# Anti-Feminism
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390
**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:** 35
### Author:  [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/681 "2015-07-31T08:50:40Z")
[QUOTE=variously]
Cite[…]evidence[…]cite![…]etc
[/QUOTE]
I think you’re all rather missing the point. I no more need ‘evidence’ for my position than an atheist needs to provide evidence for an absence of any deity. Granted, some of you have skills at steering or redirecting debate (though most of what has passed for debate here has been more or less thinly veiled insults), but let’s get it back on track, eh?
The topic is ‘anti-feminism’, though if I had started it it would have been spelled ‘afeminism’. So let’s have a citation for the position that feminism is the default (and for which of its squabbling sects is the default default). Relax though, I shan’t feel the need to swan about bad-mouthing you when you don’t produce one.
Let’s also have a citation for the idea that not belonging to your belief system is automatically ‘evil’, or that it is at best only “theoretically possible” that I could want (and work for) equality regardless of gender while not being a feminist.
[and for those who can’t get this particular bee out of their bonnet, I have to say I’m struggling to find a neutral historical record that _doesn’t_ quite clearly state that the suffragettes attained votes for women _over 30_, ie not all women, at a time when not all men had the vote. Providing ‘citations’ for people who haven’t fact-checked their orthodoxy strikes me as a waste of energy. We all believe what we want to believe.]
---
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/682 "2015-07-31T09:15:09Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> I think you’re all rather missing the point. I no more need ‘evidence’ for my position than an atheist needs to provide evidence for an absence of any deity. Granted, some of you have skills at steering or redirecting debate (though most of what has passed for debate here has been more or less thinly veiled insults), but let’s get it back on track, eh?
You need evidence for your position if you expect anyone else to take your ideas seriously. A position arrived at without evidence is prejudice.
> [@](#):
>
> The topic is ‘anti-feminism’, though if I had started it it would have been spelled ‘afeminism’. So let’s have a citation for the position that feminism is the default (and for which of its squabbling sects is the default default). Relax though, I shan’t feel the need to swan about bad-mouthing you when you don’t produce one.
Where did you get this idea that feminism is the “default”? Is that a claim somebody has made?
> [@](#):
>
> Let’s also have a citation for the idea that not belonging to your belief system is automatically ‘evil’, or that it is at best only “theoretically possible” that I could want (and work for) equality regardless of gender while not being a feminist.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was sarcasm. If you want though, I’m happy to explain to you the incoherence of requesting a cite for a subjective opinion.
Note, incidentally, that this is not the same as requesting cites for your opinion about feminism. We don’t expect you to cite that it’s “bad,” but when you make claims about what other people (namely, feminists) say or do, that’s making a statement of objective fact, and that’s when people want to see some proof that you’re not just making shit up.
> [@](#):
>
> [and for those who can’t get this particular bee out of their bonnet, I have to say I’m struggling to find a neutral historical record that _doesn’t_ quite clearly state that the suffragettes attained votes for women _over 30_, ie not all women, at a time when not all men had the vote. Providing ‘citations’ for people who haven’t fact-checked their orthodoxy strikes me as a waste of energy. We all believe what we want to believe.]
So many sources supporting what you say, and you can’t name one?
---
### Author:  [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/683 "2015-07-31T13:47:46Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> 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’.
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> I think you’re all rather missing the point. I no more need ‘evidence’ for my position than an atheist needs to provide evidence for an absence of any deity. Granted, some of you have skills at steering or redirecting debate (though most of what has passed for debate here has been more or less thinly veiled insults), but let’s get it back on track, eh?
>
> The topic is ‘anti-feminism’, though if I had started it it would have been spelled ‘afeminism’. So let’s have a citation for the position that feminism is the default (and for which of its squabbling sects is the default default). Relax though, I shan’t feel the need to swan about bad-mouthing you when you don’t produce one.
>
> Let’s also have a citation for the idea that not belonging to your belief system is automatically ‘evil’, or that it is at best only “theoretically possible” that I could want (and work for) equality regardless of gender while not being a feminist.
>
> [and for those who can’t get this particular bee out of their bonnet, I have to say I’m struggling to find a neutral historical record that _doesn’t_ quite clearly state that the suffragettes attained votes for women _over 30_, ie not all women, at a time when not all men had the vote. Providing ‘citations’ for people who haven’t fact-checked their orthodoxy strikes me as a waste of energy. We all believe what we want to believe.]
Yes, I am guessing that he is referring to the UK suffrage movement. On a US board. To a largely American group. Without ever specifying that he is not talking about the same group of suffragettes that everyone else is talking about. Perhaps buried somewhere in that Tumblr post of citations, it indicates that.
I am also wondering if he understands the difference between a statement of fact (which will no doubt garner a demand for a cite) and a statement of opinion (which may elicit other reactions, but an opinion is not generally subject to a demand for a cite.)
My cite is his post.
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/684 "2015-07-31T14:15:01Z")
> [@raventhief](#):
>
> Yes, I am guessing that he is referring to the UK suffrage movement. On a US board. To a largely American group. Without ever specifying that he is not talking about the same group of suffragettes that everyone else is talking about. Perhaps buried somewhere in that Tumblr post of citations, it indicates that.
>
> I am also wondering if he understands the difference between a statement of fact (which will no doubt garner a demand for a cite) and a statement of opinion (which may elicit other reactions, but an opinion is not generally subject to a demand for a cite.)
>
> My cite is his post.
Your cite for your opinion that opinions don’t generally require a cite? ‘Generally’ is a useful word, eh?
Is this an american board? I thought it was the world-wide web. Are you mostly american? Who knew, I was responding to posts, rather than people (and addressing those people directly, but cultural standards of courtesy vary, I’m sure. My fault for pointing out that I find the public discussion of other posters in the third person to be at best rude and at worst a form of social bullying - it was bound to encourage those who can only bolster a discredited political movement through bullying tactics). The board doesn’t actually enforce a US-centric posting policy, so far as I’m aware. Has it occurred to you to stop imagining the US is the centre of the world?
That feminism is presented as the default position is evident from the thread and stands as a fact, for which I requested a cite. Or, if you prefer, we can use your useful word and consider it one of those ungeneral cases (or even just charitably accept that the meaning is clear even where the vocabulary is not precisely shared).
Cha! Look at me expecting a reasonable stance from supporters of an unreasonable movement.
Do you have any other comment on all those citations in that tumblr post? Other than ‘all those citations were in a _tumblr_ post’, as though truth were less true when linked to from tumblr? Did you read any of it, follow any of the links, grapple with the arguments at all? Or are you with the goddess in this, that you have no desire to examine your orthodoxy thank you very much?
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/685 "2015-07-31T14:35:57Z")
> [@Miller](#):
>
> You need evidence for your position if you expect anyone else to take your ideas seriously. A position arrived at without evidence is prejudice.
No more than I would _need_ evidence for the position that there is no god. Christians might _demand_ evidence, but they’d be wrong to do so - just as you are wrong here. My position, meanwhile, was arrived at with evidence - I posted a lot of links earlier, but nobody seems to have got further than ‘the links to facts and studies and inconvenient truths were in a tumblr post…and besides, I don’t care to examine my own position…and hey guys, doesn’t he smell like poop haha.’
> [@Miller](#):
>
> Where did you get this idea that feminism is the “default”? Is that a claim somebody has made?
From the outraged demands that I produce evidence for not being a [del]nazi[/del] [del]communist[/del] feminist and the repeated implications that I couldn’t possibly support gender equality _without_ being a feminist.
> [@Miller](#):
>
> I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was sarcasm. If you want though, I’m happy to explain to you the incoherence of requesting a cite for a subjective opinion.
Well there’s a lot of subjective opinion that everything I’ve posted here is sarcastic, and I expect there’s some sarcasm there too - but there’s also an amount of shorthand use of a term that can have a very specific meaning, but in this context (and in any reasonable view (by which I mean charitable (by which I don’t mean donating to a registered charity))) means ‘stop assuming your position is a default and show me something that carries any weight at all to justify that assumption’.
> [@Miller](#):
>
> Note, incidentally, that this is not the same as requesting cites for your opinion about feminism. We don’t expect you to cite that it’s “bad,”
Did I say it was “bad”? It doesn’t sound like me, but you did put it in quotes. Could you link to the post, or apologise for the quotes.
> [@Miller](#):
>
> but when you make claims about what other people (namely, feminists) say or do, that’s making a statement of objective fact, and that’s when people want to see some proof that you’re not just making shit up.
Where are these claims about feminist people that might just be shit that I’m making up? I’ve commented directly on what some feminists have said or done right here, where you can see it. If there’s something specific you want addressed, it would make sense to mention it specifically, wouldn’t it? Unless your purpose is merely to imply that I’m just ‘making shit up’.
> [@Miller](#):
>
> So many sources supporting what you say, and you **can’t** name one?
My bolding.
_Didn’t_ name one (or more than one). I’ll give you the benefit of doubt in return, and assume that was an unfortunate error rather than a deliberate attempt to smear. By the by, it seems that part of the problem was that some americans forgot that the internet is international. Any neutral source on UK history will confirm that british suffragettes fought for the right of some women to have the vote, leaving many women and many men without it. We could have cleared that up much sooner if anyone else here was interested in honest debate, rather than just trying to discredit anyone who doesn’t share their orthodoxy.
---
### Author:  [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/686 "2015-07-31T14:43:00Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> Your cite for your opinion that opinions don’t generally require a cite? ‘Generally’ is a useful word, eh?
>
> Is this an american board? I thought it was the world-wide web. Are you mostly american? Who knew, I was responding to posts, rather than people (and addressing those people directly, but cultural standards of courtesy vary, I’m sure. My fault for pointing out that I find the public discussion of other posters in the third person to be at best rude and at worst a form of social bullying - it was bound to encourage those who can only bolster a discredited political movement through bullying tactics). The board doesn’t actually enforce a US-centric posting policy, so far as I’m aware. Has it occurred to you to stop imagining the US is the centre of the world?
>
> That feminism is presented as the default position is evident from the thread and stands as a fact, for which I requested a cite. Or, if you prefer, we can use your useful word and consider it one of those ungeneral cases (or even just charitably accept that the meaning is clear even where the vocabulary is not precisely shared).
>
> Cha! Look at me expecting a reasonable stance from supporters of an unreasonable movement.
>
> Do you have any other comment on all those citations in that tumblr post? Other than ‘all those citations were in a _tumblr_ post’, as though truth were less true when linked to from tumblr? Did you read any of it, follow any of the links, grapple with the arguments at all? Or are you with the goddess in this, that you have no desire to examine your orthodoxy thank you very much?
Who has claimed that the default is feminism? This time the cite is easy, just provide the posts where it was claimed - not implied, not “stands as a fact”, and certainly not inferred by you. If no one presented it as a factual statement, then who do you think is responsible for providing the cite?
I looked through the blog post. There were a lot of links. I didn’t see a single one about UK suffrage, which you [claimed](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18560268&postcount=664) was included. Which link was that again? Referring to a hot mess of links as a reliable citation is a bit like someone saying yes, here is your cite: [www.google.com](http://www.google.com). Everything I have said is supported in there - somewhere.
But my main issue with it being a Tumblr post is your [snarkiness](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18553486&postcount=592) regarding people who get their feminism from Tumblr- but apparently it’s ok if you get your _anti_-feminism from the same source. In that post you mention that you are not an American - but do not make any effort to indicate that the suffrage movement you are describing is specifically not the American movement.
I don’t believe that the U.S. is the center of the world. However, did you read the [registration](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=650726) agreement? With its mentions of US laws? How about scrolling down and seeing the email address listed at the bottom- the domain is the Chicago Reader. Did you really not realize that this board is U.S. based?
ETA: Cha! Apparently I am a terrible bully. Go ahead and report my third person statements for bullying behavior.
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/687 "2015-07-31T15:13:56Z")
> [@raventhief](#):
>
> Who has claimed that the default is feminism?
Who has claimed that I have claimed that anyone has claimed that feminism is the default? Citation needed…
Seriously though, you’re just providing further evidence that most pro-feminist posters here are more interested in undermining anti-feminist posters and steering the conversation down pointless side-tracks than they are in discussing the pros and cons of feminism (indeed, at least one has stated outright that they have no interest in engaging with arguments that challenge their orthodoxy).
> [@raventhief](#):
>
> I looked through the blog post. There were a lot of links. I didn’t see a single one about UK suffrage, which you [claimed](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18560268&postcount=664) was included. Which link was that again? Referring to a hot mess of links as a reliable citation is a bit like someone saying yes, here is your cite: [www.google.com](http://www.google.com). Everything I have said is supported in there - somewhere.
Well, it’s not _quite_ as big as google, is it? Get back to me when you’ve followed that female anti-feminist’s argument, checking such citations as you feel the need to, and we can celebrate your new-found freedom…
> [@raventhief](#):
>
> But my main issue with it being a Tumblr post is your [snarkiness](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18553486&postcount=592) regarding people who get their feminism from Tumblr- but apparently it’s ok if you get your _anti_-feminism from the same source.
No, I ‘snarked’ \ about ‘tumblr feminism’, which is a thing, or at least a handy shorthand for a thing. Your claim that I ‘got’ my anti-feminism from tumblr is unsupported and, funnily enough, outright wrong. I got it from twenty years of being a feminist, in a feminist heartland. I just find that particular tumblr post (with, let’s remember, its very many links to rigorous studies, facts and truths) a very convenient way of passing on…well, _facts_, to people who’ve clearly not bothered to examine or question the unfactual precepts of their orthodoxy.
> [@raventhief](#):
>
> In that post you mention that you are not an American - but do not make any effort to indicate that the suffrage movement you are describing is specifically not the American movement.
The one rather does suggest the other, don’t you think? Funny how you don’t note that none of the americans cleared up that misunderstanding either - although it is fair to say I could have guessed that americans were likely to assume everything was about america… You did all say you were americans, and specifically talking about the american movement, right? No…? Have a word with yourselves…
> [@raventhief](#):
>
> I don’t believe that the U.S. is the center of the world. However, did you read the [registration](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=650726) agreement? With its mentions of US laws? How about scrolling down and seeing the email address listed at the bottom- the domain is the Chicago Reader. Did you really not realize that this board is U.S. based?
Who reads registration agreements? I certainly haven’t made sure to check out the email address - I’ve not felt the need to send an email to the board, so it’s passed unnoticed. I may have been aware that it’s based in america (Chicago, I think? Or at least, it started there?), but you must surely be aware that the internet is international and so is the make-up of the totality of posters here.
> [@raventhief](#):
>
> ETA: Cha! Apparently I am a terrible bully. Go ahead and report my third person statements for bullying behavior.
I know, I know, of course you don’t care that your behaviour is tantamount to bullying. You’re entitled, after all - I’m a heathen and nobody you care about cares how you treat heathens. We’d need a new thread, elsewhere, to discuss why talking publically about someone in the third person, in their virtual presence, is an unpleasant and discourteous practice, but even then I expect you’d rely on the ‘heathen’ argument to excuse yourself. Courtesy is for people, not sub-human afeminists, eh?
---
### Author:  [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/688 "2015-07-31T15:19:53Z")
You just said (and objected to the fact) that feminism is being presented as the default. Now you’re being cute about whether or not you’re saying that or have any reason to say it, while at the same time accusing other people of “pointless sidetracks.”
How is it possible to exist in a state where you think this is worth your time, let alone anyone else’s?
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/689 "2015-07-31T15:21:36Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> [and for those who can’t get this particular bee out of their bonnet, I have to say I’m struggling to find a neutral historical record that _doesn’t_ quite clearly state that the suffragettes attained votes for women _over 30_, ie not all women, at a time when not all men had the vote.
So, a timeline, if I have this right:
Some men had the vote in the UK.
UK Suffragettes thought some women should have the vote.
Some UK women then got the vote.
Therefore suffragettes are to blame because not all women and not all men had the vote in the UK.
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/690 "2015-07-31T17:02:06Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#):
>
> You just said (and objected to the fact) that feminism is being presented as the default. Now you’re being cute about whether or not you’re saying that or have any reason to say it, while at the same time accusing other people of “pointless sidetracks.”
>
> How is it possible to exist in a state where you think this is worth your time, let alone anyone else’s?
I also made mention, obliquely, of how some people introduce words like ‘cute’, which serve to show that they’re less interested in weighing up feminism than they are in shutting down or discrediting voices speaking against it.
I don’t believe I’ve set the tone, here, whether you call it ‘cute’ or ‘snark’ or (still without example or substantiation) ‘making shit up’. Neither do I believe that I’ve been ‘cute’ (whatever you think that means) about whether or not I’ve said feminism is presented by many posters as a default (and that I must, therefore, justify being afeminist). I’ve said it, clearly and distinctly. Nor should there be any doubt that I have said there is reason to have said that.
You apparently think your post was worth your time. Someone said several pages ago ‘Can’t this just stop now?’ (or somesuch) and yet she keeps wasting her time too. I imagine we all do lots of things which others would consider a waste of time. You, for instance, have contributed yet another post about _me_ rather than about feminism (whether pro or anti) - and it’s yet another post that appears to be designed to shut down debate by trying to shame me into silence. You know you can silence me yourself, right? It would seem to me a more appropriate response than your post addressing me, which was almost certain to garner a response. Is it that you plan to later hold _this_ post up as an example of something or other? Do you mind if I hold your post up as an example of how feminists avoid discussing the flaws of feminism in favour of discussing the flaws of its detractors?
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/691 "2015-07-31T17:07:18Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> So, a timeline, if I have this right:
Ah, the rule of ‘so’: ‘so, this strawman is what you’re really saying, right?’
Wrong.
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> Some men had the vote in the UK.
> UK Suffragettes thought some women should have the vote.
> Some UK women then got the vote.
> Therefore suffragettes are to blame because not all women and not all men had the vote in the UK.
Two claims were made (I don’t recall in which order). I certainly claimed that (UK) suffragettes didn’t win the vote for all women. They didn’t, that’s an historical fact. Some people claimed that suffragettes weren’t a narrow group of self-interested middle-class white women and they fought for the vote for all. It seems that some of them meant US suffragettes, and I can’t speak to that topic, though I will ask if they won the vote for black women?
Nobody, by the way, has claimed that “suffragettes are to blame because not all women and not all men had the vote in the UK”. Here, have some more of that benefit of the doubt…you probably didn’t introduce that dishonestly, it was just a foolish error. Take your pick…
Some time back you made a couple of posts expressing exasperation that this thread was still running. Then you kept posting in it. How can we help you stop?
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/692 "2015-07-31T17:18:45Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> Some people claimed that suffragettes weren’t a narrow group of self-interested middle-class white women and they fought for the vote for all. It seems that some of them meant US suffragettes, and I can’t speak to that topic, though I will ask if they won the vote for black women?
Yes, though many local laws in the southern US (primarily or exclusively, I’m not sure) prevented many black folks from exercising the franchise. Black men had the right to vote (though those rights were under attack) because of the 15th Amendment. Black and white women gained the right under the 19th.
The women’s suffrage movement in the US had a major split with the passage of the 15th as some women thought they should force the 15th to include women and some thought that such an attempt would hold back passage of the 15th and passage of the 15th was too important.
---
### Author:  [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/693 "2015-07-31T17:29:09Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> No, I ‘snarked’ \ about ‘tumblr feminism’, which is a thing, or at least a handy shorthand for a thing. Your claim that I ‘got’ my anti-feminism from tumblr is unsupported and, funnily enough, outright wrong. I got it from twenty years of being a feminist, in a feminist heartland. I just find that particular tumblr post (with, let’s remember, its very many links to rigorous studies, facts and truths) a very convenient way of passing on…well, _facts_, to people who’ve clearly not bothered to examine or question the unfactual precepts of their orthodoxy.
And I specifically told you I didn’t get my feminism from tumblr, and mentioned my education, and you brushed it off. I also mentioned your snark. Which you denied and now acknowledge. You are a hard person to have a conversation with because your positions seem to change with every post.
> [@](#):
>
> The one rather does suggest the other, don’t you think? Funny how you don’t note that none of the americans cleared up that misunderstanding either - although it is fair to say I could have guessed that americans were likely to assume everything was about america… You did all say you were americans, and specifically talking about the american movement, right? No…? Have a word with yourselves…
in that same exchange, I asked you if you were talking about the American movement in the context of the 19th amendment and you said if I had to ask for clarification,
> [@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.
OK. So not a very pleasant response, but clearly we have long ago addressed that you’re not American. And that is when we started asking you for cites on your non-American suffragettes. We can in fact wrap our brains around the fact that other countries exist.
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> I know, I know, of course you don’t care that your behavior is tantamount to bullying. You’re entitled, after all - I’m a heathen and nobody you care about cares how you treat heathens. We’d need a new thread, elsewhere, to discuss why talking publicly about someone in the third person, in their virtual presence, is an unpleasant and discourteous practice, but even then I expect you’d rely on the ‘heathen’ argument to excuse yourself. Courtesy is for people, not sub-human afeminists, eh?
It’s not the fact that you’re “afeminist”, which you STILL have not explained. **LinusK** at least tried to explain his position. It’s the fact that your posts are illogical and incoherent. The rest of why you may feel “heathenized” can be covered in the Pit thread.
---
### Author:  [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/694 "2015-07-31T17:41:46Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> I also made mention, obliquely, of how some people introduce words like ‘cute’, which serve to show that they’re less interested in weighing up feminism than they are in shutting down or discrediting voices speaking against it.
>
> I don’t believe I’ve set the tone, here, whether you call it ‘cute’ or ‘snark’ or (still without example or substantiation) ‘making shit up’. Neither do I believe that I’ve been ‘cute’ (whatever you think that means) about whether or not I’ve said feminism is presented by many posters as a default (and that I must, therefore, justify being afeminist). I’ve said it, clearly and distinctly. Nor should there be any doubt that I have said there is reason to have said that.
>
> You apparently think your post was worth your time. Someone said several pages ago ‘Can’t this just stop now?’ (or somesuch) and yet she keeps wasting her time too. I imagine we all do lots of things which others would consider a waste of time. You, for instance, have contributed yet another post about _me_ rather than about feminism (whether pro or anti) - and it’s yet another post that appears to be designed to shut down debate by trying to shame me into silence. You know you can silence me yourself, right? It would seem to me a more appropriate response than your post addressing me, which was almost certain to garner a response. Is it that you plan to later hold _this_ post up as an example of something or other? Do you mind if I hold your post up as an example of how feminists avoid discussing the flaws of feminism in favour of discussing the flaws of its detractors?
What other people are not missing here, and you either are or are not, which are the same in the end, is that you’re the one making this about yourself, repeatedly. You make an assertion, somebody challenges whether there are _any grounds for the assertion at all_, and you bloviate about these abstract principles of debate for a few paragraphs. Meanwhile, the people reading are aware that your initial assertion remains unsubstantiated and unreturned to by you. What makes your devotion to this stuff a curiosity isn’t that the topic is worthless or insignificant; it’s that there’s literally zero chance anybody could fall for the rhetorical tactics you’re using, and people keep pointing them out, and you just don’t care!
So do I mind whether you hold my post up? No. It would be very hard for me to convince myself it mattered either way.
Do you mind addressing why women didn’t have the right to vote as of the time voting was a thing that existed, if society has always operated to the benefit of women and to the detriment of men, or who precisely has suggested feminism is the default, etc. etc.?
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/695 "2015-07-31T17:48:14Z")
> [@ddsun](#):
>
> And I specifically told you I didn’t get my feminism from tumblr, and mentioned my education, and you brushed it off. I also mentioned your snark. Which you denied and now acknowledge. You are a hard person to have a conversation with because your positions seem to change with every post.
Well the important position hasn’t changed, has it? It’s just that you don’t want to talk about _that_, you want to talk about _me_, with an obvious agenda (as noted frequently above).
I’m not sure I| ever accused you of getting your feminism from tumblr (and I note that there is no link or quote), though it’s possible you’ve both misinterpreted my use of the phrase ‘tumblr feminism’ _and_ missed my explanation of same.
As for ‘snark’, I certainly said I found the _word_ distasteful. You have to stretch a point to say I have denied the sense of it, or indeed acknowledge it now (the ‘marks’ I used around it are often used to distance oneself from a word or phrase even while using it. Isn’t communication wonderful, there’s so much to learn, so much nuance that is lacking in something solid like maths or physics. It’s almost as though we were all _people_, and worse, people from different countries and different cultures.
> [@ddsun](#):
>
> in that same exchange, I asked you if you were talking about the American movement in the context of the 19th amendment and you said if I had to ask for clarification,
I note you didn’t include your post that I was responding to, choosing instead to claim that it didn’t deserve the response it got. I’m uninterested in hunting it down, but I expect it did warrant the response it got…not least because you didn’t quote it.
> [@ddsun](#):
>
> OK. So not a very pleasant response, but clearly we have long ago addressed that you’re not American. And that is when we started asking you for cites on your non-American suffragettes. We can in fact wrap our brains around the fact that other countries exist.
We have also long ago (and very often) addressed that I’m not very pleasant. What’s your point? I’ve also addressed the request for cites. Those that are too lazy to do some simple reading about the history are welcome to pretend it never happened because I won’t choose a particular site to cite. Why not make the claim that it wasn’t as I stated? You can bet I’d fetch a cite then, eh 😉
> [@ddsun](#):
>
> It’s not the fact that you’re “afeminist”, which you STILL have not explained.
Sorry, what do you mean by ‘explained’? I’m not sure I need to explain why I don’t share your orthodoxy, though thanks for affirming that you at least think it a default, and that I need to ‘explain’ why I don’t subscribe to it.
I’ve certainly made enough comments relating to my understanding of feminism, my experience of it, and my criticism of it. There’s also the now-infamous tumblr post, which neatly collates much of what I would or could say. Did none of that ‘explain’ anything to you? Perhaps you could be more specific? Both as to why I should have to ‘explain’ it and what it is you want explained. Bear in mind I’m likely to point to that tumblr post - it’s no longer than a full explanation would be from me, so when you’re done with giving it an honest reading, let me know. I’ll buy you a pint to celebrate _your_ new-found freedom.
> [@ddsun](#):
>
> **LinusK** at least tried to explain his position. It’s the fact that your posts are illogical and incoherent. The rest of why you may feel “heathenized” can be covered in the Pit thread.
We’ve also covered illogicality and incoherence (why are you soliciting responses from someone you imply can only be incoherent? Why are you arguing with someone you imply can only be illogical? It all sounds illogical to me, but do feel free to explain, with logic).
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/696 "2015-07-31T17:49:06Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> OK. Rebuttal A: do your homework. The suffragettes and suffragists fought for the right of privileged upper- and middle-class women to have the vote, leaving most men and women without it.
> [@ddsun](#):
>
> To clarify - Are you stating that the 19th Amendment, which guaranteed all American women the right to vote, only gave that right to some American women?
>
> Second - if you’re debating that 100 years ago right to vote advocates (clearly only some of them, see my first point) only felt that some women were entitled to vote, you could make exactly the same point about men. And how is that relevant to this thread anyway?
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> Do you have any evidence of this? Any place where a suffragette expressed a desire for women to be given the right to vote and simultaneously expressed a desire to see property used as a gatepost to voting?
> [@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.
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#):
>
> Why were suffragettes/ists necessary in the first place?
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> While you’re here, we’ve established that suff’s (let’s save some typing) were ‘necessary’ (for a definition of necessary that is as inaccurate as a feminist definition of equality) because some women wanted to have more power than other women and men. What of it?
> [@ddsun](#):
>
> Well, as others have asked you, where exactly did this happen? Who are these saffragettes?
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> And yet you’ve not heard of the suffragettes? Well, there’s been a lot of history. You’ve heard of research, though, right?
> [@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.
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> 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.
> [@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.
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> 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’.
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> I think you’re all rather missing the point. I no more need ‘evidence’ for my position than an atheist needs to provide evidence for an absence of any deity. Granted, some of you have skills at steering or redirecting debate (though most of what has passed for debate here has been more or less thinly veiled insults), but let’s get it back on track, eh?
>
> \
>
> [and for those who can’t get this particular bee out of their bonnet, I have to say I’m struggling to find a neutral historical record that _doesn’t_ quite clearly state that the suffragettes attained votes for women _over 30_, ie not all women, at a time when not all men had the vote. Providing ‘citations’ for people who haven’t fact-checked their orthodoxy strikes me as a waste of energy. We all believe what we want to believe.]
> [@Miller](#):
>
> So many sources supporting what you say, and you can’t name one?
> [@raventhief](#):
>
> Yes, I am guessing that he is referring to the UK suffrage movement. On a US board. To a largely American group. Without ever specifying that he is not talking about the same group of suffragettes that everyone else is talking about. Perhaps buried somewhere in that Tumblr post of citations, it indicates that.
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> Is this an american board? I thought it was the world-wide web. Are you mostly american? Who knew, I was responding to posts, rather than people (and addressing those people directly, but cultural standards of courtesy vary, I’m sure.
>
> \
>
> Do you have any other comment on all those citations in that tumblr post? Other than ‘all those citations were in a _tumblr_ post’, as though truth were less true when linked to from tumblr? Did you read any of it, follow any of the links, grapple with the arguments at all? Or are you with the goddess in this, that you have no desire to examine your orthodoxy thank you very much?
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> No more than I would _need_ evidence for the position that there is no god. Christians might _demand_ evidence, but they’d be wrong to do so - just as you are wrong here. My position, meanwhile, was arrived at with evidence - I posted a lot of links earlier, but nobody seems to have got further than ‘the links to facts and studies and inconvenient truths were in a tumblr post…and besides, I don’t care to examine my own position…and hey guys, doesn’t he smell like poop haha.’
> \
>
> By the by, it seems that part of the problem was that some americans forgot that the internet is international. Any neutral source on UK history will confirm that british suffragettes fought for the right of some women to have the vote, leaving many women and many men without it. We could have cleared that up much sooner if anyone else here was interested in honest debate, rather than just trying to discredit anyone who doesn’t share their orthodoxy.
> [@raventhief](#):
>
> I looked through the blog post. There were a lot of links. I didn’t see a single one about UK suffrage, which you [claimed](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18560268&postcount=664) was included. Which link was that again? Referring to a hot mess of links as a reliable citation is a bit like someone saying yes, here is your cite: [www.google.com](http://www.google.com). Everything I have said is supported in there - somewhere.
>
> But my main issue with it being a Tumblr post is your [snarkiness](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18553486&postcount=592) regarding people who get their feminism from Tumblr- but apparently it’s ok if you get your _anti_-feminism from the same source. In that post you mention that you are not an American - but do not make any effort to indicate that the suffrage movement you are describing is specifically not the American movement.
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> So, a timeline, if I have this right:
>
> Some men had the vote in the UK.
> UK Suffragettes thought some women should have the vote.
> Some UK women then got the vote.
> Therefore suffragettes are to blame because not all women and not all men had the vote in the UK.
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> Wrong.
>
> Two claims were made (I don’t recall in which order). I certainly claimed that (UK) suffragettes didn’t win the vote for all women. They didn’t, that’s an historical fact. Some people claimed that suffragettes weren’t a narrow group of self-interested middle-class white women and they fought for the vote for all. It seems that some of them meant US suffragettes, and I can’t speak to that topic, though I will ask if they won the vote for black women?
>
> Nobody, by the way, has claimed that “suffragettes are to blame because not all women and not all men had the vote in the UK”. Here, have some more of that benefit of the doubt…you probably didn’t introduce that dishonestly, it was just a foolish error. Take your pick…
>
> Some time back you made a couple of posts expressing exasperation that this thread was still running. Then you kept posting in it. How can we help you stop?
Here, as far as I can tell, is a compilation of all of the suffrage posts. It’s clear from the outset that ddsun was asking about American women. JoW sees that, says he’s not American, then leaps right into talking again about suffrage without any identifiers as to what country he means, which is at best ambiguous.
Then comes this comment:
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#):
>
> While you’re here, we’ve established that suff’s (let’s save some typing) were ‘necessary’ (for a definition of necessary that is as inaccurate as a feminist definition of equality) because some women wanted to have more power than other women and men. What of it?
Lots of interesting sleights of hand going on in this post. “We’ve established,” trying to make it sound like there’s been some definitive evidence offered instead of assertions that were apparently about a country outside of the frame of reference of at least one person who identified her frame. Then saying it would be “inaccurate” to call suffragists “necessary.” Then saying the suffragists wanted “more power than other women” and (my favorite) adding “and men” in a nice little ambiguous way that could be read as “more power than other women and other men” or “more power than other women and more power than men.”
Later, JoW takes issue with my statement that he is blaming suffragists for women over 30 who apparently met some property threshold (I am not familiar with suffrage in the UK) getting the vote before women or men under 30 or women or men who do not meet the threshold. But in that previous thread he said that they wanted “more power than other women and men.” I think it’s fair to say that when someone strives for what they want and gets what they want, they are responsible for the striving and the getting.
In addition, the idea that if you try to gain equality for a group (both men AND women able to vote, but with the same restrictions) the fact of those restrictions means what about your attempt? Nothing. In the US framework, would we say that suffragists who did not try to hitch women’s suffrage to the 15th Amendment wagon therefore did not care about women’s suffrage? No. We would say that they likely were willing to take what they could get instead of swinging for the fences and missing. Again, the UK situation and the US situation were not the same. Though voting for women on a national scale appears to have happened at roughly the same time in both countries, the paths were not the same.
And, this still leaves open the question about why, in a world so beautifully tailored for the whim and wish of the woman, campaigns for women’s suffrage were necessary. And no, I won’t put scare quotes around necessary. It was fucking necessary.
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/697 "2015-07-31T18:02:03Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> But in that previous thread he said that they wanted “more power than other women and men.”
This should have been “in that previous post” not previous thread.
---
### Author:  [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/698 "2015-07-31T18:12:02Z")
Yep. He moved the goalposts just about immediately, a couple of posters kicked the ball right through his goalposts notwithstanding that he was moving them, and he’s been arguing about whether or not the football was underinflated for a couple million posts.
---
### Author:  [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/699 "2015-07-31T18:13:41Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> Here, as far as I can tell, is a compilation of all of the suffrage posts. It’s clear from the outset that ddsun was asking about American women. JoW sees that, says he’s not American, then leaps right into talking again about suffrage without any identifiers as to what country he means, which is at best ambiguous.
Wow, like I said, we all do things that others might perceive as a waste of time…
I am at best ambiguous, there, I’ve said it. It’s out. I seem to recall I saw ddsun’s post as being an example of american self-centeredness - he assumed I was talking about america. You’re right, I didn’t then point out which country I _was_ talking about, although a lot of posters seem to have missed that it _wasn’t_ america. None of them asked either, did you? It certainly would have helped if I’d been less UK-centric, I can’t deny that, but to be spending time collating posts to make such a tiny point about a poster and not the topic establishes again that the pro-feminists aren’t interested in discussing the actual topic _and_ that your expressed desire, long ago, that this thread should end was… let’s say “at best ambiguous”.
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> Then comes this comment:
> […]
> Lots of interesting sleights of hand going on in this post.
It can’t be sleight of hand, I’m “incoherent”. It must just be clumsy fumbling, surely? Nice prestidigitation slipping in another loaded phrase though, well done.
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> “We’ve established,” trying to make it sound like there’s been some definitive evidence offered instead of assertions that were apparently about a country outside of the frame of reference of at least one person who identified her frame.
And I identified that it was outside that frame. At the time, and in direct response. So that’s all good then. The post actually says that we’d established that votes for women was necessary - and we do agree on that (I’ll get on to the ‘necessary’). So no sleight of hand there, just honest agreement.
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> Then saying it would be “inaccurate” to call suffragists “necessary.”
Blame ‘incoherence’, if you like, it’s water of a duck’s back, but it’s not suffragists that I described as ‘necessary’, it was votes for women.
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> Then saying the suffragists wanted “more power than other women”
They campaigned for more power than other women (and some other men). When they’d achieved what they wanted, they had more power than some other women and stopped campaigning.
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> and (my favorite) adding “and men” in a nice little ambiguous way that could be read as “more power than other women and other men” or “more power than other women and more power than men.”
I suppose you _could_ read it like that, if you wanted (just like “women get 77% of the pay men get - men and women should get equal pay for equal work”, as if the two were connected). It wouldn’t really stand though would it - a vote is a vote, regardless of gender. I get that you want to portray me as incoherent, illogical and possibly insane but you’re really stretching it here. How could some women getting the vote give them more power than all men? What nonsense do you propose I might have used to support that?
In writing, you’ll often hear the dictum that your ‘favourite’ element is probably the one you should put a rule through before publishing. It holds true here…
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> Later, JoW takes issue with my statement that he is blaming suffragists for women over 30 who apparently met some property threshold (I am not familiar with suffrage in the UK) getting the vote before women or men under 30 or women or men who do not meet the threshold. But in that previous thread he said that they wanted “more power than other women and men.” I think it’s fair to say that when someone strives for what they want and gets what they want, they are responsible for the striving and the getting.
Yes, in that regard at least they are to ‘blame’ for not campaigning for an extension to all adults. But ‘blame’ wasn’t really the point of my remarks, nor am I concerned with it now.
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> And, this still leaves open the question about why, in a world so beautifully tailored for the whim and wish of the woman,
Is it?? Who said that? Not me, I’m pretty sure.
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> campaigns for women’s suffrage were necessary. And no, I won’t put scare quotes around necessary. It was fucking necessary.
No scare quotes, but a soupcon of profanity. It was ‘necessary’ _if_ you want to reach that goal, though that’s a circular argument. There’s no intrinsic sense in which it was _necessary_, though many sense in which it was laudable and overdue.
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2015, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/700 "2015-07-31T18:20:59Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#):
>
> Yep. He moved the goalposts just about immediately, a couple of posters kicked the ball right through his goalposts notwithstanding that he was moving them, and he’s been arguing about whether or not the football was underinflated for a couple million posts.
Based on those first few posts, I don’t have any doubt that he was deliberately trying to be as ambiguous as he could about what precisely he was referencing. Providing clear cites, making sure cultural and country references are clear once you see that someone is not sure what the frame is, reiterating points clearly, etc.
I went back through the posts in case I and other posters had missed the relevant details that would have made things clear, but those details are simply not there. “I’m not American” is not a sufficient notice that nothing else refers to America. Too many non-Americans have too much to say about America to make such an assumption.
We’re left with someone who had a weak point about an irrelevant topic that he refused to clarify and disambiguate. And because it’s the dope, we spend hundreds of posts on it. Whee! 😃
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=34)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=36)