbarically, and I dialed it down to platonic soulmate when it was obvious she was using sex to get away from the pain that sex dumped on her. (There’s irony: I friend-zoned myself. Go figure). > > I don’t think I’ve ever seen the most misandrist feminist capture, much less try to understand the disgusting mix of lust and contempt that the boys treated Cheryl with. I could write a book, but instead of a long, dreary post I’ll assume you’ve seen this story yourselves. > > At age 16, she was killed in a car full of drunks. Since I worked at the Catholic cemetery, I had to bury some of them, but luckily not her. Then , to my even greater disgust, she became a tragic legend and everyone felt bad about how her mom beat her and mom’s boyfriends fucked her, etc. etc. One classmate, who had also fucked her, was at least honest enough to chortle “is she really dead? Good!” > > So the person who was my female counterpart in that ordeal was killed while I lived. I hate them and I always will. Not enough to go back and kill them, because it’s not worth losing what I was able to build of my life despite their efforts. But I don’t hate boys who haven’t done those things yet. And what’s this has to do with feminism. Feminism, IMHO, says that boys are naturally like this. It perpetuates the cycle by giving them the role of bastards, just like they gave Cheryl the role of slut. And people will take on their roles, just out of perversity and spite. > > And I feel feminism assumes I’m like those people I hate, just because I share their sex. All feminism does then is tap into my hate and get some of it directed back at itself. > > The political is always personal. So what’s your story? Thanks for sharing. I appreciate your bravery in telling your story. And I’ll say we have something in common: I was also bullied, beginning in 7th grade. And eventually I learned something valuable from it: the road to self-esteem begins with ceasing to care about what other people think of you. In other words, refusing to let other people define who or what you are. However, what prompted this thread was not any one personal experience, but happening to stumble across [Karen Straughan](https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat/featured). She combines a number of characteristics that rarely found in any one person: extreme intelligence, empathy, and a down-to-earth lack of pretentiousness. But what she really did for me, was to help me connect random bits of discordant information, so that I was able to make sense of a bigger picture. I freely admit that much of what I’ve written has been wantonly stolen from her videos. While I’d strongly encourage anyone who’s interested to click on the link, her landing page currently sucks. She’s generously trying to promote the channels of other anti-femist women (with only a fraction of her subscribers), but if you want to see her videos, you’ll need to click “playlists” and then click on the ones with her face on them. And there are a lot of them. I estimate I’ve gotten through fewer than half. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2015, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/455 "2015-07-23T23:54:09Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Jack, you’re relatively new here so I’ll go easy. > > Do not insult other posters in Great Debates. Doing so can earn you warnings and potentially lead to a loss of your posting privileges. This has been a very long thread, but I think you’ll find that Jack is among the least offenders in this area. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/456 "2015-07-24T02:10:21Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > However, what prompted this thread was not any one personal experience, but happening to stumble across [Karen Straughan](https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat/featured). She combines a number of characteristics that rarely found in any one person: extreme intelligence, empathy, and a down-to-earth lack of pretentiousness. But what she really did for me, was to help me connect random bits of discordant information, so that I was able to make sense of a bigger picture. I freely admit that much of what I’ve written has been wantonly stolen from her videos. Thanks for sharing the link. I watched some of her videos based on your recommendation. She is obviously incredibly intelligent and a very articulate speaker. I have to assume based on her depth of knowledge that she came out of academia somewhere. She is a welcome counter-force to the non-moderate versions of the various feminist sub-movements. Her college lecture style presentations are very good even though the are shot in her kitchen (no snark intended; her style transcends basic settings), unusually intelligent and mostly non-political for anyone that is interested. She is the ultimate anti-feminist but she presents her views in a fair and very academic way backed up with very strong evidence from multiple disciplines and reasons for her arguments. I encourage any open-minded person to watch some of her well thought out presentations and give counterarguments of the same quality. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/457 "2015-07-24T02:59:13Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > **LinusK** says Amy Schumer should be called a rapist by feminists because: > > 1. A drunk man had sex with her while she laid there waiting for either it to be over or for an opportunity to get out of the situation without trouble, AND > > 2. If feminists believed a drunk _woman_ had sex with a _man_ while the man lay there waiting for either it to be over or for an opportunity to get out the situation without trouble, THEN feminists would call the man in that situation a rapist AND > > 3. Feminism claims to be about equal treatment of the sexes. > > I asked him for examples to support premise 2, because without examples, I don’t see why it should be believed, by him or anyone else. > > He just pointed back to the Schumer case, bizarrely. > > You’re making a similar mistake, I think. The example you adduced doesn’t give support for the second premise above, because the genders are not correct (what we need is an example of a drunk woman as the active partner–yours has a drunk _man_ as the active partner), and because anyone calling the man a rapist (feminist or no) is doing so because they believe the woman when she says he was making advances towards her which she had verbally refused. In other words, they don’t believe this is a case where a drunk woman had sex with a man while he lay there passively waiting for it to be over etc. I’m going to admit I’m having trouble parsing your argument. However, it seems to revolve around the idea that if someone’s “active” they’re not a victim of rape. That’s not only false as a matter of law, it’s not how feminists themselves define rape. Rape is sex without consent. If someone’s unable to give consent, that means the sex was rape. Also, I’d encourage you to quote me, when you’re claiming to speak for me… It’d be… not only easier for you - it would be what I actually said: instead of your version of it. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/458 "2015-07-24T03:22:42Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I’m going to admit I’m having trouble parsing your argument. However, it seems to revolve around the idea that if someone’s “active” they’re not a victim of rape. That’s not only false as a matter of law, it’s not how feminists themselves define rape. > > Rape is sex without consent. > > If someone’s unable to give consent, that means the sex was rape. > > Also, I’d encourage you to quote me, when you’re claiming to speak for me… It’d be… not only easier for you - it would be what I actually said: instead of your version of it. I am unpacking the argument implicit in what you said here: > [@](#): > > About a year ago, Amy Schumer gave a speech at the Gloria Awards and Gala, hosted by the Ms. Foundation for Women. During the speech, she related a story where she had sex, totally sober, with a man who was so drunk he literally (according to her) passed out in the middle of it. > > According to feminists, this is rape. Or at least, it would have been rape, if she’d been a man, instead of a woman. You are saying that feminists, if they believe in treating the genders equally, should judge Schumer to be a rapist. Given that you described the incident and linked to a description of it, I took an accurate description of that incident to be one of your premises, hence my line 1). My line 2) is just a restatement of your claim that feminists would call a man in Schumer’s position a rapist. Finally, my line 3) is simply what you’ve said several times in this thread: that feminism _claims_ to be about equal treatment of the sexes. Check out the lines 1), 2) and 3) again. Would you disagree with any of them individually? If so, which one and why? If not, would you disagree that they lead, together, to the conclusion that Schumer should be called a rapist by feminists? Here they are again for reference: 1. A drunk man had sex with her while she laid there waiting for either it to be over or for an opportunity to get out of the situation without trouble, AND 2. If feminists believed a drunk woman had sex with a man while the man lay there waiting for either it to be over or for an opportunity to get out the situation without trouble, THEN feminists would call the man in that situation a rapist AND 3. Feminism claims to be about equal treatment of the sexes. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/459 "2015-07-24T03:27:22Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Thanks for sharing the link. I watched some of her videos based on your recommendation. She is obviously incredibly intelligent and a very articulate speaker. I have to assume based on her depth of knowledge that she came out of academia somewhere. She is a welcome counter-force to the non-moderate versions of the various feminist sub-movements. Her college lecture style presentations are very good even though the are shot in her kitchen (no snark intended; her style transcends basic settings), unusually intelligent and mostly non-political for anyone that is interested. She is the ultimate anti-feminist but she presents her views in a fair and very academic way backed up with very strong evidence from multiple disciplines and reasons for her arguments. > > I encourage any open-minded person to watch some of her well thought out presentations and give counterarguments of the same quality. What’s a video of hers that you like a lot? ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/460 "2015-07-24T03:44:18Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > What’s a video of hers that you like a lot? All of them that I watched were very good quality. I haven’t seen all of them yet. Here is one example but these are not your typical Youtube videos. They are more like really skilled and intelligent college lectures and should be treated as such. They are long and require some commitment just like any other university level class. However, her multi-disciplinary approach is very academically persuasive. https://www.youtube.com/embed/aUMifHT1AwY?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque&list=PLbA7X2U_AzlI2l4DfP3S_IrKrVJbE7LaJ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=24)