# 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:** 29
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/561 "2015-07-27T01:45:38Z")
Hi **camille**. I’m going to try to get to your points, but first I want to thank you for the [link to the Karen Straughan interview](http://www.oneplusonemagazine.com/gender-politics-on-the-offensive-karen-straughan-part-1/). It’s long - I didn’t realize how long, until well into it. ([“This interview was initially scheduled to be between 1 and 2 hours. We wound up talking for 7.”](http://www.oneplusonemagazine.com/gender-politics-on-the-offensive-karen-straughan-part-4/)) But it’s well worth reading. I’m going to quote a few of the better parts, in no particular order: > [@](#): > > **Karen Straughan** : Feminists don’t like me very much. > > **Greg Scorzo** : Some of them certainly don’t. I’ve noticed that whenever you’re mentioned in media that five years ago seemed pretty reasonable, you tend to be vilified. You’re written about not as someone the writer merely disagrees with. You’re written about as though you’re someone who is dangerous, some kind of lunatic, or someone who represents the worst kind of hate group. > > **Karen Straughan** : (laughing) Yeah, I know. It’s actually quite funny. My parents would always tell me “consider the source” when facing ridiculous insults like that. In truth, the fact that I piss off contemporary feminists this much is actually something I’m quite proud of. If I get their backs up this much, that means I’m being effective. > [@](#): > > **Karen Straughan** :I would concede that if you look at history, you could maybe argue that men and women were equally disadvantaged. But pinning oppression solely on women is absolutely ridiculous. In the olden days, men were clearly not solely responsible for deciding how society worked. Women were not simply going along with male dominated social systems because of internalised mysogyny. Society largely operated the way women wanted it to, given the environment that they were living in throughout most of history. > > When that environment changed because of industrialisation, women demanded changes and women got those changes. So there is a tendency, even among equality minded feminists to see the world before the 20th century through the lense of modernity. Because women want certain oppurtunities now, modern feminists erronously assume that women would have wanted those oppurtunities five hundred years ago… > > I think patriarchal societies have existed in the past. But what I have concluded is that feminists who explained those societies have the causality in those societies backwards. They seem to think that patriarchy imposes gender roles. In reality, gender roles within certain environments are what impose patriarchies. Not the other way around. > [@](#): > > **Greg Scorzo** : I want to talk about your Vlog, “Me a Feminist? No Way.” Do you remember that Vlog? > > **Karen Straughan** : (smiling) I remember them all. > > **Greg Scorzo** : This was the first Vlog of yours that I saw. It was the one that I immediately showed to several of my colleages who were self-identified feminists. Much to my surprise, most of them loved it. > > **Karen Straughan** : Did they? Wow. > > **Greg Scorzo** : The reasons why they loved it are some of the things I wanted to talk to you about. Throughout this VLOG, you challenge the idea that the gender role expectation on men to be bread winners throughout history was a privilege. You describe it as a social expectation of men to engage in dangerous and exploitative labour, after which they are expected to give their earnings to their wives and children. On this social arrangement, the women get to stay home in physically safer, easier, less stressful conditions. > > **Karen Straughan** : Yep. > > **Greg Scorzo** : When I showed this Vlog to a socialist-feminist friend of mine and she saw that you were giving speeches at libertarian conferences, she said, “Why is Karen Straughan speaking to libertarians? Libertarians must hate her! She’s saying that what’s traditionally described as patriarchal privilege for men is actually a form of class exploitation. For libertarians, the breadwinner role for men is a freedom that should be celebrated. Not an oppressive obligation.” So in light of that point I wanted to ask you, do you see your analysis of the bread winner role as a socialist critique of gender roles? > > **Karen Straughan** : No, not at all. I don’t see these roles as forms of class exploitation. It’s more a case of when environmental conditions are much more difficult, the expectations on individuals are going to be much more strict. I guess if you wanted to define marriage as an exploitative contract, it was exploitative in both directions. But I would much prefer to look at it as a form of co-operation. It’s a contract of reciprocal altruism. > [@](#): > > **Greg Scorzo** : That relates back to the topic of objectification in a way. You said something really interesting in the “I’m a Sexy Woman”, Vlog. You say that Feminism objectifies women more than anything else in public discourse. You define objectification as the denial of personal or moral agency. Agency is the idea that the things you do have an effect on the world and on yourself. Suppose someone said this: The fact that Feminism objectifies women doesn’t count against it because (a) objectification can be done respectfully and fairly and (b) any civil rights movement has to objectify a group that is oppressed. Feminism no more objectifies women than the push for Blacks getting the right to vote objectified Blacks. > > **Karen Straughan** : I would think there might be some validity to that if I thought women were oppressed. But I don’t. I don’t agree that women were uniquely and universally oppressed all through history. If they were, they were no more so than men were. When you compare women to blacks, you’re comparing apples with oranges. Men and women have never existed in separate bubbles. There is a very real difference between the way a majority white population will view blacks no matter how they say they aren’t racist. There will be implicit assumptions as far as prejudging black people. At least that’s how things are at this point. > > Unfortunately for feminist theory, we have mostly positive psychological associations with women. When you look at implicit association tests, women prefer women 100 percent of the time and men prefer women three quarters of the time. So in looking at women, feminists are literally looking at the class of people that is most well liked, most admired, most preferred, the class that most people favour or side with, and feminists are trying to tell everyone that this is the group that is most oppressed. The people who like women one and a half times as much as they like themselves are somehow the oppressors. It’s that group that has somehow ganged up on women and suppressed them throughout all of history. > [@](#): > > **Greg Scorzo** : It seems in the last fifty years, women have gained a newfound reputation as successful participants in the economy. There’s been a substantial influx of successful female writers, academics, artists, business women, and so on. Do you think that’s a positive thing? > > **Karen Straughan** : Yeah, of course. I think women have a great deal to offer to the economy and society. I would never say that a woman’s intellectual contribution or scientific contribution should be either disallowed or taken less seriously just because she’s a woman. I think that’s complete bullshit. I’m not against women running for office, being strong leaders or being bosses. There’s more, but that’s already more than what most people are willing to read, so I’ll stop there. However, [because a picture is worth a thousand words…](http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Screenshot-2014-12-22-14.13.39.png) Anyway: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > I’m curious why you think I don’t understand how mass movements and activism works. > > Your posts in this thread lead me to believe that. And I’m not the first person to point this out to you. > > You keep making sweeping statements about “feminists”, and broad brush that anyone who identifies as a feminist speaks for all feminists, and you provide quotes as proof of the opinions and goals of all feminists. If feminists here say these quotes do not speak for all feminists, you still fault feminism for not being “coherent”. So basically it works like this: either feminism is a movement that can be criticized, or it’s not. You seem to be arguing that it’s not. If that’s what you believe, you should ignore this thread: I’m doing something that is (according to you) impossible. If it is possible, then the way to go about it is to look at some of the most commonly-asserted claims and see if they’re accurate: for example, that feminism is about “equality”. One of the claims I’ve made is that feminism is not about equality, it’s about whatever feminists think is best for women. I’ve provided some evidence to back up that claim, and at least some feminists (in this thread) have agreed with me. Another is that women are systematically oppressed. I’ve provided evidence that that’s not the case. While I don’t think any feminists agree with me, they haven’t contested the evidence. Anyway, you have to decide for yourself if feminism is above criticism. If it is, there’s no point in engaging with its critics, is there? > [@](#): > > In your own words: > > > [@](#): > > > > Where we differ is that you see the incoherence of feminism as defense against criticism. I see it as a criticism of feminism. > > > > Given that feminists represent is a real social force that has real consequences in the real world, I think their incoherence is a problem for feminists. But it’s not a reason to give them a free pass. > > So, feminism doesn’t get a free pass for its “incoherence”, according to you. Karen Straughan says pretty much the same thing, when asked about using a broad brush to describe feminism: > > > [@](#): > > > > I’d say that objection is like saying, “Not all cockroaches live under my cupboard so therefore I can’t talk about the problem of cockroaches under my cuboard.” I mean, it’s true that not every piece of dogshit smells as bad as every other piece of dogshit, but we should still be able to talk about dogshit as though it generally stinks. > > So, using your (and Karen’s) logic and broad brush, all anti-feminists are responsible for the opinions and views of any other anti-feminist as well. Are you with me so far? No. You don’t have to belong to any particular movement, or ideology, in order to be a critic of feminism. For example, someone who was a critic of, say libertarianism, could be a liberal, a conservative, a monarchist, a communist, or a socialist. It’s entirely possible, other than being critics of libertarianism, that they might have nothing else in common at all. Both Republicans and communists might be critics of liberal Democrats, but that doesn’t mean Republicans and communists are the same. Rush Limbaugh is a critic of feminism, but I loathe him. Other than that, we have nothing in common. Being a critic of feminism isn’t an ideology. It’s just being a critic of feminism. > [@](#): > > Let’s use the example of Paul Elam. Elam is not just another anti-feminist. He is one of the most, if not the most, prominent figures in the anti-feminist MRA movement. He is basically the founder of the movement. Karen Straughan knows him well, as do the other popular MRA and feMRA activists. You know more about him than I do, because I know nothing. But I’ll take your word for it. > [@](#): > > Here is a sampling of Elam’s views and activities: > > > [@](#): > > > > - Elam once accused women who’ve been raped of bringing the crime committed against them upon themselves because “they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though [sic] life with the equivalent of a [sic] I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.” > > > > - He has also stated that he would vote to acquit in the event he were called to serve on the jury in a rape trial even if he knew for a fact that the accused were guilty. > > > > - Elam also once wrote that October should become “Bash a Violent Bitch Month”. The notion behind this was that male survivors of domestic violence should “beat the living shit” out of their abusers. Elam then went on to state: “I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles. And then make them clean up the mess.” > > > > - In 2011, Elam established the site [Register-Her.com](http://Register-Her.com), which publishes the personal information of women the site claims “have caused significant harm to innocent individuals either by the direct action of crimes like rape, assault, child molestation and murder, or by the false accusation of crimes against others.” While the list includes women who have been sent to prison for various crimes, it also includes others who were acquitted, and some whose “crime” is expressing an opinion that MRA’s don’t like. It also lists any rape victim whose court case results in anything but a full conviction and sentencing as a "false accuser. > > > > - Elam admitted after the fact to using an unspecified amount of money donated to run A Voice for Men to cover his own personal living expenses. He did not disclose his intention to use some of the money for this purpose to potential donors in advance, only stating that it would go toward “dedicated servers, image royalties, legal fees, internet radio premiums, various kinds of computer and media hardware,” and travel expenses for AVfM-related public appearances. None of this comes as much of a surprise since like the vast majority of men’s rights “activism”, A Voice for Men does basically nothing with concrete real-world civil rights results such as protests, lobbying politicians, buying ad-time on television, or charity work for disadvantaged men. He has also stated that there is no distinction between his personal finances and that of the website, meaning that any donations to the website are spent exactly as he sees fit, and rely exactly on the trust of the donator. > > > > - Also, showing what a great guy he is, he has actually banned people during fundraising events for donating some but not “enough” and once bragged about men in financial trouble giving donations out of their unemployment checks. > > If we use your logic, Paul Elam’s views are what anti-feminism is about. We can all use his postions when we speak of anti-feminists and men’s rights groups. If you claim to be an anti-feminist, he embodies what you think, and what your goals are. If you disagree with anything he says, it just shows the incoherence of the movement, and you don’t get a free pass for that. As Karen Straughan would say: The dogshit still stinks. The link you provided leads back to a site called “RationalWiki”. I don’t know anything it, other than it looks like Wikipedia, but it’s not. I don’t know anything about who wrote it, and as I said before, I don’t know anything about Paul Elam. Having said that, if the claims made there are true, Elam sounds like a horrible person. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/562 "2015-07-27T02:15:51Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t think most of your arguments are very logical, and some of them are not coherent (in my opinion). Many of the responses have been logical and coherent (again, in my opinion), and you have ignored most of these, choosing to focus on the personal ones. In my defense, it’s been a very long thread - something 550 posts, if I remember right. I’m only one person, with limited free time. As I said earlier, it’s mathematically impossible for me to respond to all the posts here. When I initially was trying to do that, I realized I was on page 3, and the thread was 7 pages and growing. In other words, I’m only one person, with a lot of real-life obligations and responsibilities, other than this thread. But you’re right about responding to the personal attacks. Initially I thought I could call them out, and that might discourage them. But that obviously didn’t work, so in retrospect, I should have just ignored them. If you think my arguments are not coherent or logical, I’m happy to hear **how** they’re not; as opposed to simply stating that they’re not. Just stating it gives me nothing to work with. Similarly, if there are logical and coherent responses that you think I’ve missed, I’d be happy to have them pointed out to me. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/563 "2015-07-27T03:47:53Z")
I’ve wondered, before, if becoming a mother of son(s) would affect a woman’s attitude toward feminism. I’ve read of feminists being disappointed about having a son. So I assume it wouldn’t make a difference to them. But there’s at least one former feminist who changed her mind, after having sons. I won’t quote the whole article, since it’s there in the link, but parts of it seemed especially relevant. [I Am A Mother Of Two Children And I Cannot (And Will Not) Support Feminism](http://thoughtcatalog.com/tara-kennedy-kline/2014/11/i-am-a-mother-of-two-children-and-i-cannot-and-will-not-support-feminism/) > [@](#): > > I’m a wife, mother, sister, daughter, business owner, sports nut and beer lover, but I am not a feminist. I may have been at one time, but then I became the mother of two boys and I realized that I cannot align with a message that has changed into something degrading, offensive, accusatory and opposed to the morals and messages I am teaching my kids… > > The FCKH8 Campaign would have girls tell my sons to “fuck off” if they called them pretty or reached for their hand without permission. > > Hollaback! sends the message that if my sons make eye contact with, or say “hello” to, a woman they don’t know, they are a predator, or at the very least, a “creepy douchebag.” #YesAllWomen wants my boys to know that the fact they have a penis makes them a threat. They cite the statistic that 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted, but seem to ignore that they are sending the message to little girls to assume 100% of all men are rapists. > > #FreeTheNipples preaches to end “slut shaming,” yet what they are really doing is flipping the shame of “sluttiness” from the girls who expose their breasts (and bellies and butt cheeks) to the boys who look at them. [TakePart.com](http://TakePart.com) supports teen girls spin doctoring age-old terms like “boys will be boys,” which is more about farting, burping, and falling out of trees than it is sexual harassment. They make claims like “dress codes are the result of boys not being able to control their sexual urges,” but how about encouraging all students to simply dress with decency in a public institution designed for education and growth, instead of focusing on elevating social status and hooking up? > > Teaching my boys that they are somehow wrong, perverted or bad if they look at what is being flaunted in front of them is also making the job of parents a thousand times harder to have that conversation about steering clear of “easy” girls. And, let’s not assume for one second that there aren’t plenty of them. > > When the term feminism turned from being a message of empowerment and gender fairness to basically a list of rules, restrictions, idiosyncrasies, offenses and grievances directed at all things male, I tapped out. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/564 "2015-07-27T03:49:35Z")
The TL:DR is still that no one’s denying that feminists who say terrible things exist, but almost everyone’s questioning to what extent they speak for the movement as a whole. There are tens of millions of feminists in America alone, and American feminists are not the same as Norweigan feminists, who are not the same as Saudi Arabian feminists, and within national groups you’ve got dozens of intersecting axes of class, race, region, and so forth, before you even start to get into the waves and sub-waves. This, of course, won’t stop your opposite numbers from claiming repeatedly that all the branches and sub-movements of feminism are obviously worthy and respectable, and no true scots-feminist would slut-shame or exclude trans women, but, to be blunt, you’re wronger than they are. It is wrong to claim that feminism as a movement contains no destructive, unfair, or bigoted elements; it’s wronger to claim to have integrated over all feminists and all time and claim that feminism is, on the whole, harmful or negative. Feminism is not one thing. And quite a lot of it, even relatively recently here in America, is uncontroversially positive. If you want to point out the bad bits in recent feminism, go ahead; there are certainly a lot to choose from, as you’d expect from a gigantic social movement tens of millions strong. But don’t think that ten or a hundred or a thousand feminists behaving badly tells you much of anything about feminism as a whole, any more than a church full of Prosperity Gospel believers will tell you about Christianity as an ancient, worldwide religion. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/565 "2015-07-27T03:59:04Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > So basically it works like this: either feminism is a movement that can be criticized, or it’s not. > > You seem to be arguing that it’s not. If that’s what you believe, you should ignore this thread: I’m doing something that is (according to you) impossible. No, I didn’t say that feminism couldn’t be criticized. I said you were using an impossible standard to judge it with. I used the anti-feminist movement as an example of how, by using your broad brush argument, the positions of someone like Paul Elam can be used to define the ideology and purpose of the movement. You seem to think that anti-feminism isn’t a movement, but simply some random people offering unrelated criticisms of feminism. I don’t agree with that. It is itself a movement and ideology. It is organized, it has leaders, it raises funds and runs campaigns. It is not just a bunch of random critiques by various people. If you are unfamiliar with Paul Elam, you are not prepared to argue about anti-feminism. As I said, he is basically the founder of the movement. Karen Straughan _works_ for him. She is one of a stable of FeMRAs under the banner of AVFM (Elam’s organization). It’s obvious how you feel about her personally, but you are taking everything she says at face value. I did check her out, and I cannot find any sources for her claims and statements. She doesn’t cite the studies she mentions. She doesn’t back up her theories with references. You can’t expect everyone to accept her positions without sources, based only on your regard for her. Plus, as I said, she is associated with Paul Elam. She knows what he has said and done. And she has never called him out for any of it. She participates in some of it. If I had to show you an interview you never saw, consider that there are other things about her you aren’t aware of. > [@LinusK](#): > > The link you provided leads back to a site called “RationalWiki”. I don’t know anything it, other than it looks like Wikipedia, but it’s not. I don’t know anything about who wrote it, and as I said before, I don’t know anything about Paul Elam. Having said that, if the claims made there are true, Elam sounds like a horrible person. That site has links to sources that verify all the examples I listed. It was easier than wading through all the garbage on his site to link to. Did you check the sources? Do you ever check sources from anyone? I’m not asking you to take my word for it, look it up yourself. Yes, I would say he is a horrible person. And Karen Straughan is actively affiliated with him. Not just some other random person with some critiques of feminism. It is an organized movement, and she is of the same strand of it as Paul Elam. To paraphrase her again: Some dogshit is not as stinky as the other dogshit, but the dogshit still stinks in general. Again, no one is saying you can’t critique feminism. But if you bring the anti-feminist creed here whole cloth, without vetting and reasoning out their claims, you are bringing their baggage with you as well, and you have to own that. Make your own arguments, from your own research and reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/566 "2015-07-27T04:16:43Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > So basically it works like this: either feminism is a movement that can be criticized, or it’s not. > > You seem to be arguing that it’s not. If that’s what you believe, you should ignore this thread: I’m doing something that is (according to you) impossible. And you are, again, delibnerately shaping your response to something she did not say. The claim is not that feminism is not a movement. The claim is not that feminism cannot be criticized. The point, (repeated over and over), is that feminism is old enough and broad enough to have multiple aspects and many internally conflicting views. You persist in attacking the whole while acting as though it is a monolith. That does not come close to seriously debating the issue. It is nothing but a personal harangue. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/567 "2015-07-27T13:31:31Z")
> [@robertliguori](#): > > The TL:DR is still that no one’s denying that feminists who say terrible things exist, but almost everyone’s questioning to what extent they speak for the movement as a whole. I don’t understand this comment. Well, the TL:DR part of it, anyway. However, if you’ll read what I’ve written, I’ve asserted that feminism is not about equality. Is that something that only fringe feminists say? I’ve argued that feminists misinterpret “patriarchy”: they see it as a conspiracy to oppress women. That’s a misreading of history. (Look back at my OP for the full argument.) Is the position that patriarchy is systematic oppression of women a fringe feminist theory? I’ve argued that the incoherence of feminism is a criticism of feminism, but not shield against criticism. Is the argument that feminists can’t be criticized because they don’t agree about anything a fringe feminist argument? Obviously, I don’t think any of those things are fringe arguments, made by only a handful of feminists. I think they’re things that many or most feminists believe. But if you truly think there is no content to the label “feminism” then I’d say the label ought be abandoned, because it’s meaningless. > [@](#): > > There are tens of millions of feminists in America alone, and American feminists are not the same as Norweigan feminists, who are not the same as Saudi Arabian feminists, and within national groups you’ve got dozens of intersecting axes of class, race, region, and so forth, before you even start to get into the waves and sub-waves. > > This, of course, won’t stop your opposite numbers from claiming repeatedly that all the branches and sub-movements of feminism are obviously worthy and respectable, and no true scots-feminist would slut-shame or exclude trans women, but, to be blunt, you’re wronger than they are. It is wrong to claim that feminism as a movement contains no destructive, unfair, or bigoted elements; it’s wronger to claim to have integrated over all feminists and all time and claim that feminism is, on the whole, harmful or negative. > > Feminism is not one thing. And quite a lot of it, even relatively recently here in America, is uncontroversially positive. If you want to point out the bad bits in recent feminism, go ahead; there are certainly a lot to choose from, as you’d expect from a gigantic social movement tens of millions strong. But don’t think that ten or a hundred or a thousand feminists behaving badly tells you much of anything about feminism as a whole, any more than a church full of Prosperity Gospel believers will tell you about Christianity as an ancient, worldwide religion. The claims I’ve made are the ones above, and in the OP. I haven’t claimed “to have integrated over all feminists and all time and claim that feminism is, on the whole, harmful or negative.” I do think there are harmful and negative aspects of feminism, including its modern incarnation. But they didn’t come from nowhere. The notion that women are perpetual victims, for example, is rooted in feminist theory going back to at least to the 1960’s. As I’ve said before, comparing feminism to a religion is a bad analogy. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/568 "2015-07-27T13:56:26Z")
> [@BrightSunshine](#): > > I’ve watched the video 5 times and I honestly can’t see how anyone can say that she escalated it. He jammed his elbow into her back. She turned around to tell him, and he pushed even harder. \*\*She raised her fist to warn him[/], and he pushed harder still and grabbed her. Bold mine. She raised her fist to warn him and he grabbed her fist to avoid getting hit. Them she hit him. This is a stupid diversion but people are going to great lengths to make this seem like some sort of clear cut case. I don’t see how the quarterback gets charged and kicked off the team if the same thing had happened but with the hipster dude standing next to the girl. > **[Video shows punch that led to QB De'Andre Johnson's arrest](https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2015/07/06/video-shows-punch-that-led-to-qbs-arrest/29775149/)** > > Video shows punch that led to QB's arrest ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/569 "2015-07-27T16:33:53Z")
> [@camille](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > So basically it works like this: either feminism is a movement that can be criticized, or it’s not. > > > > You seem to be arguing that it’s not. If that’s what you believe, you should ignore this thread: I’m doing something that is (according to you) impossible. > > No, I didn’t say that feminism couldn’t be criticized. > > I said you were using an impossible standard to judge it with. I used the anti-feminist movement as an example of how, by using your broad brush argument, the positions of someone like Paul Elam can be used to define the ideology and purpose of the movement. > > You seem to think that anti-feminism isn’t a movement, but simply some random people offering unrelated criticisms of feminism. I don’t agree with that. It is itself a movement and ideology. It is organized, it has leaders, it raises funds and runs campaigns. It is not just a bunch of random critiques by various people. > > If you are unfamiliar with Paul Elam, you are not prepared to argue about anti-feminism. As I said, he is basically the founder of the movement. Karen Straughan _works_ for him. She is one of a stable of FeMRAs under the banner of AVFM (Elam’s organization). > > It’s obvious how you feel about her personally, but you are taking everything she says at face value. I did check her out, and I cannot find any sources for her claims and statements. She doesn’t cite the studies she mentions. She doesn’t back up her theories with references. You can’t expect everyone to accept her positions without sources, based only on your regard for her. > > Plus, as I said, she is associated with Paul Elam. She knows what he has said and done. And she has never called him out for any of it. She participates in some of it. If I had to show you an interview you never saw, consider that there are other things about her you aren’t aware of. > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > The link you provided leads back to a site called “RationalWiki”. I don’t know anything it, other than it looks like Wikipedia, but it’s not. I don’t know anything about who wrote it, and as I said before, I don’t know anything about Paul Elam. Having said that, if the claims made there are true, Elam sounds like a horrible person. > > That site has links to sources that verify all the examples I listed. It was easier than wading through all the garbage on his site to link to. Did you check the sources? Do you ever check sources from anyone? I’m not asking you to take my word for it, look it up yourself. > > Yes, I would say he is a horrible person. And Karen Straughan is actively affiliated with him. Not just some other random person with some critiques of feminism. It is an organized movement, and she is of the same strand of it as Paul Elam. To paraphrase her again: Some dogshit is not as stinky as the other dogshit, but the dogshit still stinks in general. > > Again, no one is saying you can’t critique feminism. But if you bring the anti-feminist creed here whole cloth, without vetting and reasoning out their claims, you are bringing their baggage with you as well, and you have to own that. > > Make your own arguments, from your own research and reasoning. So just to clear up some errors: I haven’t attempted to attack feminism by pointing at extremists. If you’ll look back at my OP, you’ll see that I criticized: (1.) The argument that feminism is about equality. (2.) The idea that “patriarchy” is an attempt to systematically oppress women. (3.) That women, in general, are part of a “victims’ class”. These views are common, mainstream feminist ideas. They’re not fringe theories held only by a handful of radicals. If you think I’m wrong - that these are not central tenets of feminism - please tell me what you think they are. (In other words, please tell me what are the central tenets of feminism, if not these.) Secondly, I reject the idea that Elam speaks for me. I only speak for myself. Third, I reject the idea that “If you are unfamiliar with Paul Elam, you are not prepared to argue about anti-feminism.” You said yourself that, I should “[m]ake your own arguments, from your own research and reasoning.” I don’t think I need to make a study of Elam, in order to make my own criticism of feminism. Fourth, I’ve also noticed that Straughn doesn’t cite sources in her videos. However, with few exceptions, I’ve been able to find sources for facts or statistics that she brings up. Fifth, I reject the idea that I “bring the anti-feminist creed here whole cloth”. I speak for me, no one else. If feminism has central tenets, then those central tenets are fair game for criticism, from anyone. Arguing that someone who criticizes feminism is just like someone else who who also criticizes feminism is just a logical fallacy. As I said earlier, someone who criticizes liberal democracy could be either a communist or a monarchist. That they’re both critics of liberal democracy doesn’t mean they have anything else in common. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/570 "2015-07-27T16:46:19Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Bold mine. > > She raised her fist to warn him and he grabbed her fist to avoid getting hit. Them she hit him. > > This is a stupid diversion but people are going to great lengths to make this seem like some sort of clear cut case. I don’t see how the quarterback gets charged and kicked off the team if the same thing had happened but with the hipster dude standing next to the girl. > > [Video shows punch that led to FSU QB De'Andre Johnson's arrest](http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2015/07/06/video-shows-punch-that-led-to-qbs-arrest/29775149/) You’re right that it’s just one case, and it should be treated as such. Having said that, it is one case demonstrating the preferential treatment of women in society; as opposed to the feminist theory that women are oppressed. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/571 "2015-07-27T17:27:06Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > If you’ll look back at my OP, you’ll see that I criticized: > > (1.) The argument that feminism is about equality. > > (2.) The idea that “patriarchy” is an attempt to systematically oppress women. > > (3.) That women, in general, are part of a “victims’ class”. > > These views are common, mainstream feminist ideas. They’re not fringe theories held only by a handful of radicals. I’d argue that there’s a mainstream feminist idea embedded in each one, but that it’s distinct from the way you’re presenting them. 1. - is pretty straightforward; no argument with it. 2. - I’ve never heard another feminist argue that the patriarchy is a “a conspiracy to oppress women”, or “an attempt to systematically oppress women”. Granted, I haven’t listened to or read every feminist. But the ones I have listened to or read have argued that the patriarchy is of a kind with other social structures based on inequality: the powerful seeking to maintain a status quo in which they are privileged. 3. - likewise, I haven’t seen or heard other feminist argue that all women are part of a victimized class; but rather that inequalities exist on the basis of gender. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/572 "2015-07-27T17:53:22Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Secondly, I reject the idea that Elam speaks for me. I only speak for myself. Nice to see someone openly embracing their double standards. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/573 "2015-07-27T18:04:29Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I’d argue that there’s a mainstream feminist idea embedded in each one, but that it’s distinct from the way you’re presenting them. > > 1. > - is pretty straightforward; no argument with it. > > 2. > - I’ve never heard another feminist argue that the patriarchy is a “a conspiracy to oppress women”, or “an attempt to systematically oppress women”. Granted, I haven’t listened to or read every feminist. But the ones I have listened to or read have argued that the patriarchy is of a kind with other social structures based on inequality: the powerful seeking to maintain a status quo in which they are privileged. > > 3. > - likewise, I haven’t seen or heard other feminist argue that all women are part of a victimized class; but rather that inequalities exist on the basis of gender. OK, so you’d rephrase #2 as “patriarchy is of a kind with other social structures based on inequality: the powerful seeking to maintain a status quo in which they are privileged.” It’s kind of bulky. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but if you strip away some of the surplusage, how about: “Patriarchy is a social system in which privileged and powerful (men) attempt to maintain inequality (over women)”? I’m fine with that, if you want to restate it that way: my argument that that is **not** what “patriarchy” is, still applies. My only issues with your original definition are that it’s not very concise, and that it leaves out which genders are oppressed, and which are privileged. On #3, you’d restate it as “inequalities exist on the basis of gender.” That’s fine, as long as we’re clear about which gender feminists think is most affected by “inequalities”. Since you didn’t say, I’ll ask: is it women, or men? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/574 "2015-07-27T18:24:48Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > OK, so you’d rephrase #2 as “patriarchy is of a kind with other social structures based on inequality: the powerful seeking to maintain a status quo in which they are privileged.” It’s kind of bulky. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but if you strip away some of the surplusage, how about: “Patriarchy is a social system in which privileged and powerful (men) attempt to maintain inequality (over women)”? > > I’m fine with that, if you want to restate it that way: my argument that that is **not** what “patriarchy” is, still applies. My only issues with your original definition are that it’s not very concise, and that it leaves out which genders are oppressed, and which are privileged. Well, complex social structures don’t always reduce down to snappy, one-sentence summaries. What I was trying to convey is that patriarchy isn’t the result of a bunch of men getting together and deciding they didn’t like dames very much. It’s not a conspiracy, and it’s not a systematic effort to oppress all women in all ways. Rather, it’s a set of gender norms and social structures that have the effect of taking choices away from men _and_ women, typically to preserve the power of the already powerful (a group which is generally, but not always, male). You seem to be arguing that patriarchy _is_ such a “conspiracy”, an ancient “deal” struck between men and women as to how society would be structured. Is that correct? [QUOTE=LinusK] On #3, you’d restate it as “inequalities exist on the basis of gender.” That’s fine, as long as we’re clear about which gender feminists think is most affected by “inequalities”. Since you didn’t say, I’ll ask: is it women, or men? [/QUOTE] Both genders are affected. Patriarchy, and our set of gender norms, is/are bad for men as well as women. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/575 "2015-07-27T19:14:45Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > You’re right that it’s just one case, and it should be treated as such. Having said that, it is one case demonstrating the preferential treatment of women in society; as opposed to the feminist theory that women are oppressed. They’re at least a little oppressed. Some of it is physical bullying (lots and lots of domestic restraining orders against men, not so many against women). The a lot of the highest paying professions are still mysogynistic boys clubs. They suffer a disadvantage when applying to top schools. Women with kids are professionally stunted at least a little bit because all the career sacrifices associated with child rearing end up falling on the women, etc. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/576 "2015-07-27T19:21:38Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Well, complex social structures don’t always reduce down to snappy, one-sentence summaries. What I was trying to convey is that patriarchy isn’t the result of a bunch of men getting together and deciding they didn’t like dames very much. It’s not a conspiracy, and it’s not a systematic effort to oppress all women in all ways. Rather, it’s a set of gender norms and social structures that have the effect of taking choices away from men _and_ women, typically to preserve the power of the already powerful (a group which is generally, but not always, male). > > You seem to be arguing that patriarchy _is_ such a “conspiracy”, an ancient “deal” struck between men and women as to how society would be structured. Is that correct? > > Both genders are affected. Patriarchy, and our set of gender norms, is/are bad for men as well as women. I’m on my iPad right now, so can’t really do quotes within quotes. My argument is “patriarchy” is **not** a conspiracy, but, as I’ve said, the most recent manifestation of biological, cultural and evolutionary imperatives. Specifically, the imperative to protect women at the expense (if necessary) of men. The full argument is in the OP, but basically men were expendable, in a way that women were not, in the environment that shaped human evolution and customs leading up to near-modern times. Of course, we don’t live in that environment anymore, but our instincts and preconceptions live on - and as a result, we continue to value the lives, safety, and concerns of women over men. The full argument, again, is in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/577 "2015-07-27T19:29:51Z")
It is difficult to understand how to interpret your claims about what patriarchy really is, because feminism _invented the concept_. (They didn’t invent the word, but they invented a concept, to which they applied the term, and now in socio-political discussions as opposed to anthropological ones, that concept is the governing one when the term is used.) ---
**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 27, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/578 "2015-07-27T19:57:24Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I’m on my iPad right now, so can’t really do quotes within quotes. > > My argument is “patriarchy” is **not** a conspiracy, but, as I’ve said, the most recent manifestation of biological, cultural and evolutionary imperatives. Specifically, the imperative to protect women at the expense (if necessary) of men. The full argument is in the OP, but basically men were expendable, in a way that women were not, in the environment that shaped human evolution and customs leading up to near-modern times. > > Of course, we don’t live in that environment anymore, but our instincts and preconceptions live on - and as a result, we continue to value the lives, safety, and concerns of women over men. The full argument, again, is in the OP. It seems clear to me that, through most of history, we absolutely did not value the lives, safety, and especially concerns of women over men. For most of history, husbands were free to beat, rape, and sometimes even kill their wives. Women accused of adultery were treated much more harshly. And of course women were usually much less free to choose their occupations and other life circumstances than men. And to a lesser extent, much of this survives today. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/579 "2015-07-27T20:20:07Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I’m on my iPad right now, so can’t really do quotes within quotes. > > My argument is “patriarchy” is **not** a conspiracy, but, as I’ve said, the most recent manifestation of biological, cultural and evolutionary imperatives. Specifically, the imperative to protect women at the expense (if necessary) of men. The full argument is in the OP, but basically men were expendable, in a way that women were not, in the environment that shaped human evolution and customs leading up to near-modern times. > > Of course, we don’t live in that environment anymore, but our instincts and preconceptions live on - and as a result, we continue to value the lives, safety, and concerns of women over men. The full argument, again, is in the OP. I addressed this back in posts 262 and 410, but you didn’t reply, so forgive some redundancy. Everything you’re arguing is compatible with a view of women as property (a useful machine for making laborers, among other things). Much of it is not compatible with a view of women as being exalted and catered to by men. See, for instance, the various cultural practices I listed back in post 410: > [@](#): > > What aspect of the “safety, concerns, and well-being of women” are served by child brides? Or dowries? Or bride-burning? Or sati? Or genital mutilation? Or denying women leadership roles in political and religious organizations? Or honor killings? These all point to a view of women as (valuable) property, not exalted figures that men must serve selflessly. ---
**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 27, 2015, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/580 "2015-07-27T20:31:09Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I addressed this back in posts 262 and 410, but you didn’t reply, so forgive some redundancy. > > Everything you’re arguing is compatible with a view of women as property (a useful machine for making laborers, among other things). Much of it is not compatible with a view of women as being exalted and catered to by men. See, for instance, the various cultural practices I listed back in post 410: So again, I ask why men were trained to stand when ‘property’ entered the room, why men raised their hats to ‘property’, why men walked on the outside of pavements (sidewalks) to protect ‘property’ from being splashed by muddy wagon wheels? I still do that last one, it’s deeply ingrained (along with ‘dont hit women’ and ‘dont touch your own faeces’). Slaves were property. No property owner treated slaves that way. Try, instead of looking for ‘evidence’ to support a proposition, looking at all the evidence and reaching a conclusion that is supported by it all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=30)