# 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:** 32
**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, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/621 "2015-07-29T03:40:16Z")
**Damuri Ajashi:** > [@](#): > > 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’d be happy to see some evidence of what you’re saying. > [@](#): > > 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? [According to this site](http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-financial-services): > [@](#): > > According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics10, in 2013, women made up the following percentages of these occupations: > Financial Managers 55.3% > Accountants and Auditors 62.1% > Financial Analysts 32.6% > Personal Financial Advisors 25.7% > > According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics11, in 2013, women made up the following percentages of these industries: (note, these do not factor position level) > Banking and Related Activities 61.0% > Savings Institutions, Including Credit Unions 74.8% > Securities, Commodities, Funds, Trusts, and Other Financial Investments 36.9% > Insurance Carriers and Related Activities 59.4% [According to this site](http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/medical-school-graduates-by-gender/), women made up 47% of medical school graduates in 2014. I wasn’t able to find a percentage for women in consulting, in a quick google search. Where does your information come from? > [@](#): > > 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. It may be. But the question is still: where does it come from? Is it a result of discrimination, or a result of women’s choices? You mention COLA and education in reference to differences in pay for Asians, Jews, and gay people. So are you saying the income gap, in those cases, comes from choices those groups make? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > And that disparity is leading colleges to hold women to a higher standard, in order to even out the gender equation. It sounds like you’re saying colleges are engaging in affirmative action in favor of men. I don’t know whether that’s true or not - in the case of boys applying to college - and you haven’t provided a cite; but I’ll go with it for the moment: some people argue that colleges _should_ be able to choose student bodies that are diverse and/or representative. Do you agree? > [@](#): > > Remember when girls became nurses and not doctors? Stenographers, not CEOs? Teachers, not principals? > > Well, that’s not the way it is any more. Thirty years after the passage of equal opportunity laws, girls are graduating from high school and college and going into professions and businesses in record numbers. > > Now, it’s the boys who could use a little help in school, where they’re falling behind their female counterparts. > > And if you think it’s just boys from the inner cities, think again. It’s happening in all segments of society, in all 50 states. That’s why more and more educators are calling for a new national effort to put boys on an equal footing with their sisters. Lesley Stahl reports. > > At graduation ceremonies last June at Hanover High School in Massachusetts, it was the ninth year in a row that a girl was on the podium as school valedictorian. Girls also took home nearly all the honors, including the science prize, says principal Peter Badalament. > > “[Girls] tend to dominate the landscape academically right now,” he says. [Link](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-gap-boys-lagging/). Are boys lagging because they’re less intelligent? Are there other possible explanations? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Quote by **LinusK** : 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. The cultural norm I was talking about was the idea that moms are better parents than dads. Is that the same one you’re talking about? ---
**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 29, 2015, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/622 "2015-07-29T03:47:13Z")
For those who might be interested, I’m reading a very interesting book right now on the science, or lack thereof, behind many neuropsychology and sociological claims for gender disparities. It has its critics, so I’m not claiming it’ entirely right, but it does point to some troubling assumptions that appear to be tainting even good attempts at science, and it’s quite funny, too: _Delusions of Gender_, by Cordelia Fine. ---
**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, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/623 "2015-07-29T13:53:27Z")
> [@camille](#): > > 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? _You were asking “feminists” to push for more women to be charged and arrested, right?_ No. I’m surprised you got that out of anything I said. If there’s some particular sentence I wrote that made you think that, I’d be curious to know which one it was. FTR: I agree with the Harvard Law professors who attacked it. I think it’s dangerous and counter-productive, as well as unfair and quite likely unconstitutional. One lesson an undergrad might likely take from this case, and others like it, is: “If I wake up after a night of drunken sex, I better make sure **I’m the first to report it, even if it was 100% consensual** if I don’t want to be the one who gets kicked out of school.” It may be that there are good ways to encourage undergrads **not** to have drunk sex, but this isn’t it. In any event, I agree with you: “_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._” > [@](#): > > 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? I don’t know how familiar you are with GD, but rhetoric you describe as dishonest is pretty common here. I’ve always interpreted it as "This is what I believe most [Republicans] (or whoever) believe. Not as an assertion that every member of the group believes it. > [@](#): > > 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 . The general idea is to challenge those who disagree to come forward and defend their position. It may be that people in GD, in general, are thicker-skinned than in some other sub-forums. In other words, stating a position strongly is meant as a challenge, and an attempt to draw people in, not shut them out. Stating a position timidly, or uncontroversially, here at least, is likely to draw few responses. > [@](#): > > 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, The main points are: (1.) Feminism is not about equality (but what’s best for women). (2.) Feminism mischaracterizes the historical differences in the roles of men and women. Specifically, it characterizes them as attempts to oppress women, when in fact (given that most of human history and evolution occurred before the last 200 years) it was an attempt to protect women. (3.) Women are not currently oppressed. You’re free to challenge any or all of those if you want, or to ignore them, if you want. > [@](#): > > and frankly, your approach discouraged me from the idea that you were interested in an honest coherent debate. I’m sorry to hear that. > [@](#): > > 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. Again, I think you and your friends are taking the norms from another sub-forum, and applying them here. GD is not a social club, or a virtual community. It’s a place to debate ideas. Generally, the more assertively you put forward your argument, the more likely you are to get responses. > [@](#): > > Fine. But then don’t assert that I’m responsible for every person who claims to be a feminist. I’ve never asserted that. And, FTR: I don’t hold you 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…”. I’ll keep your advice in mind. > [@](#): > > 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? I’ve never asserted that Straughan isn’t relevant to this thread. In fact, I’d encourage anyone who’s interested to look at her vlogs or interviews, or anything else she’s said or written. I have said I’m not particularly interested in Elam, based on what’s been said about him in this thread. If you want to drag him into the thread, that’s your right. But his views (based on what’s been presented here) are not mine. > [@](#): > > Are you suggesting that the replies you received weren’t honest? Yes. Many (not all) were dishonest, particularly after your friends joined the thread. Not only that, they were personal attacks, which are explicitly against the rules of GD. > [@](#): > > As I, and many others, have been saying, you are not presenting an honest and coherent debate. It doesn’t matter how many people say it. What matters is whether it’s true. > [@](#): > > 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. If you want to give some specific examples, I’d be happy to address them. Otherwise, you’re not giving me anything to work with. You’re making generalized attack on the _how_ I presented the arguments, rather than a responding to the arguments themselves. ---
**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 29, 2015, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/624 "2015-07-29T14:24:21Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > The main points are: > (1.) Feminism is not about equality (but what’s best for women). I’ll leave this one alone, as it is the least important and the most subjective. > [@LinusK](#): > > (2.) Feminism mischaracterizes the historical differences in the roles of men and women. Specifically, it characterizes them as attempts to oppress women, when in fact (given that most of human history and evolution occurred before the last 200 years) it was an attempt to protect women. To take a bit of a different track…to your mind, for whose benefit were women protected in this way? What form did this protection take? > [@LinusK](#): > > (3.) Women are not currently oppressed. Not anywhere? ---
**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 29, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/625 "2015-07-29T18:10:58Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > **Damuri Ajashi:** > > I’d be happy to see some evidence of what you’re saying. > > [According to this site](http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-financial-services): > > [According to this site](http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/medical-school-graduates-by-gender/), women made up 47% of medical school graduates in 2014. > > I wasn’t able to find a percentage for women in consulting, in a quick google search. Where does your information come from? I’m not talking about bank tellers or your local bank loan officer or women serving supporting roles in investment banks. I am talking about investment bankers. [http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/wall-streets-young-bankers-are-still-mostly-white-and-male/](http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/wall-streets-young-bankers-are-still-mostly-white-and-male/) > **[The real reason women are leaving Wall Street](https://qz.com/121085/the-real-reason-women-are-opting-out-of-wall-street)** > > In my first job on Wall Street in 1982, I shared an office with the assistant to the top auto industry analyst, Maryann Keller. Our workspace was across the hall from hers, and I could watch and hear her through the glass. She never rested. From... > [@](#): > > It may be. But the question is still: where does it come from? Is it a result of discrimination, or a result of women’s choices? I thought I was being clear. At least SOME of the gap comes from sexism (institutional, latent and otherwise). > [@](#): > > You mention COLA and education in reference to differences in pay for Asians, Jews, and gay people. So are you saying the income gap, in those cases, comes from choices those groups make? There are cultural reasons for the high education levels of Asians and Jews. But the COLA reasons are largely associated with avoiding racism. There is simply less racism (or at least ghettoes where racism against YOU can be escaped) in large cities that did not exist in the middle of bumblefuck Oklahoma. > [@](#): > > It sounds like you’re saying colleges are engaging in affirmative action in favor of men. I don’t know whether that’s true or not - in the case of boys applying to college - and you haven’t provided a cite; but I’ll go with it for the moment: some people argue that colleges _should_ be able to choose student bodies that are diverse and/or representative. Do you agree? To a degree but where they are tilting the playing field in favor of the groups that start off with the playing field tilted heavily in their favor, I disagree. > [@](#): > > [Link](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-gap-boys-lagging/). > > Are boys lagging because they’re less intelligent? Are there other possible explanations? Yes, boys mature later in life, they have less impulse control, they are not conditioned to defer gratification, their hormones affect their behavior 28 days of each lunar cycle instead of just 7 days of each lunar cycle. > [@](#): > > The cultural norm I was talking about was the idea that moms are better parents than dads. Is that the same one you’re talking about? Yes. That along with the expectation that the woman should sacrifice her career if one of the parents must make a sacrifice. ---
**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 29, 2015, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/626 "2015-07-29T19:16:41Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > One of the key precepts of my redundant and stupid ideology, as it happens, is that not everything is about you. You don’t say what your redundant and stupid ideology is (though if it’s feminism, may I ask why you’ve introduced the words ‘redundant’ and ‘stupid’?). Is it feminism? Because I’m not sure there’s any ideology where one of the “key precepts” is that “not everything is about you”. To be honest, I’m not really sure what you’re driving at here. I asked for reasons I should be a feminist (as opposed to an egalitarian and ex-feminist) - if you don’t have any, that’s ok. If your reason is only ‘because I’ll be impotently angry at you on the internet’, again, I’m not swayed. > [@Miller](#): > > 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. Gender egalitarianism? Granted, that’s two words, but it neatly avoids associating myself with the ‘fringe’ of a movement that has a bald spot with an obvious comb-over and can’t see where it’s going because the fringe has grown over its eyes. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > 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. Well, that’s official. I’m a bad person ☹ > [@ddsun](#): > > Well, as others have asked you, where exactly did this happen? Who are these saffragettes? […] > 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. And yet you’ve not heard of the suffragettes? Well, there’s been a lot of history. You’ve heard of research, though, right? > [@ddsun](#): > > And, yes, I’ve reported your post. I know I’m not allowed to say, for example, “I’ve put you on ignore”, but I don’t know the rules around posting “I’ve reported your innocuous post (because that’s how feminists work).” > [@ddsun](#): > > In what material way were women of 100 years ago[…] Yeah, I’m getting this definite vibe of “You should be a feminist because _history_, numbnuts!” from several posters. If that’s so, should I be a Cavalier feminist, or a Roundhead feminist? > [@ddsun](#): > > 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. We covered that, I’m an egalitarian, I think everyone should be treated equally regardless of gender. But there’s a whole lot more to feminism that I want no part of. I’ve posted links to writings of key figures in feminism, historical and current, and I want no part of their hateful belief system. I see the twitter bully-mobs, I see the violent suppression of free speech, I see all that is wrong with the ideology and I want no part. Just as communism had a fluffy, friendly stated aim (awww, let’s all share and be equal) but was used and abused in ways that damaged so many people, feminism seems like a sound principle but alas, it’s now out of the dictionary and into the hands of _people_. Men people, women people, it’s all the same to me. But not to feminists… > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …can you, in two sentences or less, define what you consider feminism to be? Yes. Can you, in as many sentences as you need, convince me to be a feminist? No? > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Non-sequitur. Can’t, at this point, recall what you’re waving away there, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t. Sounds good though. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > 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. ‘Theoretically’, huh? 😃 So nobody, at all, could have believed in gender equality before the first ‘feminist’, or do we award the title retrospectively? More importantly, to me at least, when I say I’m not a feminist but nevertheless actively promote gender equality, are you calling me a liar, or is it just that you’re not wholly convinced I actually exist? I could be a bot, I suppose, or some sort of delusion? > [@Human\_Action](#): > > 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. Did I miss the hashtag? #killallfeminists? No, I don’t think I did, though I can’t say that the twitter hatred of #killallmen feminists bothers me that much. It’s only twitter, after all - who would be bothered it? Oh yeah, Sarkeesian etc (Oh the harassment!) Did I miss the screaming, spitting, violent protests when feminists speak? No, but I’ve seen plenty when anyone tries to stand up and criticise them, or speak for the rights of men. What have I missed, with all this ‘anti-feminist’ hatred? I’ve witnessed much robust criticism, but that isn’t hatred. Nor is it harassment, by the by. Let’s see some examples - hey, we could start a game thread. You post an example, I post an example, and the one who runs out first loses… > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Not my argument, at all. > […] > I’ll try to get over it. Did I miss your actual argument then? Why should I be a feminist? Take a tip from another poster earlier, you can duck the question by just saying 'we have enough [del]braiiiiiins[/del] [del]converts[/del] [del]whiteknights[/del] followers, we don’t even _need_ people like _you_". ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2015, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/627 "2015-07-29T19:46:50Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > > [@jsgoddess](#): > > > > 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. > > Well, that’s official. I’m a bad person ☹ Well, it is nice that you publicly proclaim yourself to be a bad person. However, the conclusion you drew from the statement you quoted does not logically follow. If you are unable to draw logical conclusions, your posts may be dismissed as unsupportable. ---
**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 29, 2015, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/628 "2015-07-29T20:23:11Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Yes. Can you, in as many sentences as you need, convince me to be a feminist? No? …how can I convince you to be a feminist when I don’t know what you think a feminist is? You said “yes”, so please share with us your definition of what “feminism” is. ---
**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 29, 2015, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/629 "2015-07-29T20:35:41Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Well, it is nice that you publicly proclaim yourself to be a bad person. > However, the conclusion you drew from the statement you quoted does not logically follow. If you are unable to draw logical conclusions, your posts may be dismissed as unsupportable. If you keep making posts that are about me, I’ll keep complaining about you. What a tiresome little gotcha you present. It’s eminently clear from the context of my remark that I’m not intending that remark to be taken seriously. It might also help to take into account that by anyones estimation, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are relative terms. They’re not fixed, they’re not definitive. Your good may be my bad, and vice versa. A ‘good man’ may do bad things and a ‘bad man’ (he’ll be the one in the black hat) may do good things. But let’s look at that conclusion, which you claim is not logical (and then go on to claim that I have a done a ‘bad thing’ there than anything I have ever said or go on to say can be dismissed…oh hang on, you’ll just dismiss this, right?): “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.” The implication is clear. The poster is “generally supportive of good people identifying as a feminist” but doesn’t care if I do. She does not care about bad people identifying as a feminist. The implication, should you choose to accept it, is that I’m a bad person. Not that I’m making bad arguments, you notice, but that I’m a bad person. Attacking the poster, not the post - just as you have been doing. When do you use that badge you wear constantly? ---
**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 29, 2015, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/630 "2015-07-29T20:41:28Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …how can I convince you to be a feminist when I don’t know what you think a feminist is? I did say you can have as many sentences as you like (which is considerably fairer than you managed, as though it were one of those consumer competitions: “Tell us in five words or less why feminism is your favourite ideology!”). And I did ask first… > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > You said “yes”, so please share with us your definition of what “feminism” is. Just like ‘so’, ‘us’ is a tiny word that says so much. Here’s two sentences for you: Read my posts. Extrapolate. ---
**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 29, 2015, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/631 "2015-07-29T21:05:34Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > I did say you can have as many sentences as you like (which is considerably fairer than you managed, as though it were one of those consumer competitions: “Tell us in five words or less why feminism is your favourite ideology!”). And I did ask first… …what the hell are you talking about? > [@](#): > > Just like ‘so’, ‘us’ is a tiny word that says so much. Here’s two sentences for you: Boy, you are so full of snark! And yet, you do it so poorly. > [@](#): > > Read my posts. Extrapolate. I’d rather not thanks. Why are you being so cagey? You can either explain in your own words what you think feminism is, then I can determine whether or not I should convince you to be a feminist, or you want me to guess what you think and when I get it wrong you can point your finger at me and laugh? Lets not take the second option. No need for any ambiguity. You are capable of explaining in a couple of sentences what you think feminism is, you’ve said that you can, so just do it and stop playing games. ---
**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 29, 2015, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/632 "2015-07-29T21:20:55Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …what the hell are you talking about? Try to keep up. I asked why I should be a feminist, you asked me to define feminism “in two sentences or less”. An absurd restriction, that put me in mind of those “in five words or less” consumer competitions that brands sometimes run. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Boy, you are so full of snark! And yet, you do it so poorly. Your post is very poor, not least because it attacks me and not what I say. Poor form, even for a bear. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > I’d rather not thanks. Why are you being so cagey? Well if you won’t read my posts, in which I’ve explained my position and my experience and understanding of feminism, why should I write anything for you (even if you do ‘allow’ me more than two sentences… :rolleyes:) Again, I’ve asked why I should be a feminist. Your response was, apparantly, “cagey” - you asked me to define feminism. By the by, if you define a duck as an equine quadruped, it’s still going to quack and lay eggs. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > You can either explain in your own words what you think feminism is, I have. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > then I can determine whether or not I should convince you to be a feminist I fail to see the bearing of one on the other. Should you not be trying to convince everyone to be a feminist? > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > , or you want me to guess what you think and when I get it wrong you can point your finger at me and laugh? No, I want you to engage with me on the basis of what I’ve already written, rather than start all over again just for you. If you can’t or won’t do that, don’t worry, I will neither point nor laugh. But I doubt I’ll respond in any other way either. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Lets not take the second option. No need for any ambiguity. You are capable of explaining in a couple of sentences what you think feminism is, you’ve said that you can, so just do it and stop playing games. Feminism is an equine quadruped. It quacks and lays eggs. Now I’ve played your game, on my terms. Are you going to convince me to be a feminist? ---
**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 29, 2015, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/633 "2015-07-29T21:23:13Z")
Can we please hit the iceberg now? Is that too much to ask? ---
**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 29, 2015, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/634 "2015-07-29T21:48:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Are you going to convince me to be a feminist? …well obviously not. If you truly believe that Feminism is an equine quadruped, it quacks and lays eggs, then no, don’t be a feminist. I see no compelling reason why anyone should try to convince you. See? That wasn’t very hard at all. And it would be silly for anyone else to waste their time trying to convince you to be a feminist as well, so you can stop asking now. ---
**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 29, 2015, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/635 "2015-07-29T22:32:24Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …well obviously not. If you truly believe that Feminism is an equine quadruped, it quacks and lays eggs, then no, don’t be a feminist. I see no compelling reason why anyone should try to convince you. > > See? That wasn’t very hard at all. And it would be silly for anyone else to waste their time trying to convince you to be a feminist as well, so you can stop asking now. Well it was more in the manner of a [metaphor](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphor?s=t), but again, I may have overestimated my audience. There are clues to it being a metaphor, not least my having previously explained literally what I think feminism is, and my never having mentioned ducks, horses, eggs or legs in this thread prior to that metaphor (although I accept that all that would also have whooshed past anyone who declined to read what I had read…but chose to argue anyway. Isn’t the internet fun :)) And no, it wasn’t hard at all. Whoever suggested otherwise? I expect it _would_ be silly for someone who takes a metaphor as literal to try to convince me of anything, but I’m still open to persuasion. If it’s not too hard… ---
**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 29, 2015, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/636 "2015-07-29T22:43:53Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > If it’s not too hard… I’m fairly certain it approaches impossible. See, even if someone had a killer argument, you have a lot vested in shooting them down. I sincerely doubt anyone reading or participating in this thread really thinks you are open to persuasion. And that’s okay. I’m not open to persuasion that feminism is evil, after all. But for the love of god, stop with the really lame carnival barker routine. When someone doesn’t want to pay money to throw darts at your balloons, that doesn’t mean that your balloons are unpoppable. It means you’re charging too much for the amazingly limited entertainment value to be had. This includes the creepy stuffed prizes. ---
**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 29, 2015, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/637 "2015-07-29T22:58:20Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I’m fairly certain it approaches impossible. See, even if someone had a killer argument, you have a lot vested in shooting them down. I sincerely doubt anyone reading or participating in this thread really thinks you are open to persuasion. And that’s okay. I’m not open to persuasion that feminism is evil, after all. But for the love of god, stop with the really lame carnival barker routine. When someone doesn’t want to pay money to throw darts at your balloons, that doesn’t mean that your balloons are unpoppable. It means you’re charging too much for the amazingly limited entertainment value to be had. This includes the creepy stuffed prizes. I sincerely am open to persuasion. I’ve been a feminist, and seen feminism in action. I have already changed my mind once - how hard can it be to believe my mind could be changed again, by evidence and argument, like it was the first time? Well, I accept that you have stated that your mind cannot be changed by evidence and argument - that you are not open to persuasion, as you say. I suppose that makes it easier to believe that nobody else is either. I have to wonder what all the abuse is about, if nobody thinks I can be persuaded. Not that abuse would be my go-to tactic for persuasion (though it probably would be if I had a vested interest in keeping evidence and arguments as far away from a topic as possible). Well done, though, on sneaking the word ‘creepy’ in, alongside your prejudice against travelling showfolk. If only it wasn’t the internet, you could make a pantomime of holding your nose while you speak to me, I’m sure that would work just as well. ---
**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 29, 2015, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/638 "2015-07-29T23:01:00Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Well, I accept that you have stated that your mind cannot be changed by evidence and argument - that you are not open to persuasion, as you say. I suppose that makes it easier to believe that nobody else is either. I also can’t be persuaded that Jews rule the world, Obama or Pope Francis is the Antichrist, and high heels are super comfy. It’s like I hate logic or something! ---
**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 29, 2015, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/639 "2015-07-29T23:16:36Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I also can’t be persuaded that Jews rule the world, Obama or Pope Francis is the Antichrist, and high heels are super comfy. It’s like I hate logic or something! Me either. Although I have to take the last one on trust, they don’t make them in my size, even in ‘specialist’ outlets. I’ve known some jews, and know the history too - if they were ruling the world, we might expect them to be doing a better job. Much like men… As for the antichrist, I’d have to be persuaded of a christ first, and again, there’s a paucity of evidence. But I am prepared to believe you hate logic, on the available evidence. Let’s change things up, then: convince me there’s any logical connection between antifeminism and antisemitism, or antifeminism and religious paranoia, or antifeminism and an outright lie easily disproved by experience (if your feet are small enough…as I said, I do take it on trust that women, transvestites and drag queens put up with the discomfort for reasons of their own). I’m going with the benefit of the doubt here - that there is some connection (which in itself would be enough to persuade me to change my mind), rather than that your post is nothing more than an attempt to smear an opposing viewpoint (despite all the preceding evidence! That’s just how charitable I am). ---
**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 29, 2015, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/640 "2015-07-29T23:39:38Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > I asked for reasons I should be a feminist (as opposed to an egalitarian and ex-feminist) - if you don’t have any, that’s ok. I don’t. I would love for you to not be a feminist. > [@](#): > > If your reason is only ‘because I’ll be impotently angry at you on the internet’, again, I’m not swayed. This I won’t tolerate. Not only am I not angry, I’ll have you know I’m fully engorged as I type this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=33)