# 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:** 31
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/601 "2015-07-27T23:08:53Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Actually, as is to be expected in a thread with as wide-ranging a title as ‘anti-feminism’, there’s plenty of propositions to get a hold of here. I’ve not engaged with the one you mention, but I can see how easily an ideologue might blur their opposition into a single mishmash of blurry indistinguishable enemies. It’s so much easier that way. Well, see, but because of my stupidity, I thought that you were responding directly to **Human Action** , who was responding directly to **Linus** ’: > [@](#): > > 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. and that they must therefore have something to do with each other. > [@](#): > > If it helps, I’m the one who asked for positive reasons to be a feminist (with the caveat that I ruled out some go-to choices that are insufficiently robust). Have a crack at that, if you like. One of the key precepts of my redundant and stupid ideology, as it happens, is that not everything is about you. ---
**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, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/602 "2015-07-27T23:14:41Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Egalitarianism, with the bonus that it covers a whole bunch of other accidents of birth too. Is that really a bonus? Seems like it might be useful to have a word that describes that concept specifically as it relates to gender. ---
**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 28, 2015, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/603 "2015-07-28T00:07:00Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Oh, and there was me thinking I might get a halfway decent answer from you at least. Why should I be a feminist, jsgoddess? Bearing in mind that I can be pro-gender-equality without it, and that I don’t care to be even accidentally associated with all the evil done in its name? I don’t care if you’re a feminist. I care that I’m a feminist and my husband is a feminist. I think that feminism is a good thing, so sure, I’m generally supportive of good people identifying as feminist. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/604 "2015-07-28T00:10:42Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > I find it a handy rule of thumb to suppose that any response, to anything or anyone, that begins “Are you saying […]?” always demands the answer “No, of course not, why would I be playing into your strawman?” > > I’m not american, nor did I mention the 19th amendment. I did mention the suffragettes and suffragists, who fought for the ‘right’ of some women to vote while ignoring the voting rights of most men and most women. Address that, it would make you look so much clever than your tawdry little strawman. Well, as others have asked you, where exactly did this happen? Who are these saffragettes? > [@](#): > > No, hat-tipping and standing up and walking on the outside etc doesn’t get to be put aside (unless your argument is “Facts aside…”) We know what it is to make humans the property of other humans - it happened to men and women alike in many different ways around the world throughout history. I think the list I gave, and the list we’re about to review again are pretty much the definition of “property”. But let’s get to that. I’m glad we agree that it’s happened throughout history. > [@](#): > > We just covered the right to vote - once we had monarchs, with absolute rule (kings \* and\* queens). Along the way we had suffragettes arguing for some women to get the vote and most men (and women) not to. Again - some actual examples would be helpful here. > [@](#): > > Really, I’m not going to waste my time on a ‘knowledge’ of history derived from tumblr feminism. It’s all been a history of extending privilege, which was sometimes held by women at the expense of most men. That you rely on men thinking what they had is more important than what women had is effective, I grant you. I’ve been a primary caregiver - a stay-at-home dad. I valued it more than any job and any amount of money I’ve ever had…at least until that marriage ended and I realised I was doubly \*\*\*\*\*\*. My knowledge of history is from a an undergraduate degree with honors from Stanford (yes, in history) and a Masters in History from the University of Cailfornia. I don’t think I’ve ever looked a tumblr for anything other than cat pictures. And, yes, I’ve reported your post. > [@](#): > > The point was, they clearly weren’t property. Try to keep up. This was the list of examples I gave previously. Have another look. In what material way were women of 100 years ago _not_ property unless a male relative chose to settle a means of support upon them and allow them certain freedoms, much like a man of property might do for a favored slave? The right to vote The right not to be beaten or killed by father, family or spouse The right to own property in their own name The right to earn and keep their own income The right to decide whom to marry The right to have sex outside of marriage The right to keep their life if they are raped or otherwise considered unpure The right to an education The right to live outside of their father’s household as an adult, without a husband The right to do research and publish the results under their own names The right to have their own names - to this day society expects that my name is patronymic. I take my father or my husband’s name. The better to know to whom I belong. > [@](#): > > I thought it was because patriarchy damaged both genders? Did I get that wrong too, or did you just forget to mention one? > > We could be moving forward - I invited arguments as to why I should be a feminist again. Nobody seems to have any. Let’s just pit people who disagree with our treasured ideologies, that sounds like progress… You could be a feminist because you believe in equality for all genders, but if that’s not relevant for you, that is your own choice. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/605 "2015-07-28T00:58:05Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Why should I be a feminist, jsgoddess? …can you, in two sentences or less, define what you consider feminism to be? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/606 "2015-07-28T03:58:24Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 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. I’ll take these one at a time. > [@](#): > > Some of it is physical bullying (lots and lots of domestic restraining orders against men, not so many against women). What I’ve argued before is that women and men are approximately equally likely to engage in violence in intimate relationships. There is concrete data to back that assertion up, and I’ve linked to it previously. If you want, I’ll go back and look for it, so you can see it yourself, when I have time. That men are disproportionately arrested for domestic violence is because of the bias in favor of women, and against men, when it comes to violence. This bias is internalized within men, including within men who are victims of domestic violence. They’re less likely to call the police, and when they do call the police, the police are less likely to do anything about it. On the other hand, if a woman hits a man, and he hits back, the police are likely to take the man to jail, not the woman. So a man who is a victim of domestic violence is basically trapped. If he fights back, he risks going to jail. If he does nothing, it’s likely to escalate. If he calls the police, they’re not likely to help. And there are few or no outside resources for him to turn to. The only option is to leave, and if he has kids, that means leaving the kids behind. Feminists, years ago, pushed for and got “mandatory arrest laws”. What that meant, was that police were supposed to make an arrest, when they arrived at the scene of a domestic violence call. What feminists didn’t expect - because they live in a world where only men hit women, and women don’t hit men - is that police started arresting women, instead of walking away when the victim was a man. Arrests of women for domestic violence increased. (Again, I’ve linked to evidence of this before, but I’ll look for it again, if you want to see it.) Since arrests of women were not what feminists want, they’re now pushing for different policies. They want police, for example, to consider who is more “fearful” when making an arrest, rather than who hit first. Since most men are (a) just generally not as fearful as women; and (b) explicitly trained not to show fear, even when they are afraid, what feminists are pushing for is a very thinly veiled policy telling police to arrest the guy. > [@](#): > > The a lot of the highest paying professions are still mysogynistic boys clubs. I’m not sure what professions you’re talking about, so you’ll have to be more specific. The pay gap between men and women, however, almost disappears, when you compare apples to apples. (Number of hours worked, years of experience, etc.) What’s left (about 5%) can be explained by a number of things other than bias against women. In any event, Asian Americans make $66,000 per year, on average, vs. $49,800 the US median household income. “[They are the highest-income, best-educated](http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/asian-americans-lead-all-others-in-household-income/)” demographic in America. In terms of religion, [Jews are the highest-earning religious group in the United States, with 46 percent of the working population earning a six-digit figure every year](http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Poll-Jews-highest-earning-religious-group-in-US). Gay people make more than straight people: [Among same-sex couples with both partners in the labor force, median household income is significantly higher ($94,000) than among heterosexual couples ($86,000).](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/01/gay-couples-more-educated-higher-income-than-heterosexual-couples) Anyway, the point is that assuming a pay gap is automatically the result of discrimination is problematic, unless you think that Asians, Jews and gay people are beneficiaries of discrimination. > [@](#): > > They suffer a disadvantage when applying to top schools. I haven’t heard that before, but women are more likely to get into college: [For 35 years, women have outnumbered men in American colleges.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/the-gender-factor-in-college-admissions/2014/03/26/4996e988-b4e6-11e3-8020-b2d790b3c9e1_story.html) > [@](#): > > Federal data show that female students became the majority in 1979 and for the past decade have accounted for about 57 percent of enrollment at degree-granting institutions. This gender gap holds true for many kinds of students at many kinds of schools, from part-timers in community college to full-timers in private, nonprofit colleges. > [@](#): > > 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. I do think that parents who sacrifice for their kids (which is most of them) are doing an important, unpaid service for the US, and the US economy. (Who will pay into Social Security, if not the people who are children now?) I’m in favor of some kind of compensation for parents of children. But I don’t think it _has_ to be the woman who stays home with the kids. I understand it’s a cultural norm. But if feminists would get behind the idea that being a good father was not only a singular masculine achievement, but that children actively benefit from having fathers in their homes - and that fathers can be just as good care-givers as mothers - I think that would help more mothers leave their kids at home with their dads, while the moms went out to work. The problem is I’m not sure that’s what actual mothers want to do (I suspect many would prefer to stay home with the kids, while their husbands worked) and I personally haven’t seen feminism pushing for recognition of the importance of fathers in families (which doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist). I have seen feminists actively dismissing the role of fathers (and can link to examples if you want), despite research shows that children with fathers in the home do better than those without them. Some feminists (and please note I said “some”) seem to prefer to ignore the evidence, rather than admit that fathers _are_ important, in terms of raising children successfully, or in raising children to be successful. ---
**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 28, 2015, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/607 "2015-07-28T05:11:11Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > I still question your concept of ‘evidence’, but ok… Non-sequitur. > [@Jack of Words](#): > > Failed already. I believe in gender equality (_I_ practise it, too). And yet I’m not a feminist. Feminism doesn’t have the monopoly. I never said it did; but rather allowed for non-feminist gender quality that could theoretically exist. I’m unconvinced that you even read my post. > [@Jack of Words](#): > > The ‘fringes’ of misandry and violent hatred and suppression of free speech and opposing viewpoints, can’t be so casually tossed aside. It’s not even ‘fringe’, it’s right there at the heart and root of the ideology. I’ve witnessed far more hatred from avowed anti-feminists than from avowed feminists. It’s pretty clear who I want to throw in my lot with. > [@Jack of Words](#): > > So I should be a feminist because you are? Not my argument, at all. > [@Jack of Words](#): > > At the risk of taking your lead (and attacking the arguer not the argument), that don’t sway me. I’ll try to get over it. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/608 "2015-07-28T06:18:36Z")
I finally got around to reading [Occidental Justice: The Disastrous Fallout When Drunk Sex Meets Academic Bureaucracy](http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a33751/occidental-justice-case/), which somebody upthread suggested I read. The link is right there, but I’ll provide some highlights. > [@](#): > > On September 7, 2013, two freshmen were gearing up for their third Saturday night at Occidental College… The one freshman, John, eighteen years old and a slim six one, was good and drunk by sundown. He’d started drinking earlier in the day as part of a freshman-jock initiation. Shots, chugging, stupid human tricks—bonding and hallowed ritual to some, hazing to others—left him too drunk to finish the initiation, and around 11:00 P.M. a teammate escorted him back to the second floor of Braun. He would later describe that night as the drunkest he’s ever been, and a neighbor from down the hall would describe his level of intoxication as a “shitshow.” He was “slurring his words, stumbling over the others when he got up.” That kind of drunk. > > The other freshman, Jane, one month shy of her eighteenth birthday and a mere five feet two inches tall, was rebounding from the previous night’s hangover by shooting vodka and sipping screwdrivers at a small gathering in a friend’s room. Around 10:15, she and some friends went looking for a party off campus, but once her preparty buzz turned into full-blown, falling-down drunkenness, she parted ways with the group and started to make her way back to her room on the third floor of Braun. One of the friends who helped get her back to the dorm would later say Jane had a hard time walking and, upon seeing a resident advisor, said, “I have to act normal.” That kind of drunk. > > _Snipped for copyright purposes_ > > The thing is: The system, as it was designed and reformed over the past few years, worked here. The OCR investigation of Occidental created a campuswide, historically high sensitivity to allegations of sexual assault. The college exercised its discretion broadly, without transparency—a lone adjudicator instead of the three-person panel; an expansive, extralegal definition of incapacitation; the selective choice of which questions Jane had to answer—just as the federal guidelines allow. The criminal burden of proof proved too high a barrier for Jane to meet, but the college’s lower preponderance standard delivered the desired outcome for her. And John’s expulsion, with a potential mark on his transcript for sexual assault, is likely to result in a life of diminished opportunity. There were no mistakes at Occidental, and if John’s experience with college justice sounds reasonable—if it sounds fair—then this is all much ado about some kid getting exactly what he deserved… > > **What about Yes Means Yes?** > Over the past year, California has enacted, and New York’s governor has proposed, affirmative consent laws for colleges that receive state funding, and these so-called “yes means yes” statutes require unambiguous verbal agreement between two students before any sexual activity as well as between various levels of sexual activity. Setting aside how realistic such requirements are, these laws do little to obviate the he-said-she-said nature of most sexual-assault cases, and they also do nothing to clarify the “How many beers is too many?” guessing game, as Rebecca O’Connor of RAINN recently put it, that clouds whether someone is able to offer meaningful consent. I know that was long (sorry) but there’s one more thing I wanted to add: two teenagers, who were both drunk, have sex. The boy is labelled a rapist, and thrown out of school. The girl is a victim. But other than their genders, there’s no difference between them: they both were drunk, and they both willingly had sex - at least so far as the other could tell. If Occidental’s definition of rape is correct, didn’t they rape each other? ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/609 "2015-07-28T07:13:01Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I finally got around to reading [Occidental Justice: The Disastrous Fallout When Drunk Sex Meets Academic Bureaucracy](http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a33751/occidental-justice-case/), which somebody upthread suggested I read. Yes, that was me, and I (as a feminist) was critical of this case, as I was with the Amherst case. And I hope you noted that some feminists mentioned in the article spoke out against it as well (including some Occidental faculty). > [@LinusK](#): > > 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.) **Human Action** responded to these points earlier, and since I basically agree with his (or her) positions, I won’t repeat them in my own words. But there is _still_ the problem with you using broad brush arguments in your critiques and replies. As noted by **Miller** , it is a double standard to say “Feminism is…”, or “Feminists don’t want to hear that…”, but then deny that your views on anti-feminism shouldn’t be associated with Paul Elam, or the larger anti-feminism movement. If you only speak for yourself, then how is it fair to attack feminism as a monolithic ideology, and expect individual feminists here to answer for it? Feminists don’t all agree on strict ideological terms, or any number of other related issues. Just as you say you do not agree with some of what Paul Elam is saying. You cannot have an honest debate if you fail to acknowledge that anti-feminism is also a larger movement with its own basic tenets and public image. If you insist on using sweeping statements for all of feminism, you can’t hand wave away the positions and actions of the more openly misogynistic anti-feminists. > [@LinusK](#): > > 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. I addressed this above, but I’d like to add that you yourself admitted in this thread that you were presenting ideas based on Karen Straughan’s videos, and you cited her, and MGTOW, in previous threads. Are you saying you came up with these arguments before you were exposed to Straughan or MGTOW? From what I’ve seen and read, your arguments are taken practically verbatim from Karen Straughan (who as I said, is affiliated with Paul Elam’s AVFM). In any case, I think what created a problem right off the bat was the way you titled and presented your OP. There were too many disparate points to address in a single debate. It _might_ have worked better to start a debate with a more specific topic, and a less provocative title. For example: “Haven’t Women Already Achieved Equality?”, “Patriarchy and Biological Essentialism: Debunking Feminists Views”, etc. It would likely expand on its own to include related issues, as most debates here do, but it wouldn’t have been poisoned from the starting gate. But your OP read like you were just indulging in a rant, repeating the various memes from anti-feminist and MRA groups - _not_ presenting a well reasoned personal critique to discuss. IMO it’s a bad way to begin an honest, coherent debate. Rants belong in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/610 "2015-07-28T14:49:21Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Yes, that was me, and I (as a feminist) was critical of this case, as I was with the Amherst case. And I hope you noted that some feminists mentioned in the article spoke out against it as well (including some Occidental faculty). Sorry, I’m terrible with names. Anyway, thanks for the link. I did notice the article quoted a feminist at the Harvard Law School, who was among those who signed the petition _against_ the definitions and procedures that colleges are now (apparently) using to prosecute allegations of rape. I don’t remember the article mentioning any feminists _at Occidental_ who stood up for “John” when it happened. Now it was a long article, and I stayed up late to finish it, so I’ll go look again, if you think it’s in there. I’m curious if you have a response to the question I asked at the end of the post: “If Occidental’s definition of rape is correct, didn’t they rape each other?” > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > 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.) > > > [@](#): > > > > **Human Action** responded to these points earlier, and since I basically agree with his (or her) positions, I won’t repeat them in my own words. To the extent that Human Action agreed with my revisions to his positions - which mainly had to do with **who** is privileged (according to feminism) and who is oppressed - I agree too. > [@](#): > > But there is _still_ the problem with you using broad brush arguments in your critiques and replies. As noted by **Miller** , it is a double standard to say “Feminism is…”, or “Feminists don’t want to hear that…”, but then deny that your views on anti-feminism shouldn’t be associated with Paul Elam, or the larger anti-feminism movement. If you only speak for yourself, then how is it fair to attack feminism as a monolithic ideology, and expect individual feminists here to answer for it? If you’d prefer I said, “ **Some** feminists don’t want to hear that…” I can do it. That’s not the normal style I use in Great Debates. For example, I might say, “Republicans don’t want to hear…” knowing that whatever I’m saying doesn’t apply to **all** Republicans. It’s a rhetorical style. One I admittedly haven’t given a lot of thought to. But it is one that’s commonly employed here. I do only speak for myself. But if feminism stands for anything, I’d argue that it stands for exactly the positions I attacked in my OP. If you agree that feminism does stand for those positions, we can move on to whether those criticisms have any validity. If you want to insist that I have to associate myself with Elam, then we’ll have to agree to disagree. If you (or anyone) wants to assert that I’m responsible for the actions or speech of every person who’s ever criticized feminism, then again, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ve never claimed that feminism is a monolithic ideology. In fact, I said the exact opposite: that much of it is incoherent. What I’ve also said, (and where we might disagree) is that feminism’s lack of coherence is not a shield against criticism. > [@](#): > > Feminists don’t all agree on strict ideological terms, or any number of other related issues. Just as you say you do not agree with some of what Paul Elam is saying. You cannot have an honest debate if you fail to acknowledge that anti-feminism is also a larger movement with its own basic tenets and public image. If you insist on using sweeping statements for all of feminism, you can’t hand wave away the positions and actions of the more openly misogynistic anti-feminists. The topic of this thread isn’t Paul Elam, or MRAs: it’s feminism. If you want to attack or criticize that person or those groups, you’re free to do it. It’s just not the topic of _this_ thread. I do believe I can have an honest debate about feminism, if feminists step up to the plate and defend their views, rather than attempting to deflect, or using some of the dishonest and childish tactics that have been used in this thread. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > 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. > > I addressed this above, but I’d like to add that you yourself admitted in this thread that you were presenting ideas based on Karen Straughan’s videos, and you cited her, and MGTOW, in previous threads. Are you saying you came up with these arguments before you were exposed to Straughan or MGTOW? From what I’ve seen and read, your arguments are taken practically verbatim from Karen Straughan (who as I said, is affiliated with Paul Elam’s AVFM). No. As I said earlier, Straughan was the proximate cause of starting this thread. As you’ve said - and as I said earlier - much of what I’ve said here comes from her. MGTOW is an entirely different thing. Ultimately, I rejected their philosophy - though I still think “going your own way” is an entirely reasonable philosophy for some men. And I also think that men having a space to talk about their issues, their relationships, and their problems, with each other, is a healthy and valuable thing - which, from my admittedly limited reading, is part of what they’re actually doing. > [@](#): > > In any case, I think what created a problem right off the bat was the way you titled and presented your OP. There were too many disparate points to address in a single debate. > > It _might_ have worked better to start a debate with a more specific topic, and a less provocative title. For example: “Haven’t Women Already Achieved Equality?”, “Patriarchy and Biological Essentialism: Debunking Feminists Views”, etc. It would likely expand on its own to include related issues, as most debates here do, but it wouldn’t have been poisoned from the starting gate. > > But your OP read like you were just indulging in a rant, repeating the various memes from anti-feminist and MRA groups - _not_ presenting a well reasoned personal critique to discuss. IMO it’s a bad way to begin an honest, coherent debate. Rants belong in the Pit. I think the problem is not how I titled the OP, but the tendency of some people to interpret an attack on feminism as an attack on women. For the record: I like women. And I think feminism does a disservice to both sexes. ---
**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 28, 2015, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/611 "2015-07-28T21:53:31Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > What I’ve argued before is that women and men are approximately equally likely to engage in violence in intimate relationships. There is concrete data to back that assertion up, and I’ve linked to it previously. If you want, I’ll go back and look for it, so you can see it yourself, when I have time. I see some stuff on page 2 but frankly when I look at stats for hospitalization and death resulting from domestic violence, the numbers are not even comparable. I agree that some women feel free to slap men because they think they can get away with it but they rarely terrorize their male partner the way that men much more frequently terrorize their female partner. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what professions you’re talking about, so you’ll have to be more specific. The pay gap between men and women, however, almost disappears, when you compare apples to apples. (Number of hours worked, years of experience, etc.) What’s left (about 5%) can be explained by a number of things other than bias against women. Banking, medicine, consulting, etc. are all high paying professions that are hostile to women to varying degrees. These also tend to be relatively high paying professions. So what if women make almost as much as men in a given profession if men get all the jobs in high paying professions not just out of preference but because women are dissuaded form joining those profession because of rampant sexism? Comparing apples to apples the gender pay gap is between 5% to 10% but that’s STILL 5%-10%. That’s about half of what you need to fund a retirement. That’s STILL a gender pay gap. > [@](#): > > In any event, Asian Americans make $66,000 per year, on average, vs. $49,800 the US median household income. “[They are the highest-income, best-educated](http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/asian-americans-lead-all-others-in-household-income/)” demographic in America. Not that its relevant but they also tend to live in high cost-of-living places. On a COLA adjusted basis, the difference is reduced significantly and when you account for education, Asians get paid somewhat less than their white counterparts. > [@](#): > > In terms of religion, [Jews are the highest-earning religious group in the United States, with 46 percent of the working population earning a six-digit figure every year](http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Poll-Jews-highest-earning-religious-group-in-US). once again when you adjust for things like education and the COLA, the differences shrink to nothing. > [@](#): > > Gay people make more than straight people: [Among same-sex couples with both partners in the labor force, median household income is significantly higher ($94,000) than among heterosexual couples ($86,000).](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/01/gay-couples-more-educated-higher-income-than-heterosexual-couples) Is that compared to hetero couples with both partners in the labor force? Does the hetero couple have childrearing responsibilities more frequently that might interfere with income production? I suspect when comparing apples to apples, there is no positive gay pay gap. > [@](#): > > Anyway, the point is that assuming a pay gap is automatically the result of discrimination is problematic, unless you think that Asians, Jews and gay people are beneficiaries of discrimination. So once you control for everything that can be controlled for, there is still a significant pay gap. One of reasons there are so few women in banking (and other high paying professions) is because these professions are hostile environments for women (to varying degrees). [quote] I haven’t heard that before, but women are more likely to get into college: [For 35 years, women have outnumbered men in American colleges.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/the-gender-factor-in-college-admissions/2014/03/26/4996e988-b4e6-11e3-8020-b2d790b3c9e1_story.html) And that disparity is leading colleges to hold women to a higher standard, in order to even out the gender equation. > [@](#): > > I do think that parents who sacrifice for their kids (which is most of them) are doing an important, unpaid service for the US, and the US economy. (Who will pay into Social Security, if not the people who are children now?) I’m in favor of some kind of compensation for parents of children. But I don’t think it _has_ to be the woman who stays home with the kids. I understand it’s a cultural norm. But if feminists would get behind the idea that being a good father was not only a singular masculine achievement, but that children actively benefit from having fathers in their homes - and that fathers can be just as good care-givers as mothers - I think that would help more mothers leave their kids at home with their dads, while the moms went out to work. > > The problem is I’m not sure that’s what actual mothers want to do (I suspect many would prefer to stay home with the kids, while their husbands worked) and I personally haven’t seen feminism pushing for recognition of the importance of fathers in families (which doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist). I have seen feminists actively dismissing the role of fathers (and can link to examples if you want), despite research shows that children with fathers in the home do better than those without them. Some feminists (and please note I said “some”) seem to prefer to ignore the evidence, rather than admit that fathers _are_ important, in terms of raising children successfully, or in raising children to be successful. That “cultural norm” you mention is what I’m talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/612 "2015-07-28T22:12:43Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I think the problem is not how I titled the OP, but the tendency of some people to interpret an attack on feminism as an attack on women. Perhaps that’s because anti-feminists and members of the men’s rights movement have a long history of attacking women. From the Southern Poverty Law Center [Spring 2012 Intelligence Report](http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/a-war-on-women): > [@](#): > > The first shots in this so-called war on feminism were fired 22 years before Tom Ball’s suicide. On Dec. 6, 1989, Marc Lépine, a troubled 25-year-old computer student, strolled into the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, Canada, carrying a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifle and a hunting knife. He walked into a classroom, ordered the men to leave, and lined the women up against a wall. > > “I am fighting feminism,” he announced before opening fire. “You’re women, you’re going to be engineers. You’re all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists.” > > By the time he turned the gun on himself, 14 women were dead and 10 were wounded; four men were hurt as well. The suicide note in Lépine’s pocket contained a list of 19 “radical feminists” he hoped to kill, and this: “I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. … They want to keep the advantages of women … while seizing for themselves those of men.” > > Today, that kind of rage is often directed at all women, not only perceived feminists. “Women don’t need the powers-that-be to get them to hate and use men,” the blogger Alcuin wrote recently. “They have always used men; maybe they have always hated us too.” Added another blogger, Angry Harry: “There are now, literally, billions of dollars, numerous empires, and millions of jobs that depend on the public swallowing the idea that women need to be defended from men.” > > “A word to the wise,” offered the blogger known as Rebuking Feminism. “The animals women have become want one thing, resources and genes. … See them as the animals they have become and plan … accordingly.” > > And many are quick to endorse violence against women. “There are women, and plenty of them, for which [sic] a solid ass kicking would be the least they deserve,” Paul Elam wrote in an essay with the provocative title, “When is it OK to Punch Your Wife?” “The real question here is not whether these women deserve the business end of a right hook, they obviously do, and some of them deserve one hard enough to leave them in an unconscious, innocuous pile on the ground if it serves to protect the innocent from imminent harm. The real question is whether men deserve to be able to physically defend themselves from assault … from a woman.” > > For some, it’s more than just talk. In 2006, Darren Mack, a member of a fathers’ rights group in Reno, Nev., stabbed his estranged wife to death and then shot and wounded the family court judge who was handling his divorce. > > That kind of violence continues right up to the present. It’s certainly…interesting…how much some of the material quoted in this piece, including Lepine’s suicide note, resembles things\*\* LinusK\*\* has been posting here. That [same issue](http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring) of Intelligence Report also features an article titled “[Men’s Rights Movement Spreads False Claims about Women](http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women)” and again, much of this should sound familiar to readers of this thread. For instance: > [@](#): > > **THE CLAIM** In another effort to show that men are discriminated against, many men’s rights activists assert that women attack men just as much as men attack women, if not more. The website [MensActivism.org](http://MensActivism.org) is one of many that criticizes what it characterizes as “the myth that women are less violent than men.” > > **THE REALITY** Men’s rights groups often cite the work of Deborah Capaldi, a researcher with the Oregon Learning Center, to back their claim. Capaldi did find that women sometimes initiate partner violence, although women involved in mutually aggressive partner relationships were more likely to suffer severe injuries than the men. But Capaldi studied only a very particular subset of the population — at-risk youth — rather than women in general, invalidating any claim that her findings applied generally. In fact, the 2000 Department of Justice study found that violence against both women and men is predominantly male violence. […] I post this knowing it will make absolutely no difference to **LinusK** , as he has already shown himself to be incapable of absorbing information that doesn’t support his pre-existing views. But I thought that others in this thread might wish to see the SPLC’s take on things. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/613 "2015-07-28T22:48:18Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I’m curious if you have a response to the question I asked at the end of the post: “If Occidental’s definition of rape is correct, didn’t they rape each other?” According to Occidental’s definition, it would seem so. My problem isn’t that the the woman wasn’t also charged with rape, it’s the idea that _anyone_ should be charged. It’s the denial of due process when it is charged. It’s the counselors that traumatized the woman by convincing her she was raped. You were asking “feminists” to push for more women to be charged and arrested, right? Why would that be the priority when the rule itself is the problem? And recall that the man did not originally press charges. How can anyone push for the woman to be charged/arrested if the complainant doesn’t come forward? How would anyone even know about it if he doesn’t come forward? > [@LinusK](#): > > If you’d prefer I said, “ **Some** feminists don’t want to hear that…” I can do it. That’s not the normal style I use in Great Debates. For example, I might say, “Republicans don’t want to hear…” knowing that whatever I’m saying doesn’t apply to **all** Republicans. It’s a rhetorical style. One I admittedly haven’t given a lot of thought to. But it is one that’s commonly employed here. The point is you probably shouldn’t even say “Republicans don’t want to hear…”. If you start off that way, what Republican will see it as an honest debate? If you’ve already made up your mind what people think, what they want to hear, and how they will react to your thesis, then why bother? As I said, it’s not a debate, it’s a rant. > [@LinusK](#): > > I do only speak for myself. But if feminism stands for anything, I’d argue that it stands for exactly the positions I attacked in my OP. If you agree that feminism does stand for those positions, we can move on to whether those criticisms have any validity. Well, speaking for _myself_, I don’t agree with your OP. But as I said, there were too many points to parse out and address, and frankly, your approach discouraged me from the idea that you were interested in an honest coherent debate. Apparently, many other posters felt the same way. You might think that is unfair, or defensive, but as the OP, and the one who is seeking to _persuade_ others, it is on you to present your arguments in a way that will gain receptiveness. > [@LinusK](#): > > If you want to insist that I have to associate myself with Elam, then we’ll have to agree to disagree. > > If you (or anyone) wants to assert that I’m responsible for the actions or speech of every person who’s ever criticized feminism, then again, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Fine. But then don’t assert that I’m responsible for every person who claims to be a feminist. Don’t start a debate where you say things like, “I have news for you feminists…”. > [@LinusK](#): > > I’ve never claimed that feminism is a monolithic ideology. In fact, I said the exact opposite: that much of it is incoherent. What I’ve also said, (and where we might disagree) is that feminism’s lack of coherence is not a shield against criticism. > > The topic of this thread isn’t Paul Elam, or MRAs: it’s feminism. If you want to attack or criticize that person or those groups, you’re free to do it. It’s just not the topic of _this_ thread. The title of the thread is Anti-feminism. You are presenting anti-feminist arguments inspired by a prominent anti-feminist (Straughan). How is that not relevant to this thread? > [@LinusK](#): > > I do believe I can have an honest debate about feminism, if feminists step up to the plate and defend their views, rather than attempting to deflect, or using some of the dishonest and childish tactics that have been used in this thread. Are you suggesting that the replies you received weren’t honest? As I, and many others, have been saying, you are not presenting an honest and coherent debate. You are making sweeping statements, use a double standard, and presented a mishmash of arguments and attacks, some of them ridiculous. That’s not deflecting, it’s a reflection of how you presented your OP, which you still don’t seem to understand. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/614 "2015-07-28T23:07:40Z")
> [@camille](#): > > The title of the thread is Anti-feminism. You are presenting anti-feminist arguments inspired by a prominent anti-feminist (Straughan). How is that not relevant to this thread? Well, you didn’t even _mention_ the sinking of the Titanic. ---
**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 28, 2015, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/615 "2015-07-28T23:09:54Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Well, you didn’t even _mention_ the sinking of the Titanic. As this thread grows, we don’t have to mention it. We live it! ---
**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 28, 2015, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/616 "2015-07-28T23:15:34Z")
Let me just set this deck chair over here… ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/617 "2015-07-28T23:31:22Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Let me just set this deck chair over here… …I think it looks better over _there._ You’re a big strong guy …mind moving it? \ ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/618 "2015-07-29T00:09:54Z")
Hi Lamia. If you’ll look back to [my original post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18527353&postcount=75) about this subject, you’ll see that the link was to a site run by the [Feminist Majority Foundation](http://www.feminist.org/911/crisis_facts.html): > [@](#): > > Although many studies report that men and women use physical violence at equal rates within intimate relationships,7, 8 this fails to take into account the nature of the violence and the level of fear and injury experienced by each party. There’s also this: [CDC Study: More Men Than Women Victims of Partner Abuse.](http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/) > [@](#): > > More men than women were victims of intimate partner physical violence within the past year, according to a national study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Justice. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (hereinafter NISVS) released in December, 2011, within the last 12 months an estimated 5,365,000 men and 4,741,000 women were victims of intimate partner physical violence. And this: [Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships: Part 1. Rates of Male and Female Victimization](http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/pdf/PASK.Tables1.Revised.pdf) > [@](#): > > Overall, results indicated that physical IPV [Intimate Partner Violence] victimization is prominent among men and women in heterosexual relationships. Across all studies included in this review, approximately one in four women (23.1%) and one in five men (19.3%) experienced physical violence in an intimate relationship And this: [Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships: Part 2. Rates of Male and Female Perpetration](http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/pdf/PASK.Tables2.Revised.pdf) > [@](#): > > Consistent with prior reviews, rates of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women generally were more similar than they were different, with slightly rates for women than for men (pooled prevalence for female perpetration = 28.3% and male perpetration = 21.6%). And this: [FEMALE PERPETRATION OF VIOLENCE IN HETEROSEXUAL INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS: ADOLESCENCE THROUGH ADULTHOOD](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663360/) > [@](#): > > In recent years, researchers have begun to extend this body of research to examine female perpetration of violence in intimate relationships. There is increasing evidence to suggest that women commit as much or more IPV as men And this: [Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989615). > [@](#): > > Meta-analyses of sex differences in physical aggression to heterosexual partners and in its physical consequences are reported. Women were slightly more likely (d = -.05) than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently. I realize that the idea that only men hit, and not women, is part of some feminists’ worldview, but the reality is different. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/619 "2015-07-29T03:05:49Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Hi Lamia. I’m not **Lamia** , but I was foolish enough to take a close look at your claims. > [@LinusK](#): > > If you’ll look back to [my original post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18527353&postcount=75) about this subject, you’ll see that the link was to a site run by the [Feminist Majority Foundation](http://www.feminist.org/911/crisis_facts.html): > > > [@](#): > > > > Although many studies report that men and women use physical violence at equal rates within intimate relationships,7, 8 this fails to take into account the nature of the violence and the level of fear and injury experienced by each party. Read your quote again, because it doesn’t say what you seem to think it says. It basically debunks your claim. The source goes on to say: > [@](#): > > Several studies document that women experience higher levels of fear than men do in domestic violence situations.9, 10, 11, 12, 13 This is perhaps because women in domestic violence situations are much more likely to be injured – and injured severely – than men are.8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 It also says earlier on: > [@](#): > > ``` > [ul] > > ``` > > [li]Although men are more likely to be victims of violent crime overall, a recent study by the U.S. Department of Justice reports that "intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women."2[/li] > [li] Of those victimized by an intimate partner, 85% are women and 15% are men.2 In other words, women are 5 to 8 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.3[/li] > [li] The vast majority of domestic assaults are committed by men. Even when men are victimized, 10% are assaulted by another man. In contrast, only 2% of women who are victimized are assaulted by another woman.2[/li][/ul] > [@LinusK](#): > > There’s also this: [CDC Study: More Men Than Women Victims of Partner Abuse.](http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/) > > > [@](#): > > > > More men than women were victims of intimate partner physical violence within the past year, according to a national study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Justice. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (hereinafter NISVS) released in December, 2011, within the last 12 months an estimated 5,365,000 men and 4,741,000 women were victims of intimate partner physical violence. This quote is not taken directly from the CDC study it refers to. I checked out the [actual study](http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf), and those claims are not there. The site you link to is listed by the [SPLC](http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites) as a “misogyny” site: > [@](#): > > **SAVE Services** > > The acronym in SAVE Services stands for Stop Abusive and Violent Environments; “Protecting Victims, Stopping False Allegations, Ending Abuse” is its tagline. In practice, that means lobbying to roll back services for victims of domestic abuse and penalties for their tormentors, while working to return the focus to the “true victims of abuse” — the falsely accused. The site trumpets as a “key fact” that “[f]emale initiation of partner violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of subsequent violence,” even though a study shows that approximately twice as many women as men are injured during incidents of domestic violence. > [@LinusK](#): > > And this: [FEMALE PERPETRATION OF VIOLENCE IN HETEROSEXUAL INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS: ADOLESCENCE THROUGH ADULTHOOD](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663360/) > > > [@](#): > > > > In recent years, researchers have begun to extend this body of research to examine female perpetration of violence in intimate relationships. There is increasing evidence to suggest that women commit as much or more IPV as men From the same cite: > [@](#): > > To date, most studies on IPV have focused on the victimization of women and girls rather than their male counterparts. This is due to the fact that a greater proportion of women report experiencing IPV; women are victimized at about five times the rate of men (Rennison & Welchans, 2000). Similarly, females accounted for 84.3% of spouse abuse victims and 85.9% of victims of violence between boy/girlfriends between 1998 and 2002 (Durose et al., 2005). Male-perpetrated IPV has also been shown to be more injurious for women and result in more severe short and long term sequalae (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Consequently, women are also more likely to be killed as a result of IPV. In 2004, 32.7% of female homicide victims were killed by an intimate partner, whereas, only 3.1% of male homicides were committed by female intimate partners (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006). However, I will look at the study more closely since it is available. > [@LinusK](#): > > And this: [Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989615). > > > [@](#): > > > > Meta-analyses of sex differences in physical aggression to heterosexual partners and in its physical consequences are reported. Women were slightly more likely (d = -.05) than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently. There was only an abstract available for this study, but here is a review from [another researcher](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989615): > [@](#): > > J. Archer’s (2000) conclusion that women engage in slightly more physical aggression than men in intimate relationships but sustain more injuries is reasonable in representative samples. However, his conclusions will provoke negative reactions because they do not fit with the data and belief that men are generally more aggressive than women. In addition, they are incompatible with observations of professionals who serve battered women. Basically, the meta-analytic conclusion about aggression cannot be generalized to samples of physically abusive men and their partners. Nonetheless, the studies reviewed by Archer provide convincing data that physical aggression by women must be taken seriously if there is a sincere desire to prevent partner abuse. > > _Are women really more aggressive than men in intimate relationships? > Comment on Archer (2000) [Psychol Bull. 2000]_ > [@LinusK](#): > > I realize that the idea that only men hit, and not women, is part of some feminists’ worldview, but the reality is different. Has anyone here made the claim that “only men hit, and not women”? You’re fighting a strawman, in some cases with unvetted cites from dubious sources. Having said that, I will agree that the numbers are high enough that there should be more awareness and facilities for men who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. When I was active as an advocate, we did have such an awareness program, and we had male advocates on call for male victims, should they prefer speaking to another man. I don’t know who these anonymous facilities are who are allegedly ridiculing and turning male victims away, so it’s difficult to address these allegations. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/620 "2015-07-29T03:39:05Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > I post this knowing it will make absolutely no difference to **LinusK** , as he has already shown himself to be incapable of absorbing information that doesn’t support his pre-existing views. I really called that one, didn’t I? My next prediction is that **LinusK** will continue to avoid acknowledging that when he said: > [@LinusK](#): > > At some point, someone linked to a feminist panel discussion, the topic of which had something to do with men. The topic was something like “Are Men Needed Anymore?” > > According to the link, the feminists decided that they (we) aren’t. > > I responded by saying something to the effect that if men actually disappeared overnight, those same feminists would wake up in a world that was entirely different than the one they live in now. The “someone” he thought he was responding to was in fact himself, the “at some point” was [a month ago in a completely different thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=761007), and also that he didn’t even understand the content of his own link. Looking at **LinusK** ’s paraphrase of his previous post again just now, it strikes me that while he described it as being about “those same feminists” it was actually about women in general: > [@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. So someone who claims to be attacking feminism, not women, uses “feminists” and “women” interchangeably. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=32)