# 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:** 34
**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 30, 2015, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/661 "2015-07-30T02:21:21Z")
No, **Jack** didn’t provide it. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/662 "2015-07-30T02:31:53Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. Whether feminism is about equality is the _least_ important? I’d think it was fundamental. When you say it’s “subjective,” do you mean some feminists think it is, and some don’t, or something else? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by 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? The full answer is long, and I think most of it’s in the OP, but… _…for whose benefit were women protected in this way?_ The benefits were enjoyed both by the groups that successfully protected women, and by those of us who are now living. We are descended from those humans who succeeded in protecting women. Those who failed to do so, became extinct. _What form did this protection take?_ It took a wide variety of forms. One is that it is almost exclusively men who went to battle. Whether the battle was over territory, resources, or something else, it was the men who went to fight and die, not the women. Another example revolves around pair bonding. The general rule, before modern times, was that a man had a duty to provide for his wife and children, even after a divorce. > [@](#): > > A. Traditional Spousal Support: Status and Fault; The Promise of a Pension for Life > > The law of spousal support—or alimony as it was traditionally known—was once relatively straightforward. A wife, innocent of matrimonial fault, was entitled upon the breakdown of the marriage to support in an amount that would allow her to maintain the marital standard of living for the rest of her life, or until remarriage. > > The conceptual foundation of this understanding of spousal support—sometimes labeled the “pension for life” model—was clear. The support obligation was clearly grounded in the status of marriage and was justified through a contractual analysis of the obligations taken on in marriage in which fault played a central role. Essentially, spousal support was a form of expectation damages for breach of contract. **Marriage was understood to involve, on the husband’s part, a promise of life-long economic support to his wife.** [Bolding mine.] [Link](http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/spousal-epoux/ss-pae/3.html). > [@](#): > > The modern concept of alimony is derived from English ecclesiastical courts that awarded alimony in cases of separation and divorce. Alimony pendente lite was given until the divorce decree, based on the husband’s duty to support the wife during a marriage that still continued. Post-divorce or permanent alimony was also based on the notion that the marriage continued, as ecclesiastical courts could only award a divorce a mensa et thora, similar to a legal separation today. **As divorce did not end the marriage, the husband’s duty to support his wife remained intact.** [Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony). [Bolding mine.] Under traditional Jewish law, one of the duties of the husband (the first one, I think, was to protect and provide for his wife and children. In Genesis, God punished Eve by making childbirth painful. He punished Adam, on the other hand, by making him obtain sustenance from the “sweat of his brow”. How many fairy tales revolve around chivalrous men saving princesses or fair maidens? You see the same thing in modern entertainment as well. People seem to hate the reference to “Titanic”, for some reason, so how about “The Princess Bride,” or “The Terminator”? Kyle Reese dies saving Sarah Connor. Wesley doesn’t die, but he certainly risks his life (and thereby proves himself worthy). > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK > > (3.) Women are not currently oppressed. > > Not anywhere? Of course not. If you look at 3rd world countries or failed states you’ll see plenty of examples of oppressed women. And plenty of examples of oppressed men, as well. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/663 "2015-07-30T04:22:15Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > _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. Surprise! > [@LinusK](#): > > The push to label drunk sex as rape is especially enlightening. Because, the thing is, if you’re a woman and you’re drunk it’s rape. If you’re a man and you’re drunk… well let’s not talk about that. > > There are two important things to unpack from this: > > 1.) Feminists are not really interested in empowering women. If they were, they’d be saying “Hey! Don’t get drunk and do stupid shit you’ll regret later!” What they want is for women to be perpetual victims: objects who are not responsible for their own actions. > > 2.) **Feminists are not interested in equality. If they were, they’d be pushing to have women arrested for having sex with drunk men. They’re not.** Will you at least acknowledge your mistakes? Here is a still unacknowledged post by [Lamia](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18557025&postcount=620) pointing out that you used your own words from another thread and attributed it to another poster (not dishonestly, but if you’re confused about your own arguments, how can you keep claiming they’re coherent?). You also cited data about domestic violence that was also debunked, and I provided you with a link to the actual study you claimed it came from (the CDC study). > [@LinusK](#): > > 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. > > 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. Yes, some other posters use dishonest debating tactics in GD. What’s your point? That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. How has it worked out for you so far? > [@LinusK](#): > > 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. How about you actually prove them first? You’re the one making these claims. So far, anyone challenging them (in absence of proof by you) has been ignored. > [@LinusK](#): > > 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. My friends? 😕 Do you really think this is some kind of conspiracy to gang up on you? You appear to have a few people supporting your view of feminism here. Are they your friends? > [@LinusK](#): > > It doesn’t matter how many people say it. What matters is whether it’s true. Generally speaking that is correct. But if enough people you are trying to debate have a problem with your approach, do you think it makes your argument stronger? That’s a common tactic: “I make feminists really angry, it must mean what I’m saying is true!” Can you really not think of another reason why people would have a negative reaction to someone’s arguments? Are you going to use the reaction to your OP to convince yourself you are correct? Will you continue to ignore the valid critiques about your arguments and the accuracy of your cites in order to avoid reconsidering your claims? > [@LinusK](#): > > 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. You have been given specific examples that you continue to ignore. I took the time to read and vet your posts and some of your cites and posted my replies to them. I don’t feel like wasting any more of my time until you decide to acknowledge your errors. ---
**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 30, 2015, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/664 "2015-07-30T08:01:34Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > […] my understanding that […] the suffragettes fought for the right of women to vote. I apologize if the cite was provided and I missed it. And Jesus died for your sins, you’ll have heard that too, I expect. Quite early on I linked to a mass of citations from a female anti-feminist, covering that topic, the predominance of the fringe over the uncritical ‘moderate’ centre, the violence and hatred and prejudice and ignorance of feminism, the inequality inherent in feminism’s ‘definition’ of ‘equality’, and so on. I don’t feel the need to repeat myself for each individual who shows up trying to save my soul - and as I’ve just mentioned elsewhere, if you cared about reaching a conclusion by weighing up reliable citations and taking pains to avoid confirmation bias or closed echo chambers , you’d have done your own homework and you’d be subjected to the same aggressive absence of argument that I’m engaged with here. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/665 "2015-07-30T10:27:14Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > And Jesus died for your sins, you’ll have heard that too, I expect. > > Quite early on I linked to a mass of citations from a female anti-feminist, covering that topic, the predominance of the fringe over the uncritical ‘moderate’ centre, the violence and hatred and prejudice and ignorance of feminism, the inequality inherent in feminism’s ‘definition’ of ‘equality’, and so on. I don’t feel the need to repeat myself for each individual who shows up trying to save my soul - and as I’ve just mentioned elsewhere, if you cared about reaching a conclusion by weighing up reliable citations and taking pains to avoid confirmation bias or closed echo chambers , you’d have done your own homework and you’d be subjected to the same aggressive absence of argument that I’m engaged with here. So, to the specific question, you got nothin’. ---
**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 30, 2015, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/666 "2015-07-30T11:43:45Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Whether feminism is about equality is the _least_ important? I’d think it was fundamental. > > When you say it’s “subjective,” do you mean some feminists think it is, and some don’t, or something else? Least important to the discussion, because of the subjectivity: what a movement is “about”, in some ineffable way, is much harder to define in some concrete way than specific, factual issues. Those are the issues I’d prefer to discuss, but of course that doesn’t bar you from talking about whatever you’d like. > [@LinusK](#): > > The full answer is long, and I think most of it’s in the OP, but… > > _…for whose benefit were women protected in this way?_ > > The benefits were enjoyed both by the groups that successfully protected women, and by those of us who are now living. > > We are descended from those humans who succeeded in protecting women. Those who failed to do so, became extinct. So, not the women themselves, is what you’re saying? > [@LinusK](#): > > _What form did this protection take?_ > > It took a wide variety of forms. One is that it is almost exclusively men who went to battle. Whether the battle was over territory, resources, or something else, it was the men who went to fight and die, not the women. I don’t know about [“almost exclusively”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_war), women have fought in wars for as long as there have been wars. Further, only a subset of those wars - ones waged to repel an invader - could be characterized as “protecting women”, and those weren’t _just_ about protecting women, but all the other male property as well. > [@LinusK](#): > > Another example revolves around pair bonding. The general rule, before modern times, was that a man had a duty to provide for his wife and children, even after a divorce. > > [Bolding mine.] [Link](http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/spousal-epoux/ss-pae/3.html). > > [Link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony). [Bolding mine.] > > Under traditional Jewish law, one of the duties of the husband (the first one, I think, was to protect and provide for his wife and children. > > In Genesis, God punished Eve by making childbirth painful. He punished Adam, on the other hand, by making him obtain sustenance from the “sweat of his brow”. Given the lack of economic opportunity available to women at the time, the alternative was abandoned wives starving to death. I _suppose_ it’s laudable that Jewish law forbade this, given that alternative, but the same laws were responsible for the lack of opportunity so…call it a wash? One is reminded of George Bernard Shaw’s remark, that Americans “first prevent Negroes from following any occupation but that of the bootblack or the waiter, then proclaim as evidence of the intellectual inferiority of the Negroes, that they are only bootblacks or waiters.” That is, it’s easy to characterize men as protecting women, when women are made dependent on men by laws against property ownership and the like. > [@LinusK](#): > > How many fairy tales revolve around chivalrous men saving princesses or fair maidens? > [@LinusK](#): > > You see the same thing in modern entertainment as well. People seem to hate the reference to “Titanic”, for some reason, so how about “The Princess Bride,” or “The Terminator”? Kyle Reese dies saving Sarah Connor. Wesley doesn’t die, but he certainly risks his life (and thereby proves himself worthy). What you mainly see are female characters that are passive objects to be won, a reward given to the hero for his moral worth. In this we see the poison of traditional gender norms: a man shows his moral worth by killing, and a woman is a thing that exists to please a man. > [@LinusK](#): > > Of course not. If you look at 3rd world countries or failed states you’ll see plenty of examples of oppressed women. And plenty of examples of oppressed men, as well. Shouldn’t you revise point 3, then? I’ll certainly stipulate that Western women aren’t oppressed, but they are a minority. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/667 "2015-07-30T12:56:39Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > Was this cite ever provided? I am curious, having had history courses in college, and my understanding that in this country, at least, the suffragettes fought for the right of women to vote. I apologize if the cite was provided and I missed it. He may be misremembering a real problem that some suffragists had with race: [some examples](http://the-toast.net/2014/04/21/suffragettes-sucked-white-supremacy-womens-rights/): > [@](#): > > Suffragette: Laura Clay, 1849-1940 (Founder of Kentucky’s first suffrage group) > Hooray: “Religious intolerance just now is abroad in the land. It is an evil passion of the heart which dies hard…This campaign is a call to every true American of whatever party to stand firmly for the principle of religious freedom.” > Wait, What: “The white men, reinforced by the educated white women, could ‘snow under’ the Negro vote in every State, and the white race would maintain its supremacy without corrupting or intimidating the Negroes.” > … > Suffragette: Rebecca Ann Latimer Felton, 1835-1930 (First woman to serve in the Senate) > Hooray: “A Senator of the U.S., a woman, is still a sort of political joke with our masculine leaders in party politics…. But the trail has been blazed! The road is apparently rough—maybe rocky—but the trail has been located. It is an established fact. While it is also a romantic adventure, it will ever remain an historical precedent—never to be erased.” > Wait, What: “I do not want to see a negro man walk to the polls and vote on who should handle my tax money, while I myself cannot vote at all…When there is not enough religion in the pulpit to organize a crusade against sin; nor justice in the court house to promptly punish crime; nor manhood enough in the nation to put a sheltering arm about innocence and virtue—-if it needs lynching to protect woman’s dearest possession from the ravening human beasts—-then I say lynch, a thousand times a week if necessary.” Now, the idea that they were asking white women to have a right that they wanted to deny to most people is a questionable assertion, and I have no cite for that. It’s also true that many folks agitating for women’s rights to vote were also prominent abolitionists or otherwise engaged in the struggle for equal rights. So overall his point is quite shoddy. But it’s true that one of the arguments repeatedly (and in some states successfully) raised in support of women’s suffrage was the idea that it would promote white supremacy. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/668 "2015-07-30T13:06:10Z")
Lest someone jump on those quotes and say something idiotic like, “SEE! SEE! SUFFRAGETTES WERE ALL RACISTS!” [I give you Ida Wells](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101412306): > [@NPR](#): > > Ida B. Wells co-founded the NAACP. She launched her own newspaper and was a prominent speaker and anti-lynching crusader. Wells took an uncompromising stance on the principles democracy and fearlessly stood up for women and other oppressed people. > … > Now, Ida B. Wells never lived to see the passage of anti-lynching laws, her civil rights work brought about social change. She was one of the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, marched in Washington, D.C. for universal suffrage and ran for the Illinois state legislature. History is complicated. Some feminists were white supremacists. Some weren’t. Some civil rights leaders were misogynists. Some weren’t. Dismissing the suffragism movement because of assholes like Rebecca Felton would be like dismissing the civil rights movement because Malcolm X was an asshole to women. ---
**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 30, 2015, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/669 "2015-07-30T13:43:30Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > And Jesus died for your sins, you’ll have heard that too, I expect. > > Quite early on I linked to a mass of citations from a female anti-feminist, covering that topic, the predominance of the fringe over the uncritical ‘moderate’ centre, the violence and hatred and prejudice and ignorance of feminism, the inequality inherent in feminism’s ‘definition’ of ‘equality’, and so on. I don’t feel the need to repeat myself for each individual who shows up trying to save my soul - and as I’ve just mentioned elsewhere, if you cared about reaching a conclusion by weighing up reliable citations and taking pains to avoid confirmation bias or closed echo chambers , you’d have done your own homework and you’d be subjected to the same aggressive absence of argument that I’m engaged with here. You mean that tumblr post you linked to earlier? Great, yeah, I’ll wade through that blog to try to find the cites that support your statement. Let me get right on that. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/670 "2015-07-30T14:01:59Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > You mean that tumblr post you linked to earlier? Great, yeah, I’ll wade through that blog to try to find the cites that support your statement. Let me get right on that. Indeed. **Jack of Words** , look at my two posts above to see how (IMO) cites should be offered: 1. Address a specific claim, preferably one claim per post and no more. 2. Offer a specific link to the cite. 3. Quote a paragraph or two from the cite that you believe supports your claim (or refutes someone else’s or whatever). 4. After the quote, offer commentary–preferably concise commentary. This model gives maximum signal, minimum noise. Do you believe you’ve used this model? If not, do you believe your model leads to more productive discussion? ---
**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 30, 2015, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/671 "2015-07-30T14:18:09Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > He may be misremembering a real problem that some suffragists had with race: [some examples](http://the-toast.net/2014/04/21/suffragettes-sucked-white-supremacy-womens-rights/): > > Now, the idea that they were asking white women to have a right that they wanted to deny to most people is a questionable assertion, and I have no cite for that. It’s also true that many folks agitating for women’s rights to vote were also prominent abolitionists or otherwise engaged in the struggle for equal rights. So overall his point is quite shoddy. > > But it’s true that one of the arguments repeatedly (and in some states successfully) raised in support of women’s suffrage was the idea that it would promote white supremacy. LHoD, thank you for the cites! It’s unfortunate that some of the individuals involved with the suffrage movement were assholes. It’s not surprising – there are assholes everywhere. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/672 "2015-07-30T14:50:30Z")
Hi **camille**. As an aside, I want to say that I have limited free time. Often I choose to use it to post on SDMB. I do that because it’s fun for me. But I don’t use SDMB as a place to make friends, or a virtual social club. I do it because I like debating ideas, and learning from people who respond, with logic and evidence, either to me or to others. While there have been some exceptions, those attributes have been notably lacking in this thread. This particular thread has been a drain on my time. As I’ve said earlier, I barely have time to keep up with it, and certainly don’t have time to respond to every single post. I’ve been neglecting other threads I’d like to participate in, in order to try to keep up with this one. Having said that, (1) this thread is now so long, I doubt anyone who’s not already invested in it is paying any attention anymore, and (2) my own patience is wearing thin. This thread probably should have died a natural death a while ago, and I anticipate I’ll probably be paying less attention to it in the future. Having said that, there’s at least one post of yours I want to respond to, when I get time. (You posted again, before I had time, so that’s why I’m responding to this one.) > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > > 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. > > Surprise! > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > The push to label drunk sex as rape is especially enlightening. Because, the thing is, if you’re a woman and you’re drunk it’s rape. If you’re a man and you’re drunk… well let’s not talk about that. > > There are two important things to unpack from this: > > 1.) Feminists are not really interested in empowering women. If they were, they’d be saying “Hey! Don’t get drunk and do stupid shit you’ll regret later!” What they want is for women to be perpetual victims: objects who are not responsible for their own actions. > > 2.) Feminists are not interested in equality. If they were, they’d be pushing to have women arrested for having sex with drunk men. They’re not. > [@](#): > > Will you at least acknowledge your mistakes? I’m happy to acknowledge mistakes when I make them. In this particular case, I was not _“asking “feminists” to push for more women to be charged and arrested”._ I was pointing out the hypocrisy of _some_ feminists pushing for “drunk sex is rape” while ignoring often it’s the guy who’s drunk, and even more often: both are. If they were consistent, they’d be pushing for women who have sex with drunk guys to be arrested. They’re not. In at least one case, cited upthread somewhere, a woman openly admitted to having sex - stone cold sober - with a guy who was passing-out drunk, in a feminist-sponsored event. They applauded. Now, if feminism is about equality, feminists would condemn women for having sex with drunk men. They don’t. Instead, _some_ feminists go out of their way to see women as perpetual victims, regardless of the circumstances, and men as perpetual victimizers, regardless of the circumstances. In other words, I was condemning _some_ feminists for being hypocritical. I was **not** endorsing their position. My own position, as I said earlier, is that drunk sex is not rape. It might be really shitty sex, or sex you regret later, or even _a really bad idea._ But it’s not rape. > [@](#): > > Here is a still unacknowledged post by Lamia pointing out that you used your own words from another thread and attributed it to another poster (not dishonestly, but if you’re confused about your own arguments, how can you keep claiming they’re coherent?). Yeah, I did get mixed up about that. My bad. [This me, acknowledging I made a mistake.] My memory doesn’t always serve me well, which is why, when I’m relying on my memory, I usually make an explicit point of saying so. > [@](#): > > You also cited data about domestic violence that was also debunked, and I provided you with a link to the actual study you claimed it came from (the CDC study). That was the post I was talking about. I don’t have time right now to respond to that post, but I’ll respond when I can. If memory serves, I posted five or six studies, and you debunked one or two. Which I appreciate, by the way. If I’m relying on sources I shouldn’t be, I like to know. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > 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. > > > > 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. > > Yes, some other posters use dishonest debating tactics in GD. What’s your point? That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. How has it worked out for you so far? Generally, when I post a thread, my goal is to get replies. My general expectation is that some significant portion of them will be substantive. _“How has it worked out for you so far?”_ In terms of number of responses, it’s been off the charts. In terms of substantive responses, not so great. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > 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. > > How about you actually prove them first? You’re the one making these claims. So far, anyone challenging them (in absence of proof by you) has been ignored. I disagree. I’ve done as much as I can to reply to substantive responses (including yours). _“How about you actually prove them first?”_ Much of what I have to say, in terms of supporting evidence, is in the OP. I’ve come to suspect that many people didn’t read it, or didn’t read it all the way through. But if you read the OP, and have substantive issues with it, I’m happy to reply to them. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > 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. > My friends? Do you really think this is some kind of conspiracy to gang up on you? You appear to have a few people supporting your view of feminism here. Are they your friends? If you’re talking about **Jack of Words** , if memory serves, I don’t remember seeing him in any thread before. As I said earlier, I don’t use SDMB as a place to make friends. While there are certainly some posters I like more than others, I don’t consider anyone here a “friend”. My friends are in real life, not on the internet. By the way, I’m not condemning people who use the internet to make friends. I’ve done it before. But at this point, in my life, it’s not for me. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > It doesn’t matter how many people say it. What matters is whether it’s true. > > Generally speaking that is correct. But if enough people you are trying to debate have a problem with your approach, do you think it makes your argument stronger? That’s a common tactic: “I make feminists really angry, it must mean what I’m saying is true!” Can you really not think of another reason why people would have a negative reaction to someone’s arguments? Are you going to use the reaction to your OP to convince yourself you are correct? Will you continue to ignore the valid critiques about your arguments and the accuracy of your cites in order to avoid reconsidering your claims? I have not, to my knowledge, ignored valid critiques. In fact, I’ve made an effort to respond, to the extent that I can. _“Can you really not think of another reason why people would have a negative reaction to someone’s arguments?”_ I can. One is that some people, I suspect, confuse attacks on feminism with attacks on women. Another is that, at some point, some people who usually don’t post in GD came here and started shitting all over the thread. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post > > 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. > > You have been given specific examples that you continue to ignore. I took the time to read and vet your posts and some of your cites and posted my replies to them. I don’t feel like wasting any more of my time until you decide to acknowledge your errors. When I have time, I’ll respond to that post. Right now, I’m out of time. ---
**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 30, 2015, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/673 "2015-07-30T15:02:08Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > History is complicated. Some feminists were white supremacists. Some weren’t. Some civil rights leaders were misogynists. Some weren’t. Dismissing the suffragism movement because of assholes like Rebecca Felton would be like dismissing the civil rights movement because Malcolm X was an asshole to women. I think he’s referring to movements in the UK that would have led to just giving rich women the vote. But who knows? And, honestly, does anyone think he’s going to provide a great cite at this late date? He’s still doing the clown in the dunk tank routine of getting dunked, climbing back on the seat and claiming the one throwing the ball’s got nothin’. ---
**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 30, 2015, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/674 "2015-07-30T16:06:41Z")
Of course, the whole subject of whether or not the suffragettes’ shit stank was itself a tangential evasion of what was originally at issue, which was: why didn’t women have the right to vote in the first place, if the whole course of human history has inured to the benefit and privilege of women at the expense of men? Fairly typical of the genre, really. ---
**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 30, 2015, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/675 "2015-07-30T16:19:28Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Of course, the whole subject of whether or not the suffragettes’ shit stank was itself a tangential evasion of what was originally at issue, which was: why didn’t women have the right to vote in the first place, if the whole course of human history has inured to the benefit and privilege of women at the expense of men? > > Fairly typical of the genre, really. I remember reading an very conservative woman’s comment once about how it wasn’t sexist for her to be excluded from certain education and decision-making and all of that because it was actually to her benefit not to have so many responsibilities. In other words, the “don’t you worry your pretty little head” gambit. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/676 "2015-07-30T16:32:50Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Of course, the whole subject of whether or not the suffragettes’ shit stank was itself a tangential evasion of what was originally at issue, which was: why didn’t women have the right to vote in the first place, if the whole course of human history has inured to the benefit and privilege of women at the expense of men? I didn’t read the whole thread. I tried, god help me, but the bickery noise combined with incredibly long posts filled with nothing but self-congratulation mixed with petulant complaints about opposition kind of threw me off. But I’ve looked in on the thread occasionally–and, seeing this issue about suffragists not being egalitarian in other ways, thought a few cites might be helpful. If my cites respond to an out-of-context request, my apologies. I couldn’t bear to read the context. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/677 "2015-07-30T17:44:52Z")
I’ll add something else to the “if men disappeared” hypothetical: the crime rate would drop dramatically. Especially violent crime. Some people have mentioned [the lack of a monolith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_movements_and_ideologies). If you read feminist blogs you’ll find big fracture points and some vicious circular firing squads. The most widespread disagreement is probably the sex divide, which finds its way into all sorts of issues. At base, is a woman in heels and a short skirt pandering to men, selling out her sisters, lowering standards for an entire gender, and commodifying her own body? Or is she empowered and dressing how she wants and hey it’s none of your business anyway what are you some kind of prude or maybe you’re just jealous? Get out the knives. Another fracture point is minority women complaining that mainstream political feminism in the U.S. is a vehicle for middle to upper class white women to accrue more power. As for the OP, I think you’ll find your interests might align more with the reddit, 4chan, and particularly the “manopshere” bloc of the internet. Liberal sites are loathe to criticize feminism, even some of the goofier tumblr/SJW types. Do you remember that cat calling video from awhile back? Remember the mini-backlash of people saying it was racist because it only showed black and hispanic guys? Oh man. I couldn’t tell how much of it was legit outraged libs or MRAs doing some next level concern trolling. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2015, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/678 "2015-07-30T20:09:59Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I remember reading an very conservative woman’s comment once about how it wasn’t sexist for her to be excluded from certain education and decision-making and all of that because it was actually to her benefit not to have so many responsibilities. > > In other words, the “don’t you worry your pretty little head” gambit. Even today (!) I hear people say that women voting really only has the effect of giving “additional votes” to men who have wives, sisters, mothers, aunts, etc. As if women can’t look at issues and make up their own minds, but will always vote the way some male relative tells them. (My sister sometimes asks me how I think she should vote…and I sometimes ask the woman who is the local member of the County Democratic Central Committee how she thinks I should vote.) ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/679 "2015-07-31T06:09:57Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I’m happy to acknowledge mistakes when I make them. In this particular case, I was not _“asking “feminists” to push for more women to be charged and arrested”._ > > I was pointing out the hypocrisy of _some_ feminists pushing for “drunk sex is rape” while ignoring often it’s the guy who’s drunk, and even more often: both are. > > If they were consistent, they’d be pushing for women who have sex with drunk guys to be arrested. They’re not. In at least one case, cited upthread somewhere, a woman openly admitted to having sex - stone cold sober - with a guy who was passing-out drunk, in a feminist-sponsored event. They applauded. Now, if feminism is about equality, feminists would condemn women for having sex with drunk men. They don’t. Instead, _some_ feminists go out of their way to see women as perpetual victims, regardless of the circumstances, and men as perpetual victimizers, regardless of the circumstances. > > In other words, I was condemning _some_ feminists for being hypocritical. I was **not** endorsing their position. You asked me where I got the idea, and I quoted the post. But let me modify it for you: _You were criticizing_ feminists for not pushing for more women to be charged and arrested, right? It doesn’t change the larger point that followed: They are not pushing for it _because it would not solve the problem_ - NOT because they are hypocrites, or because feminism is not about equality. You yourself agree that it wouldn’t be a solution. The problem with your argument is that you are starting with the presumption that _feminism is bad_, and then looking for examples to validate that hypothesis. But your examples are presented devoid of context or complexity, and ascribe ulterior motives without any objective proof of that motivation. That’s confirmation bias. > [@LinusK](#): > > If memory serves, I posted five or six studies, and you debunked one or two. Which I appreciate, by the way. If I’m relying on sources I shouldn’t be, I like to know. Memory does not serve. Of the four cites: One cite was a complete falsification of a study, two were misinterpreted by you as supporting your claim when they do not, and one was a meta analysis that could not be accessed, but has been critiqued for cherry picking study data compiled using the Conflict Tactic Scale (CTS), which, according to the [NIJ](http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/pages/measuring.aspx): > [@](#): > > \*\* CTS may not be appropriate for intimate partner violence research because it does not measure control, coercion, or the motives for conflict tactics; it also leaves out sexual assault and violence by ex-spouses or partners and does not determine who initiated the violence.\*\* Here’s more from NIJ: > [@](#): > > **A review of the research found that violence is instrumental in maintaining control and that more than 90 percent of “systematic, persistent, and injurious” violence is perpetrated by men. [8]** BJS reports that 30 percent of female homicide victims are murdered by their intimate partners compared with 5 percent of male homicide victims, and that 22 percent of victims of nonfatal intimate partner violence are female but only 3 percent are male. [9] Researchers that use city- and State-generated databases for analysis, however, attribute 40–50 percent of female homicides to intimate partners. This discrepancy likely results from omission of ex-boyfriends and ex-girlfriends from the Federal Supplementary Homicide Reports that are used by BJS. Ex-boyfriends account for up to 11 percent of intimate partner homicides committed by men, and ex-girlfriends account for up to 3 percent of intimate partner homicides committed by women. In other words, your claim that men and women are victims of intimate physical violence at equal rates is not supported by the data collected by the CDC, BJS, and NIJ, among others. Note: This does not mean that men are not or cannot be victims, or are not entitled to the same support services as women. But once again, your argument ignores context and complexity, and ascribes nefarious motives to feminism without objective proof of that motivation. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2015, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/680 "2015-07-31T07:53:27Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > My own position, as I said earlier, is that drunk sex is not rape. It might be really shitty sex, or sex you regret later, or even _a really bad idea._ But it’s not rape. I want to add to this, to (hopefully) give a better idea of what I’m saying. You say: _Drunk sex is not rape. \* This is where complexity comes in. Sometimes drunk sex_ is\* rape. Protecting the incapacitated from sexual predators is what prompted the rule. The Amherst and Occidental cases were the tragic outcomes of the unintended consequences when the rule is misapplied. That isn’t to excuse the decisions in those cases as right, but to emphasize how difficult it is to find a solution to a complex problem. Why would you first think to blame feminism rather than _human_ fallibility? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=35)