# 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:** 38
### Author:  [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2015, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/741 "2015-08-01T02:21:30Z")
camille: I said I’d get back to this post, so I’m doing it.
IPV is a controversial topic within academia. As one example:
> [@](#):
>
> Symbolic violence in the field of domestic and partner violence research has a long history. It began in 1975 with the pioneering National Family Violence Survey. Using a broad measure of physical violence, that survey found that roughly 12% of both men and women physically assaulted their partners.^ One lead author of the study, who identifies himself as a feminist^, ignored the implications of these statistics and initially focused on male domination of women as the cause of partner violence.^ **His female scholarly colleague, however, in 1977 wrote a scholarly article, “The Battered Husband Syndrome.” That article explored the characteristics of men victims of partner violence. In response to her article, the author received a deluge of scholarly abuse, as well as a bomb threat at her daughter’s wedding**.^
>
> All three lead authors of the 1975 study suffered-long lasting personal attacks as result of their finding of gender symmetry in domestic violence. One of the lead authors more than two decades later observed:
>
> **“Our finding that the rate of female-to-male family violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long-lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to present. {The female lead author} received the brunt of the attacks—individuals wrote and called her university urging that she be denied tenure; calls were made and letters were written to government agencies urging that her grant funding be rescinded. All three of us became ‘non persons’ among advocates. Invitations to conferences dwindled and dried up. Advocacy literature and feminist writing would cite our research, but not attribute it to us. Librarians publicly stated they would not order or shelve our books.”**
There’s also the [National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey](http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf)
They found, on pages 44 and 43 respectively, that:
> [@](#):
>
> Approximately 1 in 4 men in the United States (25.7% or about 29 million) has been slapped, pushed or shoved by an intimate partner in his lifetime, and **4.5% or approxi- mately 5 million men, reported experiencing these behaviors in the 12 months prior to taking the survey.**
and
> [@](#):
>
> Nearly 1 in 3 women (30.3%) in the United States has been slapped, pushed or shoved by an intimate partner at some point in her lifetime. This translates to approxi- mately 36.2 million women in the United States. **An estimated 3.6%, or approximately 4.3 million women, reported experiencing these behaviors in the 12 months prior to taking the survey.**
In the same survey, they found that 686,000 women had been raped by an intimate partner in the last 12 months (0.6%). No men had been raped, because of how they defined “rape”, but 586,000 men had been “made to penetrate” (0.5%). Under “other sexual violence,” they found that 2,747,000 female victims (2.3%) and 2,793,000 male victims (2.5%). These finding were not highlighted, the way others were, but they’re there.
And going back to [robertliguori’s post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18529871&postcount=146), ([Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend? Cause, Uh We Have](http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have)) there’s this study:
> [@](#):
>
> Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. This finding surprised Whitaker and his colleagues, they admitted in their study report.
There’s also this, from The Atlantic: [Why Do Some Feminists Get Uneasy When Women Make Progress?](http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/why-do-some-feminists-get-uneasy-when-women-make-progress/265171/) Liza Mundy wrote:
> [@](#):
>
> Women are becoming better and better educated and earning more and more money—which can be problematic for people invested in the idea that women are always behind.
>
> * * *
>
> I wrote about these trends in a book, The Richer Sex, which was published in March. In it, I argued that female breadwinning could someday become the norm. In this country, as in many others, the rise in wives’ earnings relative to husband’s is striking…
>
> I welcomed discussion, but what’s been interesting to see that the only pushback has come from a feminist academic establishment that you’d think would be happy or at least intrigued by what’s going on. Instead, responding to my book as well as Hanna Rosin’s The End of Men, a number of feminists have argued that the female-breadwinning trend is not occurring or is minimally important. These voices— Evergreen State College’s Stephanie Coontz, Nancy Folbre at UMass Amherst, University of Maryland’s Philip Cohen—are part a feminist establishment that I deeply respect, but which I confess I have begun to think of as the Fempire, a group that includes some women’s rights advocates and academics employed in those very institutions that are becoming predominately female.
Anyway, the point of all that is:
1.) Academia is a stronghold of feminism.
2.) Some feminists are deeply investing the women are victims/men are victimizers stereotype.
3.) We (both men and women) are instinctively more concerned about violence against women, than violence against men.
To get to your post:
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post
> > Hi Lamia.
>
> I’m not Lamia, but I was foolish enough to take a close look at your claims.
> [@](#):
>
> Originally Posted by LinusK View Post
> If you’ll look back to my original post about this subject, you’ll see that the link was to a site run by the Feminist Majority Foundation:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Although many studies report that men and women use physical violence at equal rates within intimate relationships,7, 8 this fails to take into account the nature of the violence and the level of fear and injury experienced by each party.
>
> Read your quote again, because it doesn’t say what you seem to think it says.
I think it says: _“Although many studies report that men and women use physical violence at equal rates within intimate relationships,7, 8 this fails to take into account the nature of the violence and the level of fear and injury experienced by each party.”_
> [@](#):
>
> It basically debunks your claim. The source goes on to say:
> Quote:
> Several studies document that women experience higher levels of fear than men do in domestic violence situations.9, 10, 11, 12, 13 This is perhaps because women in domestic violence situations are much more likely to be injured – and injured severely – than men are.8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
>
> It also says earlier on:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Although men are more likely to be victims of violent crime overall, a recent study by the U.S. Department of Justice reports that "intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women."2
> > Of those victimized by an intimate partner, 85% are women and 15% are men.2 In other words, women are 5 to 8 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.3
> > The vast majority of domestic assaults are committed by men. Even when men are victimized, 10% are assaulted by another man. In contrast, only 2% of women who are victimized are assaulted by another woman.2
I know it says that. I read it. It’s written by an advocacy organization: my surprise was they admitted that _“men and women use physical violence at equal rates within intimate relationships”_ at all, (something I give them credit for) not that they went on to minimize it. Anyway, the point was that even some feminists admit that women use violence in intimate relationships as often as men. Not to argue they thought it was important.
I’ll also note that Dept. of Justice statistics are problematic, to the extent they rely on convictions. The judicial system is heavily biased in favor women, and against men, particularly in the area of domestic violence. It’s a bit like arguing that blacks are more prone to violence than whites, because of convictions. If you think that whites are favored in the judicial system (and they are, though not as much as women), conviction rates aren’t a meaningful comparison.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post
> > There’s also this: CDC Study: More Men Than Women Victims of Partner Abuse.
> > Quote:
> > More men than women were victims of intimate partner physical violence within the past year, according to a national study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Justice. According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (hereinafter NISVS) released in December, 2011, within the last 12 months an estimated 5,365,000 men and 4,741,000 women were victims of intimate partner physical violence.
>
> This quote is not taken directly from the CDC study it refers to. I checked out the actual study, and those claims are not there. The site you link to is listed by the SPLC as a “misogyny” site:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > SAVE Services
> >
> > The acronym in SAVE Services stands for Stop Abusive and Violent Environments; “Protecting Victims, Stopping False Allegations, Ending Abuse” is its tagline. In practice, that means lobbying to roll back services for victims of domestic abuse and penalties for their tormentors, while working to return the focus to the “true victims of abuse” — the falsely accused. The site trumpets as a “key fact” that “[f]emale initiation of partner violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of subsequent violence,” even though a study shows that approximately twice as many women as men are injured during incidents of domestic violence.
I don’t know anything about SAVE Services, or the SPLC. If it’s one advocacy site calling another one a hate group, it’s not very meaningful to me. Name calling is common on the internet, particularly among political enemies. The site looked legit when I looked at it. However, I’ll consider this one “debunked” until or unless I have time to check it out.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > > [@](#):
> > > >
> > > > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post
> > > >
> > > > > [@](#):
> > > > >
> > > > > And this: FEMALE PERPETRATION OF VIOLENCE IN HETEROSEXUAL INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS: ADOLESCENCE THROUGH ADULTHOOD
> > > >
> > > > Quote:
> > > > In recent years, researchers have begun to extend this body of research to examine female perpetration of violence in intimate relationships. There is increasing evidence to suggest that women commit as much or more IPV as men
> >
> > From the same cite:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > To date, most studies on IPV have focused on the victimization of women and girls rather than their male counterparts. This is due to the fact that a greater proportion of women report experiencing IPV; women are victimized at about five times the rate of men (Rennison & Welchans, 2000). Similarly, females accounted for 84.3% of spouse abuse victims and 85.9% of victims of violence between boy/girlfriends between 1998 and 2002 (Durose et al., 2005). Male-perpetrated IPV has also been shown to be more injurious for women and result in more severe short and long term sequalae (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Consequently, women are also more likely to be killed as a result of IPV. In 2004, 32.7% of female homicide victims were killed by an intimate partner, whereas, only 3.1% of male homicides were committed by female intimate partners (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006).
>
> However, I will look at the study more closely since it is available.
Ok. I don’t know if you’re saying this is debunked or not.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post
> > And this: Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review.
> > Quote:
> > Meta-analyses of sex differences in physical aggression to heterosexual partners and in its physical consequences are reported. Women were slightly more likely (d = -.05) than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.
>
> There was only an abstract available for this study, but here is a review from another researcher:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > J. Archer’s (2000) conclusion that women engage in slightly more physical aggression than men in intimate relationships but sustain more injuries is reasonable in representative samples. However, his conclusions will provoke negative reactions because they do not fit with the data and belief that men are generally more aggressive than women. In addition, they are incompatible with observations of professionals who serve battered women. Basically, the meta-analytic conclusion about aggression cannot be generalized to samples of physically abusive men and their partners. Nonetheless, the studies reviewed by Archer provide convincing data that physical aggression by women must be taken seriously if there is a sincere desire to prevent partner abuse. Are women really more aggressive than men in intimate relationships?
> > Comment on Archer (2000) [Psychol Bull. 2000]
Criticism of academic studies by other academics is common, even in relatively non-political topics. I will say this one appears relatively tame. I’ll note that he or she refers to the “belief that men are generally more aggressive than women”. What’s the point of doing research, if not to examine whether “belief” is consistent with what’s real?
He or she also refers to “observations of professionals who serve battered women”. Well, it’s not surprising that a group devoted to serving battered women (not men) would have a skewed perspective, is it?
> [@](#):
>
> Originally Posted by LinusK View Post
> I realize that the idea that only men hit, and not women, is part of some feminists’ worldview, but the reality is different.
> [@](#):
>
> Has anyone here made the claim that “only men hit, and not women”?
It’s true, I was engaging in hyperbole. You got me there.
> [@](#):
>
> You’re fighting a strawman, in some cases with unvetted cites from dubious sources.
You’ve said that one of them is dubious. You haven’t said the others are.
And what I’m fighting is not a strawman: it’s the idea that violence in intimate relationships is perpetrated mainly by men. It’s such a commonly held assumption, it amounts to a stereotype - one, I’m arguing - is wrong.
> [@](#):
>
> Having said that, I will agree that the numbers are high enough that there should be more awareness and facilities for men who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. When I was active as an advocate, we did have such an awareness program, and we had male advocates on call for male victims, should they prefer speaking to another man. I don’t know who these anonymous facilities are who are allegedly ridiculing and turning male victims away, so it’s difficult to address these allegations.
I’m seeing you addressed 4 of the cites from [my post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18556624&postcount=618). The one (or two, depending on how you count them) are:
[Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships:
Part 1. Rates of Male and Female Victimization](http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/pdf/PASK.Tables2.Revised.pdf)
> [@](#):
>
> Overall, results indicated that physical IPV [Intimate Partner Violence] victimization is prominent among men and women in heterosexual relationships. Across all studies included in this review, approximately one in four women (23.1%) and one in five men (19.3%) experienced physical violence in an intimate relationship
And this: [Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships:
Part 2. Rates of Male and Female Perpetration](http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/pdf/PASK.Tables2.Revised.pdf)
> [@](#):
>
> Consistent with prior reviews, rates of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women generally were more similar than they were different, with slightly rates for women than for men (pooled prevalence for female perpetration = 28.3% and male perpetration = 21.6%).
Anyway, that was exhausting. I wish to God this board allowed nested quotes. Doing it manually is time-consuming and frustrating.
---
### Author:  [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2015, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/742 "2015-08-01T06:27:12Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> camille: I said I’d get back to this post, so I’m doing it.
I’m not sure if you read my two later posts, [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18563152&postcount=679), and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18563213&postcount=680), where I go into more detail about your cites, and respond to some of your claims.
I’ll just add a few more points here.
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> IPV is a controversial topic within academia. As one example:
Yes, it is controversial, and a complex issue. That’s one of the reasons I suggested you narrow the focus of the debate. You cannot simply assert your numbers unquestioned as a springboard to attack feminism.
You did not provide a link for your quoted example, so I cannot consider it.
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> There’s also the [National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey](http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf)
Yes, I am familiar with the CDC study; it was the one your SAVE cite misrepresented, and I provided the link to the study when I critiqued it.
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> Anyway, the point of all that is:
> 1.) Academia is a stronghold of feminism.
> 2.) Some feminists are deeply investing the women are victims/men are victimizers stereotype.
> 3.) We (both men and women) are instinctively more concerned about violence against women, than violence against men.
1.) You would need to provide evidence for this.
2.) How many feminists? I can make similar claims about what anti-feminists are invested in that you would disavow.
3.) This may be so, but it does not prove your claim or provide data.
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> To get to your post:
>
> I think it says: _“Although many studies report that men and women use physical violence at equal rates within intimate relationships,7, 8 this fails to take into account the nature of the violence and the level of fear and injury experienced by each party.”_
>
> I know it says that. I read it. It’s written by an advocacy organization: my surprise was they admitted that _“men and women use physical violence at equal rates within intimate relationships”_ at all, (something I give them credit for) not that they went on to minimize it. Anyway, the point was that even some feminists admit that women use violence in intimate relationships as often as men. Not to argue they thought it was important.
You are still misinterpreting it. It does NOT admit that _“men and women use physical violence at equal rates within intimate relationships”_. It admits that _many studies report it_. That’s not the same thing. Also note that the statement appears after the heading: **The Myth of “Mutuality”** (my underline).
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> I’ll also note that Dept. of Justice statistics are problematic, to the extent they rely on convictions. The judicial system is heavily biased in favor women, and against men, particularly in the area of domestic violence. It’s a bit like arguing that blacks are more prone to violence than whites, because of convictions. If you think that whites are favored in the judicial system (and they are, though not as much as women), conviction rates aren’t a meaningful comparison.
This is where it becomes complicated and controversial. I would get into it if I thought there was an interest and motivation for a real debate. But remember that you are choosing to cherry pick data that confirms your opinion, and putting less weight on multiple sources that don’t suit your agenda, _and_ that you are ignoring the complex factors of IPV in order to make a blanket assertion against feminism. See my previous post linked above.
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> I don’t know anything about SAVE Services, or the SPLC. If it’s one advocacy site calling another one a hate group, it’s not very meaningful to me. Name calling is common on the internet, particularly among political enemies. The site looked legit when I looked at it. However, I’ll consider this one “debunked” until or unless I have time to check it out.
Why would you link to an unvetted source, or even take their word at face value? Just the fact that they out and out _lied_ about the CDC study should be enough reason to mistrust them. There’s a thread in GD right now about the SPLC if you’re interested in knowing more.
I’m getting the idea that you are very impressionable, and don’t question claims that tell you what you want to hear. It is also clear that you are taking most, if not all, these ideas from MRAs, in particular Karen Straughan. Here is a sample of what she said about rape during an AMA at the [red pill reddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/37q4rh/i_am_karen_straughan_girlwriteswhat_ask_me/):
\*A rapist is a very damaged man (usually damaged by women) or a man who really really really wants sex but can’t convince a woman to willingly lie down with him.
One commenter expressed a wish that I’d learn to speak more wisely and circumspectly on topics like RooshV’s suggestion to make rape legal on private property (all I said was that however stupid or unfeasible or offensive his idea was, his stated intention was to prevent rape, so I wasn’t going to call him a bad person for it).\*
Do you agree with these statements? Are rapists _usually damaged by a woman_?
Why doesn’t she speak out against the misogynistic statements and actions of other MRA adherents and activists? Isn’t that what you expect feminists to do so feminism is more “coherent”?
---
### Author:  [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2015, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/743 "2015-08-01T19:07:10Z")
> [@MyFootsZZZ](#):
>
> Ugh.
>
> So I still don’t know how I feel about feminism. I think both sides of this issue have good points. Some “feminists” are way too radical for me; (The shirt that was worn that caused controversy, the dongle joke that was made that got someone fired, perhaps “elevator gate” - though I can sort of see where a Emma Watson was coming from.)
>
> I hate cat-calling, I hate that women have to fight for their reproductive rights, I hate that there aren’t as many women in politics as there are men.
>
> There’s no way I’m an Anti-feminist or an MRA.
>
> I just want everyone to be happy and chill the f\*ck out. I don’t know how extremes on either side can be content, because they’re both so whinny and offended by every little thing. One shutters to think how SJW’s and MRA’s will ever be content.
>
> As, (almost,) always, I’m not 100% sure on where I stand. If I’ve said anything that could be considered ignorant, my eyes are open, and I’m willing to read other people’s opinions.
>
> I’ve followed this thread off and on for as long as it’s been around. Can’t we find some common ground? Do the feminists in this thread REALLY think that all actions made in the name of feminism is appropriate? Do the anti-feminists REALLY think that there’s not a lot we can work on to make the playing field more equal?
My own view is that Western women aren’t oppressed. Feminists could have had a victory party a decades ago, taken off their hats, and gone on to work on real problems. But they didn’t. Some feminists, instead, went on to find ever-more ridiculous things to complain about, up to and including misrepresentation (often through the use of misleading statistics) in order to maintain their victim-status, while at the same time working to maintain or create unfair laws and policies that often have disastrous consequences. Moreover, while some feminists will say they’re for “equality,” (while others openly admit they’re not) the reality is that mostly what they’re doing is to push for more privileges for an already privileged group, and in the process creating more and more double-standards.
Elevator-gate is an example. A man asks a woman for “coffee” in his room. She posts a video, (saying, among other things: “Men: don’t ever do this.”) And the social media explodes. [Here is a link](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/elevatorgate), if anyone’s interested. (I’d encourage you to watch the response, as well as the video: it’s hilarious.) Since I know many people won’t watch the videos, I’ll make a couple of points:
1.) No one would have any trouble with this if it was (a) two men, (b) two women, or (c) if it was a woman asking a man for coffee.
2.) Emma Watson wouldn’t have had a problem with it, if she’d found the guy attractive and/or she’d been interested.
3.) So, (according to Watson) hetero-men aren’t allowed to ask women for coffee. But feminism is all about liberating women sexually. (Feminists, feel free to tell me if I’m wrong.) So she could have asked him for coffee, if she wanted. Anyone see a double-standard here?
> [@](#):
>
> _There’s no way I’m an Anti-feminist or an MRA._
I am an anti-feminist (well, at least for the moment) but I’m not an MRA. I haven’t done a lot of research about them, but from what little I’ve done, I’ll make a few remarks about them.
1.) “MRA” as I think you’re using the term, covers a wide range of different, and sometimes bitterly opposed groups. The main point of contention, as far as I can tell, is between those who want social acceptance for the purpose of effecting political change, and those who **don’t** want social acceptance, think change is impossible, and either want to withdraw from the system entirely (or as much as possible) or to learn how to - and teach others who to - navigate it successfully.
2.) As one would expect from a group who think they’re being pissed on, there’s a lot of complaining and venting. The groups also act as a sort of social support system, for the men who participate in them.
3.) I don’t think these groups come out of nowhere. The combination of feminism, and women’s continuing privileges (in child custody cases, for example, and in domestic violence cases) creates a toxic environment for some men. They are a response, in other words, to a set of inequities that can be incredibly harmful to some men (and children, and society as a whole). If feminism either (a) didn’t exist, or (b) was genuinely about equality, (rather than whatever is best for women) they wouldn’t exist.
> [@](#):
>
> _Do the feminists in this thread REALLY think that all actions made in the name of feminism is appropriate?_
I’ll leave this one for feminists to answer.
> [@](#):
>
> _Do the anti-feminists REALLY think that there’s not a lot we can work on to make the playing field more equal?_
Yes.
1.) Default 50/50 custody of children. “Default” meaning: unless there’s a good reason not to.
2.) Encourage police, prosecutors, and judges to take domestic assaults perpetrated by women as seriously as they do those by men.
3.) Encourage the justice system to start actually prosecuting false reports.
4.) Dismantle feminism as a political/social force.
5.) Stop automatically treating the lives and concerns of women as more important than men. As I said in my OP, we instinctually value the safety and concerns of women more then men’s. (If we didn’t, we wouldn’t be here.) But we also have a thinking part of our brains, and we should use them.
---
### Author:  [@MyFootsZZZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MyFootsZZZ)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/744 "2015-08-01T19:42:20Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> My own view is that Western women aren’t oppressed. Feminists could have had a victory party a decades ago, taken off their hats, and gone on to work on real problems. But they didn’t. Some feminists, instead, went on to find ever-more ridiculous things to complain about, up to and including misrepresentation (often through the use of misleading statistics) in order to maintain their victim-status, while at the same time working to maintain or create unfair laws and policies that often have disastrous consequences. Moreover, while some feminists will say they’re for “equality,” (while others openly admit they’re not) the reality is that mostly what they’re doing is to push for more privileges for an already privileged group, and in the process creating more and more double-standards.
>
> Elevator-gate is an example. A man asks a woman for “coffee” in his room. She posts a video, (saying, among other things: “Men: don’t ever do this.”) And the social media explodes. [Here is a link](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/elevatorgate), if anyone’s interested. (I’d encourage you to watch the response, as well as the video: it’s hilarious.) Since I know many people won’t watch the videos, I’ll make a couple of points:
>
> 1.) No one would have any trouble with this if it was (a) two men, (b) two women, or (c) if it was a woman asking a man for coffee.
>
> 2.) Emma Watson wouldn’t have had a problem with it, if she’d found the guy attractive and/or she’d been interested.
>
> 3.) So, (according to Watson) hetero-men aren’t allowed to ask women for coffee. But feminism is all about liberating women sexually. (Feminists, feel free to tell me if I’m wrong.) So she could have asked him for coffee, if she wanted. Anyone see a double-standard here?
>
> I am an anti-feminist (well, at least for the moment) but I’m not an MRA. I haven’t done a lot of research about them, but from what little I’ve done, I’ll make a few remarks about them.
>
> 1.) “MRA” as I think you’re using the term, covers a wide range of different, and sometimes bitterly opposed groups. The main point of contention, as far as I can tell, is between those who want social acceptance for the purpose of effecting political change, and those who **don’t** want social acceptance, think change is impossible, and either want to withdraw from the system entirely (or as much as possible) or to learn how to - and teach others who to - navigate it successfully.
>
> 2.) As one would expect from a group who think they’re being pissed on, there’s a lot of complaining and venting. The groups also act as a sort of social support system, for the men who participate in them.
>
> 3.) I don’t think these groups come out of nowhere. The combination of feminism, and women’s continuing privileges (in child custody cases, for example, and in domestic violence cases) creates a toxic environment for some men. They are a response, in other words, to a set of inequities that can be incredibly harmful to some men (and children, and society as a whole). If feminism either (a) didn’t exist, or (b) was genuinely about equality, (rather than whatever is best for women) they wouldn’t exist.
>
> I’ll leave this one for feminists to answer.
>
> Yes.
> 1.) Default 50/50 custody of children. “Default” meaning: unless there’s a good reason not to.
> 2.) Encourage police, prosecutors, and judges to take domestic assaults perpetrated by women as seriously as they do those by men.
> 3.) Encourage the justice system to start actually prosecuting false reports.
> 4.) Dismantle feminism as a political/social force.
> 5.) Stop automatically treating the lives and concerns of women as more important than men. As I said in my OP, we instinctually value the safety and concerns of women more then men’s. (If we didn’t, we wouldn’t be here.) But we also have a thinking part of our brains, and we should use them.
I’m sorry LinusK. The feminists in this thread have expressed concern for things dealing with both sides, when all you do is list things that deal with the death of feminism as a whole and focus fully on what you think are injustices for men. You don’t seem to be trying to put yourself in the shoes of the people arguing against you, and that turns me off to whatever you have to say. I may not agree with everything the feminists in this thread have to say, (though I’m pretty close to,) but I refuses to listen to you.
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2015, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/745 "2015-08-01T19:59:21Z")
> [@MyFootsZZZ](#):
>
> I may not agree with everything the feminists in this thread have to say
And for the love of god, don’t try to! We don’t all agree, after all. It’s a very big tent, sometimes bigger than is reasonable, and it has room for lots of disagreement: major issues, fights worth having, tone, approach, what is and isn’t exploitative, etc.
---
### Author:  [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2015, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/746 "2015-08-01T20:16:52Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> 1.) Default 50/50 custody of children. “Default” meaning: unless there’s a good reason not to.
> 2.) Encourage police, prosecutors, and judges to take domestic assaults perpetrated by women as seriously as they do those by men.
> 3.) Encourage the justice system to start actually prosecuting false reports.
> 4.) Dismantle feminism as a political/social force.
> 5.) Stop automatically treating the lives and concerns of women as more important than men. As I said in my OP, we instinctually value the safety and concerns of women more then men’s. (If we didn’t, we wouldn’t be here.) But we also have a thinking part of our brains, and we should use them.
How come you don’t apply that last bit to numbers 1 through 4? It’s been pointed out already that ‘“Default” meaning: unless there’s good reason not to’ isn’t really coherent given how custody law works. It wouldn’t take much effort to gain enough of a sense of what actually goes on in the real world with domestic assault prosecution to understand that the phrase “as seriously as they do those by men” would actually make more sense if you meant it pejoratively.
Seriously. You spend _so much time_ talking about this stuff here, but you’ll never spend as much time on it as the people who have expertise. How can it be so important to you that you keep arguing about it, but not important enough that your perception of what the facts are or what the issues are never changes?
---
### Author:  [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2015, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/747 "2015-08-01T21:53:35Z")
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post
> > Damuri Ajashi:
> >
> > I’d be happy to see some evidence of what you’re saying.
> >
> > According to this site:
> >
> > According to this site, women made up 47% of medical school graduates in 2014.
> >
> > I wasn’t able to find a percentage for women in consulting, in a quick google search. Where does your information come from?
>
> I’m not talking about bank tellers or your local bank loan officer or women serving supporting roles in investment banks. I am talking about investment bankers.
>
> [http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/...hite-and-male/](http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/...hite-and-male/)
>
> [The real reason women are leaving Wall Street](http://qz.com/121085/the-real-reason...f-wall-street/)
Ok. Let me start out by saying I have a bias when it comes to Wall Street: I think the top earners there make obscene amounts of money, while contributing little in the way of actual value to the economy. In fact, if you factor in the damage that they’ve done, they probably are a net loss for the rest of us.
But quoting from your sites:
> [@](#):
>
> Business psychologist Horowitz has observed a disconnect between Wall Street culture and the kind of work environment women often prefer. “It is very hard to create a sense of a ‘we’ on Wall Street,” she says. “To do well, you have to be cut from a certain cloth. It is not natural for women: they have to work at it. Women are relationship-based, can multi-task better. The work has to be meaningful … doing something meaningful is very important.”
> [@](#):
>
> Erin Callan, former chief financial officer at Lehman Brothers, wrote a painful reflection for the New York Times in March. Five years after being fired before Lehman’s bankruptcy, Callan seemingly takes no pleasure in the career heights she scaled. “Sometimes young women tell me they admire what I’ve done,” she wrote. “As they see it, I worked hard for 20 years and can now spend the next 20 focused on other things. But that is not balance. I do not wish that for anyone.” Callan regrets that her marriage and her friendships floundered. Now remarried, she hopes to have children. She is 48.
Callan, btw, if memory serves, was among those at Lehman involved in the fraudulent security scam that eventually led to the financial panic of '08/'09 (and the resulting recession.)
> [@](#):
>
> Promoted to chief financial officer of the commercial lending division of Bank One, Deans left friends and family in the New York area to live in Chicago. A No. 1-ranked analyst for many years, she was used to working hard, but the demands of the ever-driven Dimon exacted a price she was not willing to keep paying. “At Bank One, I had no life. I was on call all the time, all weekend.” Deans stuck with it from 2000 to 2003, until the opportunity to work with Rivkin back in New York brought her home. She left a career-making job working for the rising star of the banking industry for more balance back in New York City.
I, for one, don’t doubt that the cultural climate on Wall Street is cut-throat, corrupt, and unforgivingly demanding. I’ll also say that it’s not a culture that’s accommodating to most women. But I’ll also say that there’s more going on than: “We hate women, let’s keep them out.”
From your first site, “Wall Street’s Young Bankers Are Still Mostly White and Male”:
> [@](#):
>
> Over all, 65 percent of this year’s class of analysts are white, while 29 percent are Asian.
Asian-Americans make up 5% of Americans, which means they’re overrepresented by about 550%. If there is discrimination on Wall Street, is anti-woman, but pro-Asian?
(And by the way, the title of the article is misleading: about 78% of Americans are white. If only 65% or “young bankers” are white, that means whites are under-represented.)
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > It may be. But the question is still: where does it come from? Is it a result of discrimination, or a result of women’s choices?
>
> I thought I was being clear. At least SOME of the gap comes from sexism (institutional, latent and otherwise).
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > You mention COLA and education in reference to differences in pay for Asians, Jews, and gay people. So are you saying the income gap, in those cases, comes from choices those groups make?
>
> There are cultural reasons for the high education levels of Asians and Jews. But the COLA reasons are largely associated with avoiding racism. There is simply less racism (or at least ghettoes where racism against YOU can be escaped) in large cities that did not exist in the middle of bumblefuck Oklahoma.
I don’t get what you’re saying here. Bumblefuck Oklahoma is probably close to 100% white. It’s also probably relatively poor (at least compared to places like NYC). You’ll have to clarify what you’re saying, because I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it almost sounds like you’re saying Jews and Asians are rich because they don’t live around poor, racist white people in Oklahoma.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > It sounds like you’re saying colleges are engaging in affirmative action in favor of men. I don’t know whether that’s true or not - in the case of boys applying to college - and you haven’t provided a cite; but I’ll go with it for the moment: some people argue that colleges should be able to choose student bodies that are diverse and/or representative. Do you agree?
>
> To a degree but where they are tilting the playing field in favor of the groups that start off with the playing field tilted heavily in their favor, I disagree.
Who are the people who start off with the playing field tilted heavily in their favor?
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Are boys lagging because they’re less intelligent? Are there other possible explanations?
>
> Yes, boys mature later in life, they have less impulse control, they are not conditioned to defer gratification, their hormones affect their behavior 28 days of each lunar cycle instead of just 7 days of each lunar cycle.
Again, I need more clarity. I asked if boys are less intelligent. Do you think they are?
As for the rest of the post, are those your opinions, or do you think they’re facts?
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > The cultural norm I was talking about was the idea that moms are better parents than dads. Is that the same one you’re talking about?
>
> Yes. That along with the expectation that the woman should sacrifice her career if one of the parents must make a sacrifice.
I wasn’t aware that there was a cultural norm that said that the woman should sacrifice her career if one of the parents must make a sacrifice.
I will say though, that for most people, work is something they have to do; not something they do for fun.
---
### Author:  [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2015, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/748 "2015-08-01T22:00:01Z")
> [@MyFootsZZZ](#):
>
> I’m sorry LinusK. The feminists in this thread have expressed concern for things dealing with both sides, when all you do is list things that deal with the death of feminism as a whole and focus fully on what you think are injustices for men. You don’t seem to be trying to put yourself in the shoes of the people arguing against you, and that turns me off to whatever you have to say. I may not agree with everything the feminists in this thread have to say, (though I’m pretty close to,) but I refuses to listen to you.
Sorry about that. About 50% of the population is female, and about 50% of the population is male.
But you’re right: to make progress, anti-feminists must do more than talk about the way feminism hurts men. The argument must be framed in terms of the way it hurts women and children.
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2015, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/749 "2015-08-01T22:12:25Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> Again, I need more clarity. I asked if boys are less intelligent. Do you think they are?
>
> As for the rest of the post, are those your opinions, or do you think they’re facts?
Boys are not less intelligent, nor are they more. They are also not in thrall to their hormones any more or less than girls. Cultural sexism does not justify reversing it to belittle men.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2015, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/750 "2015-08-01T22:40:10Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> Sorry about that. About 50% of the population is female, and about 50% of the population is male.
>
> But you’re right: to make progress, anti-feminists must do more than talk about the way feminism hurts men. The argument must be framed in terms of the way it hurts women and children.
Since feminism benefits women and children – and men – the framing would be grossly inappropriate.
“Two plus two must be framed in terms of five.”
---
### Author:  [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2015, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/751 "2015-08-01T22:41:44Z")
> [@](#):
>
> But you’re right: to make progress, anti-feminists must do more than talk about the way feminism hurts men. The argument must be framed in terms of the way it hurts women and children.
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> Here are some examples of patriarchy in action:
>
> When the Titanic sank, in 1912, [72.7% of the women survived, vs. 19% of the men](http://optional.is/required/2012/04/25/titanic-visualized/). Similarly, among children 15 and younger, 62.6% of the girls survived, vs. 22.5% of the boys. Subsequently, some of the men who did survive, killed themselves, because of the shame of being a man who lived.
[**Sinking the Titanic ‘women and children first’ myth**](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22119-sinking-the-titanic-women-and-children-first-myth/)
**Where does the notion arise that, when a ship sinks, women and children come first?**
It appears to have started when the HMS Birkenhead ran aground off South Africa in 1852, but the notion became widespread after the sinking of the Titanic in 1912. The captain explicitly issued an order for women and children to be saved first. As a result, the survival rate for women was three times higher than for men.
**This idea of chivalry at sea has gained mythological status, but you’re the first person to examine if it’s true for many other maritime disasters. What did you find?**
We went through a list of over 100 major maritime disasters spanning three centuries to see if we could find data on survival rates of men and women. We ended up with data on 18 shipwrecks, involving 15,000 passengers. In contrast to the Titanic, we found that the survival rate for men is basically double that for women. We only have data on children for a limited number of shipwrecks, but it is evident that they have really bad survival prospects: just 15 per cent.
**So this notion of chivalry at sea is a myth?**
Yes. It really is every man for himself.
**Why do you think we bought into the “women and children first” belief?**
The Titanic has been so extensively studied and it confirmed the myth. There was little empirical evidence against it. Lucy Delap of Cambridge University argues that this myth was spread by the British elite to prevent women obtaining suffrage. They said, look at the Titanic, there is no reason to give women the vote because men, even when facing death, will put the interests of women first.
**LinusK** , do you now understand why anti-feminists love to trot out the _Titanic_ data?
---
### Author:  [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2015, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/752 "2015-08-01T22:46:22Z")
> [@camille](#):
>
> I’ve been vocal about it, and I’ve seen others do it as well. Disagreement has always been a part of the movement, as with any other mass movement or ideology.
>
> That’s been part of the problem with the OPs position. He seems to hold feminism itself responsible for the “incoherence”. However he has no problem simply disavowing the words and actions of openly misogynistic and violent anti-feminists, and wants his anti-feminist ideas presented here to be judged on the merits alone.
Here’s the thing: if someone criticizes a religion, an ideology, a political party or a movement, it’s up to supporters of that group to respond to those criticisms, if they want to.
For example, if someone started a thread called “Anti-Atheism” I would, if I felt like it, defend atheism. What I would not do is:
1.) Resort to personal attacks
2.) Claim that atheists don’t agree about anything, so therefore atheism can’t be critisized
3.) Start a pit thread
4.) Or demand that he take personal responsibility for anyone who’s ever criticized atheists.
As far as feminism’s incoherence, who is responsible for that, if not feminists?
---
### Author:  [@neofishboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/neofishboy)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2015, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/753 "2015-08-01T22:48:55Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> … I would, if I felt like it, defend atheism. …
Please don’t.
---
### Author:  [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2015, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/754 "2015-08-01T22:53:15Z")
**LinusK** : Why did you ignore the last sentence of my quote? We went over this point already; you seem unable to absorb new information when moving the debate forward. Why?
---
### Author:  [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2015, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/755 "2015-08-01T23:52:02Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> Here’s the thing: if someone criticizes a religion, an ideology, a political party or a movement, it’s up to supporters of that group to respond to those criticisms, if they want to.
>
> For example, if someone started a thread called “Anti-Atheism” I would, if I felt like it, defend atheism. What I would not do is:
>
> 1.) Resort to personal attacks
> 2.) Claim that atheists don’t agree about anything, so therefore atheism can’t be critisized
> 3.) Start a pit thread
> 4.) Or demand that he take personal responsibility for anyone who’s ever criticized atheists.
>
> As far as feminism’s incoherence, who is responsible for that, if not feminists?
You started a thread against feminism, using the title of a different movement - anti-feminism. That means more than “I am against feminism, and here’s why.” It is a movement of its own. One that Straughan, for instance, is active in. You feel that it is appropriate to attack feminism as this monolithic group, but deny your own group’s flaws. Why is it appropriate, in your view, to treat feminism as a single entity, but not anti-feminism?
In other words, why are all feminists, in your view, assumed to be the same, while all anti-feminists are to be treated as disparate individuals?
ETA in other, OTHER words, why must I, as a feminist, either explain or police other feminists, while you as an anti-feminist can simply say “well, that is someone else, that’s not my views. Address only my views?”
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [August 2, 2015, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/756 "2015-08-02T01:05:39Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> For example, if someone started a thread called “Anti-Atheism” I would, if I felt like it, defend atheism. What I would not do is:
>
> 1.) Resort to personal attacks
Oh, stop it. Your implication that you were personally attacked, (even placing it first among your options as if it has been a significant factor in this discussion), does not reflect the way in which this thread developed.
One early post asked whether you were going to get up on your soapbox one more time.
More than a page later, one poster challenged your statements using harsher language, (although not to the level of a personal attack), specifically because you were making claims (including a claim that some positions were never addressed), that the poster noted had been addressed on multiple occasions.
We were well past the 100th post before anyone took a personal shot at you–and that was based on your persistent claim that issues that had never been addressed when they had been addressed on multiple occasions.
Your claim of persecution indicates an imagination untempered by facts and your persistence in claiming persecution is nothing more than an appeal for sympathy from people who support you and an attempt to poison the well of statements opposing you. It is not appropriate and it dopes not speak well of you.
---
### Author:  [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)
#### Post date: [August 2, 2015, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/757 "2015-08-02T02:52:30Z")
Sorry I didn’t get to this sooner.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Originally Posted by LinusK View Post
> > 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.
Again, I would have thought what a movement was “about” would be _the_ central issue. If you’re trying to achieve something, it’s hard to do it, if you don’t know what it is.
Which brings me to another question: what is feminism trying to achieve?
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Originally Posted by 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?
Mmm… no, that would be the opposite of what I’m saying: women benefitted from protection by being protected. Specifically, by not dying. And, of course, by successfully bearing and raising children who lived, and went on to have children of their own.
Two things (and I realize I’m being redundant, but I believe it’s impossible to be too clear in this thread):
1.) We’re talking about our evolution as a species over millions of years, during times when our species was clinging to this side of extinction. In other words, during times when finding or not finding food on a particular day could be a life or death distinction, and when a lion was an actual threat rather than a tourist attraction.
2.) Evolution has no design, heart, or conscience. Something either works or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, it’s gone. I said earlier other groups of homo sapiens never made it. We, ourselves [almost didn’t make it](http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c):
> [@](#):
>
> [O]nce in our history, the world-wide population of human beings skidded so sharply we were down to roughly a thousand reproductive adults. One study says we hit as low as 40.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Originally Posted by 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”, 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.
[Your link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_war)is one paragraph, so I’ll quote it here:
> [@](#):
>
> The experiences of women in war have been diverse. Historically women have played a major role on the homefront. By the 18th century, some women accompanied armies assigned combat missions, usually handling roles such as cooking and laundry. Nursing became a major role starting in the middle 19th century. The main role in World War I (1914-1918) was employment in munitions factories, farming, and other roles to replace men drafted for the army. Women played an important role in making the system of food rationing work. World War II (1939-1945) marked a decisive turning point, With millions of women handling important homefront roles, such as working in munitions factories and otherwise replacing drafted men. Volunteer roles expanded. The most romantic new change was millions of women in regular military units. Typically they handled clerical roles so that men could be released for combat. Some women (especially in the Soviet Union, Germany, and Britain) were assigned limited combat roles, especially in anti-aircraft units, where they shut down enemy bombers well at the same time being safe from capture. Underground and resistance movements made extensive use of women in support roles. Reaction set in after 1945, and the roles allowed to women was sharply reduced in all major armies. Restarting in the 1970s, women played an increasing role in the military of major nations, including by 2005 roles as combat pilots. The new combat roles were highly controversial, raising issues of gender identity not just for the women, but for the male soldiers whose masculinity seemed to be problematic if women can do the same job.[1]
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Originally Posted by 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.
> >
> > Link. [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.
Your analogy would be apt, except that it wasn’t a matter of men preventing women from, say, hunting and gathering, or plowing fields while 8 months pregnant, or while nursing an infant. It was a matter of men doing it for them, so their species (our species) could successfully reproduce.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Originally Posted by LinusK
> > 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).
>
> 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.
I wouldn’t describe Sarah Connor or what’s-her-face in “The Titanic” as “passive characters” (Although the Buttercup certainly was). Either way, you realize in two of those three movies the hero dies… right? To put it differently, the hero proves his worth by dying _for_ the heroine. The heroine doesn’t have to prove her worth _because_ her worth is inherent.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Originally Posted by 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.
Fine. If Western women aren’t oppressed, what is the goal of feminism?
---
### Author:  [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)
#### Post date: [August 2, 2015, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/758 "2015-08-02T04:18:28Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#):
>
> Boys are not less intelligent, nor are they more. They are also not in thrall to their hormones any more or less than girls. Cultural sexism does not justify reversing it to belittle men.
I understand the first sentence, and the second, but not the third. Could you expand on that?
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [August 2, 2015, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/759 "2015-08-02T04:21:34Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> To put it differently, the hero proves his worth by dying _for_ the heroine. The heroine doesn’t have to prove her worth _because_ her worth is inherent.
Her worth or value is as a trophy or as the means by which the hero displays his honor. Men sacrifice themselves for women in the same way they sacrifice themselves for the flag or for glory. Therefore, women get relegated to objects that display the man’s value.
You can keep ignoring this point, but ignoring it does nothing to promote your beliefs.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [August 2, 2015, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/760 "2015-08-02T04:45:47Z")
And it really is important to state this emphatically: feminism favors equality. Neither men nor women have greater (or lesser) intrinsic worth.
The model where men die to protect women makes men’s lives worth less than women’s lives. At the same time, it allows men, but not women, to come home and be celebrated as heroes. This also provides a pathway for men…but not women…to attain very high military rank.
Feminism does not support either form of inequality.
A great many feminists are working to get women admitted to combat roles. Women will thus have the honor and the loss of sacrifice.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=37)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=39)