# 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:** 25
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/481 "2015-07-24T21:35:57Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > I could fetch the post number where I quoted one of the few rules available about posting, if you like. The one that mentioned not shutting down debate. Is it a personal attack to say I don’t regard you as a particularly good moderator, in that regard? > > I post. I think that’s broadly allowed. I hold a position, which I also think has not yet been outlawed (give it time…) I comment on another’s post - again, I think that’s within the rules. but you’re the moderator, you can build whatever righteous oppression you’re comfortable with. Personally (with the benefit of non-feminist thought) I view your post as a personal attack rather than a comment on the content of my post. Did I mention my views on your aptitude? What are you nattering on about? No one has done anything to prevent you from posting. Unlike you, I have made no comments about any poster’s intelligence or personality, so your claim of “personal attack” is ludicrous. Nothing I have posted could be reasonably construed as an effort to shut down debate and I have not posted as a Moderator at any time in this thread. It would appear, then, that you are attempting to pretend that I am abusing an authority I have not even wielded in order to force my silence. bad form. If you think I have acted inappropriately as a Moderator, go open a thread in the ATMB forum. Such comments are not appropriate, here–not even when they are as ridiculous as yours. > [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > I understood oppression to be a key concept of ‘feminism’, which is very much the context of a thread titled ‘Anti-feminism’. I criticise your post (and accept the warning that will accompany the acknowledgement that I resolutely criticise you). :rolleyes: Your insertion of “oppression” into the discussion of LinusK’s silly claim is utter nonsense, but I have never taken action against a poster for making ridiculous posts. Your posts are beginning to look like a poor rip-off of Dennis in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but you are really not being repressed. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/482 "2015-07-24T23:02:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Most of these workers are men, but to imply that in the absence of men that women would be helpless and unable to learn these skills is absurd. If all men disappeared, these jobs and skills would be taken up by women. As they were in WWII, when women became loggers and miners. Most of the jobs on that list aren’t rocket science. They can be learned at a basic level on the job or as an apprentice. I just spent some time as a project manager on a large historic renovation. They had female carpenters, electricians and plumbers on staff (and me). But many of those jobs are not women friendly - and I don’t mean we are in danger of breaking a nail or a leg. There is a lot of harassment of women in most of those fields. They are often union, and the trade unions are often a good ole boy network. I’ve also had the fun of doing project management in a trucking company and am currently working with electrical linemen. They are environments were you have to be willing to put up with being slapped on the ass if you want to do your job. They are also positions where - even for project managers - there is a definite preference for hiring men - they fit into the culture better and are less of a lawsuit risk because they don’t get slapped on the ass. (The historic renovation was a very female friendly job site - the job foreman was a great younger guy who didn’t tolerate that shit). Want women to do those jobs, hire women and treat them with respect instead of objects. Honestly, my feeling from those environments is that they’d rather not have women around in 90% of those environments and only hire women when that is their only choice. In a down economy, they usually have choice. As for feminists - my take on feminism is that I’m a feminist so that women can have choices to do what THEY want - if that is to be a truck driver, they should be a truck driver, if that is be a stay at home mom, or a kindergarten teacher, or a plumber, or a lawyer, or an astronaut - they should get to pursue that - without judging. I’m not a feminist so we can sit around and say “more women should be \_\_\_\_\_\_\_” - because if more women don’t WANT to be \_\_\_\_\_\_\_, that’s sort of contrary to the idea that the individual woman should get to choose her career and not be pigeonholed because she is female. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2015, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/483 "2015-07-24T23:15:05Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > There are plenty of female engineers. If in some catastrophe, all men disappeared, those women engineers (and many other intelligent women in other fields) would quickly recognize the importance of keeping infrastructure going, and they would get it done. They would organize and take what emergency action was necessary to keep things from collapsing (just like men would if most male engineers disappeared), and quickly train other women to replace the lost men and keep things going. > > This isn’t that hard – some women are capable of doing these things, and they are capable of training the ones who don’t have the skills to do them. > > When I was part of the crew of a submarine, we could have lost 90% of the crew and still gotten the submarine safely back to port, while continuing to safely operate the power, water, and other necessary systems. I would suspect naval crews are cross-trained far better than civilians, because losing big chunks of people in a battle is not a remote possibility. If all the men vanished the remaining women would be in trouble in the short run, If all the women vanished the remaining men would be in trouble in the short term. Hell, if a random 50% of people would vanish the survivors would be in trouble. In all cases others could be trained, but it would have to be done as things were falling apart. But the worst on the list is Refuse and recyclable material collectors in my town the truck does most of the work. Does **LinusK** think women can’t drive trucks? ---
**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, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/484 "2015-07-24T23:37:50Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > No it doesn’t. It says “Are _you_ showing up again, with a view I don’t like?”. It’s clearly a personal criticism rather than a response to the content of my post, and, regardless of the variable status of a moderator, one who can’t even seem to grasp the basic concepts I learned readily, yet still wears the badge on every post they make, does not deserve the badge IMHO. And yes, I’m sure I could drag this particular exchange elsewhere - except you go on to argue that it _isn’t_ in fact about moderation. Indeed it isn’t, it’s necessarily become about that poster, and now about this poster. I’d rather talk about the issues, the context, the OP, the matter at hand, the subject of this debate etc. I think it’s telling that the supporters of an untenable political ideology have to disrupt debate this way (I can proffer plenty more real world examples if you wish). You are insisting on being silenced when no one has silenced you. You are being openly invited to continue speaking and are using that invitation to assert that pepole won’t let you speak. Good luck with that! ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/485 "2015-07-25T00:35:16Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I’ll start off by saying **I did not** say: **“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?”** > > And I’ll thank you for quoting what I did say, so that it’s easy to see I didn’t say it. No, thank _you_ for quoting your earlier post yourself, as this made it even easier to see how flimsy your denials are. > [@Frylock](#): > > The words you wrote _imply_ that no women do, and no women can, learn how to do the tasks under discussion. He didn’t even imply that no women do them. He explicitly said that a world without men is a world without truckers, farmers, etc. I probably shouldn’t be surprised that someone has already agreed with \*\*LinusK \*\*on this point: > [@Grotonian](#): > > **LinusK** never said women CAN’T or WON’T do those jobs; he said they DON’T do them. And he’s right; they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/486 "2015-07-25T00:56:40Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Two Things: > > 1. I’m not a lawyer > 2. There’s a difference between college disciplinary proceedings and a criminal case > > Probably best to ask these questions in the Affirmative Consent thread. There are lawyers posting there who might answer them, although they don’t all seem to agree. > > But if you want an example of how a case similar to the questions you are asking turned out, I recommend this (lengthy but excellent) [Esquire article](http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a33751/occidental-justice-case/) about the Occidental College case. > > (and note to\*\* LinusK\*\* - there is an example of feminists speaking out against the treatment of accused male college students in there, if you ever decide to check out this link) Thanks for the link. I’ll definitely check it out when I have time. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/487 "2015-07-25T01:05:03Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If all the women vanished the remaining men would be in trouble in the short term. Yeah, who would teach kindergarten, work the oriental massage parlors, or edit Vogue? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/488 "2015-07-25T01:17:10Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > Here’s another woman putting her hands on a man and finding out it was a poor idea. I realize the feminists here will think the man is a good feminist. After all, he reacted the same way he would’ve reacted to a man. Equality! Yay! > > http: hw-mobile. worldstarhiphop. com/u/vid/2013/05/01/slappyslswuysuws7wgswydwd32dewwwwwwww\_mobile.mp4?ri=512000&rs=850 > > I think he’s an asshole. But I’m curious if feminists think she should be charged with a crime or not. > > ETA: it’s less than a minute and the bucking of patriarchy occurs at :36. The link doesn’t work, and there’s a note that says: > [@](#): > > Last edited by Jonathan Chance; Today at 11:25 AM… Reason: Edited link for the sensitively inclined. I assume **Jonathan Chance** is a moderator? Either way, I’d suggest flagging the link for whatever **Jonathan Chance** thinks is objectionable, rather than breaking it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/489 "2015-07-25T06:37:43Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > Yeah, who would teach kindergarten, work the oriental massage parlors, or edit Vogue? [ol] [li]Both the kindergarten teachers in my district are men.[/li][li]Ooh! Sexism AND racism. (Is anyone surprised?)[/li][li]We would not need editors for a magazine no one would read.[/li][/ol] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/490 "2015-07-25T06:39:33Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Either way, I’d suggest flagging the link for whatever **Jonathan Chance** thinks is objectionable, rather than breaking it. The breakage of the link has been changed. Disabling the link was actually requested by the poster who authored that post. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/491 "2015-07-25T07:42:18Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > 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. Well, first of all, thanks for quoting what I said. I’ve had a lot of trouble with people misquoting me, and then attacking me for something I never said. I didn’t accuse you of doing that, but it makes it easier on everyone, if you quote whatever you’re commenting on. As I said earlier I don’t think what Schumer did was rape. However, I do think that many feminists would think it was rape, if the genders were reversed. From Schumer’s speech: > [@](#): > > - It’s Matt, but not really. He’s there, but not really. His face is kind of distorted, and his eyes seem like he can’t focus on me… He’s fucking wasted… His alcohol-swollen mouth, I felt like I was being tongued by someone who had just been given Novocain… He started to go down on me. That’s ambitious, I think. Is it still considered getting head if the guy falls asleep every three seconds…? The only wetness between my legs is from his drool, because he’s now sleeping and snoring into me… I shake him awake… On his fourth thrust, he gave up and fell asleep on my breast… And now the most beautiful love songs I’ve ever heard play out as this man-boy laid in my arms… I waited until the last perfect note floated out, and escaped from under him and out the door.\* Schumer asks: “Is it still considered **getting head** if the guy **falls asleep** every three seconds?” But if a man had asked, “Is it still considered **rape** if the **girl** falls asleep every three seconds?” I think the answer - from the same audience - would have been “YES”. For example, [from this feminist website](http://sgvnowproject.weebly.com/the-affirmative-consent-standard--rape--sexual-assault-education.html): > [@](#): > > You can’t consent to sex if you’ve been drinking, and you can’t make good decisions if you’ve been drinking alcohol. > If a man has sex with a woman who’s drunk, that’s RAPE, because a drunk woman is not able to give consent to sex. [Or this one](https://www.stsm.org/about-stsm/mission-and-vision): > [@](#): > > Fact: When intoxicated, an individual cannot legally consent to sexual activity. [Or from this one](http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2013/01/07/rape-consent-and-responsibility/): > [@](#): > > Consent requires sobriety. It is that simple. [Or this one](http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/01/navigating-consent-debunking-the-grey-area-myth/): > [@](#): > > Being drunk, asleep, or under severe duress—like grief and extreme sadness are situations in which full, informed and free consent cannot be fully or truly given. [Or this one](http://www.scdailypress.com/site/2015/03/04/sex-week-held-at-western-new-mexico-university/): > [@](#): > > The educators warned that consent requires sobriety; both logically and legally, an intoxicated person cannot give or get consent. [Or this one](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gregory-bernstein/destroying-a-rape-culture_b_5048507.html): > [@](#): > > Consent requires sobriety. Do you see the hypocrisy here? The same movement that insists that sex with someone who is drunk is rape, applauds a woman for telling a story about having sex with someone who was drunk. One last thing: you describe Schumer waiting for an “opportunity to get out of the situation without trouble.” But there is literally nothing in Shumer’s own story about “waiting to get out of the situation without trouble.” She does spend a lot of time mocking him for his disgustingness and general sexual inadequacy. She does say she has to wake him up to get him moving again. And she says he was forced to crawl across the floor to change the music for her. But not once does she say she was afraid of him. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/492 "2015-07-25T08:57:15Z")
**LinusK** , you don’t seem to understand how mass movements and activism works. Every mass movement has its extreme wing, and these are the ones who get the most press. Even your [female anti-feminist](http://www.vice.com/read/the-women-of-the-mens-rights-movement-804) heroes know this: > [@](#): > > Though this sort of language probably helped AVFM get called out for misogyny by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2012, the general consensus among the MRAs I’ve encountered is that bombast like Elam’s is worth it—the tone might alienate a few potential allies, but it also brings a lot of attention to the issues. (In the case of the quote above, the issue is that the media treats violence against men as a joke.) > > “There is a lot of over-the-top, strange, hyperbolic, polemical, deliberately provocative stuff in this movement,” Janet wrote to me one day. “Do I agree with everything anyone who calls themselves an MRA publishes? Are you fucking nuts?!? Of course not. But I realize that those early, angry movers were utterly essential to the movement emerging. And now, we are in a different place in the dialogue and the conversation needs to shift a little.” And BTW, most of the things these women are saying today is nothing “revelatory”. Are you familiar with [The Manipulated Man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manipulated_Man) by Esther Vilar? It was published in 1971. The basic premise is _women are stupid, but they manipulate men into being their slaves_. Sound familiar? Ms Vilar got herself a lot of publicity back then, and that was before the reach and power of the internet and social media. Karen Straughan et al have basically lifted her ideas and arguments whole cloth. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/493 "2015-07-25T14:04:29Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Do you see the hypocrisy here? The same movement that insists that sex with someone who is drunk is rape, applauds a woman for telling a story about having sex with someone who was drunk. > One last thing: you describe Schumer waiting for an “opportunity to get out of the situation without trouble.” But there is literally nothing in Shumer’s own story about “waiting to get out of the situation without trouble.” Your point about how active she is in the incident is fair enough. I missed the line about waking him up. That means she wasn’t _just_ waiting for it to be over. I think it is very easy for a woman to feel she must help the man in the situation do whatever he wants to do or else things might get ugly. But for the sake of argument, I won’t insist that that applies here. You listed several places where people (I’ll assume for the sake of argument that you’re right that they’re all feminists speaking _qua_ feminist) made incorrect statements like “you can’t consent if you’ve been drinking.” I think the right thing to say here is if anyone found themselves to make a statement like that, and also found themselves inclined not to call Schumer a rapist, then they’d need to do some thinking about whether it’s really true that “you can’t consent if you’ve been drinking.” (And ideally they’d come to the correct, totally-compatible-with-feminism conclusion that this statement is, indeed, not correct. It is far too broad.) You asked me if I see hypocrisy here. Frankly I could not care any less than I do about the question of who is hypocritical or whatever–in my experience, _everyone_ is hypocritical, if all it takes to be a hypocrite is to fail to apply principles you have articulated. What I care much more about is helping people to accurately articulate their views by helping them think through the implications and apply them to real-life cases. If I were forced to “spot the hypocrite,” then since to my mind hypocrisy is an attribute of individual people rather than of theories or doctrines, I would need to go look at individual people and find out if there are individual people who will, _even on reflection_, insist (for example) that no one can consent to sex after drinking _and also_ insist that sober women who have sex with inebriated men are not rapists. That “on reflection” bit is important. Without it, we just have run-of-the-mill failure to think implications through, which is correctible, often without anyone needing to be combative about anything. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/494 "2015-07-25T14:06:21Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Most of these workers are men, but to imply that in the absence of men that women would be helpless and unable to learn these skills is absurd. If all men disappeared, these jobs and skills would be taken up by women. Well, hypothetically, if men disappeared overnight, these are not jobs you could just pick up and start doing the next day. You can’t, for example, just start repairing or installing high-voltage electrical lines and equipment without (I assume) some pretty extensive training. Modern commercial fishing isn’t just baiting a hook: a factory/trawler is a huge, high-tech machine. It drops a 100+ ft nets to just above the bottom of the sea, and pulls up (if they’re successful) 100+ tons of fish at a time. What I did - being a lowly factory worker - didn’t require much in the way of training or experience (other than: “don’t put your hand there, if you want to keep it”) but many of the other jobs did: finding the fish in the first place, for example, or fixing things that went wrong. Construction is not only physically dangerous, but requires a wide range of skills. Watching them - from the comfort of my air-conditioned office - makes me appreciate not only the incredible amount of organization and precise engineering that goes into making a building like that, but also my privilege in being able to do non-physical labor in the comfort of an air-conditioned office in the first place. Anyway, the point is that despite being low-status, blue-collar jobs, many of those same jobs require not just strength, stamina and a high tolerance for risk of injury and death; but a large skill-set, and tons of experience. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/495 "2015-07-25T14:24:47Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The difference between what you did post and how your post was paraphrased is meaningless. You provided a list of occupations that you said would have no workers if men disappeared. You then listed a number of things about which women would be “pretty unhappy” because they disappeared after the men did. > > Whatever difference there might be between saying that women are not capable of doing jobs and not capable of learning to do them and your statement exists only in your mind. > > You made a dumb claim, (one more appeal to emotion and stereotypes rather than the facts that you claim you wanted to discuss), and got caught. Just admit that you did poorly in that post and move on. > > ETA: No one has claimed that men are not the overwhelming majority of those workers, today. That is a straw man argument. > Your claim, however, was that women would not do them and generally could not do them. It was a dumb remark that you cannot avoid by straw man claims. **tomndebb** : I’m going to choose to not engage with you, because of the combination of the tone of your post, and your moderator status. I’ve seen too many examples (not necessarily on this board) of moderators abusing their privileges to respond to posts like this one, from a moderator. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/496 "2015-07-25T14:40:12Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > FYI, posts about moderation go in the “About This Message Board” forum. Also, in general, when moderators post it is always simply as a regular poster UNLESS they specify in the body of their post that they are hereby moderating. **Tomndeb** wasn’t posting as a moderator, in other words. (So your comments about whether s/he is ‘being a good moderator’ in her post do not apply.) The post invites response rather than shutting down response–it’s inviting you to either defend the idea against the arguments that have already been presented, or else to explain it’s not what you meant. It doesn’t matter. So long as a hypothetical person both has the power to revoke someone else’s posting privileges, and a high degree of emotional investment in a particular point of view, engaging with such a person would be irrational, unless or until one was willing to have his or her posting privileges revoked. ---
**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 25, 2015, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/497 "2015-07-25T14:49:09Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > **tomndebb** : I’m going to choose to not engage with you, because of the combination of the tone of your post, and your moderator status. I’ve seen too many examples (not necessarily on this board) of moderators abusing their privileges to respond to posts like this one, from a moderator. He was right – it was just silly for you to assert that the lights and toilets would cease to work if it men disappeared. Hopefully you’re self-aware enough to recognize that yes, sometimes you might actually say something dumb. ---
**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 25, 2015, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/498 "2015-07-25T14:50:11Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > It doesn’t matter. So long as a hypothetical person both has the power to revoke someone else’s posting privileges, and a high degree of emotional investment in a particular point of view, engaging with such a person would be irrational, unless or until one was willing to have his or her posting privileges revoked. **tomndebb** wouldn’t be a moderator any more if he wasn’t able to separate his personal beliefs from his moderation. He hasn’t shown any signs or plans for doing anything against you as a poster. This board encourages moderators to post in the forums, and that’s a good thing – it keeps them involved. Great Debates is about strong opinions and feelings, and I see nothing wrong with a moderator posting strong opinions and feelings on any particular issue, when posting as a regular poster and not a moderator. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/499 "2015-07-25T14:57:52Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > FYI, posts about moderation go in the “About This Message Board” forum. Also, in general, when moderators post it is always simply as a regular poster UNLESS they specify in the body of their post that they are hereby moderating. **Tomndeb** wasn’t posting as a moderator, in other words. (So your comments about whether s/he is ‘being a good moderator’ in her post do not apply.) The post invites response rather than shutting down response–it’s inviting you to either defend the idea against the arguments that have already been presented, or else to explain it’s not what you meant. Really? Was **tomndebb** posting as a moderator when he claimed that I requested my own link be broken? He didn’t state anywhere in that post that he was posting as a moderator, but where the hell did he get that info? (What he posted was false anyway: I requested a spoiler box be added to bring it into compliance with the double-click rule due to the use of “motherfucker,” in case that was NSFW. I never requested the link be disabled.) ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2015, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/500 "2015-07-25T14:59:27Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Anyway, the point is that despite being low-status, blue-collar jobs, many of those same jobs require not just strength, stamina and a high tolerance for risk of injury and death; but a large skill-set, and tons of experience. So is that why you believe that women are incapable of being truckers, farmers, engineers, etc., because you think that women lack the physical and mental abilities required to perform these jobs? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=26)