# 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:** 40
### Author:  [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)
#### Post date: [August 2, 2015, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/781 "2015-08-02T21:00:13Z")
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> Nope; that’s fallacious. It’s like people who complain because the ACLU doesn’t take up many 2nd Amendment cases. It doesn’t mean that the ACLU doesn’t defend the 2nd Amendment. They don’t need to, as there are other groups doing that far more energetically.
>
> Feminist groups do address issues which affect men. They don’t do so “equally” because those issues themselves are fewer and smaller in scope and effect. You might as well demand that the EPA deal with discarded cigarette butts equally with their attention to oil spills. It doesn’t mean the EPA is “okay” with discarded cigarette butts.
>
> Can you name a “much worse” issue that primarily affects men? And can you really demonstrate that feminist groups never address men’s issues at all? It was claimed, upthread, that feminist groups ignore male-on-male rape in prison: this turned out to be a completely untrue claim.
>
> You’re engaging in “mote in your neighbor’s eye” thinking.
I’m trying to figure out from our post - because you seem to be making several contradictory arguments simultaneously - is feminism about equality, or not?
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [August 2, 2015, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/782 "2015-08-02T21:10:57Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> 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…
> 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.”
Its not that they hate women, it’s a testosterone filled environment with lots of sexual harassment. Its a generally hostile environment with an extra dose of hostility for women. Sure some of it has to do with different lifestyle preferences but some of it has to do with the notorious sexism on wall street.
> [@](#):
>
> From your first site, “Wall Street’s Young Bankers Are Still Mostly White and Male”:
>
> 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.)
Sure. IF you want to argue that Asians are overrepresented on wall street (and in consulting and the law and medicine, I can’t argue with you. I don’t think that is due to any sort of favoritism being extended to Asians, do you?
I think that at least some of the paucity of female investment bankers is due to the fact that it is a particularly hostile environment for women.
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
I’m saying that cities like San Francisco have much higher cost of living than bumblefuck and that Asians are not going to want to live in bumblefuck so they find a job that pays twice as much in San Francisco but their dollars do not go half as far so they end up with less purchasing power than the white dude making half as much in bumblefuck.
> [@](#):
>
> Who are the people who start off with the playing field tilted heavily in their favor?
Rich people, white people and males. If you hit the trifecta, then the playing field is tilted heavily in your favor.
> [@](#):
>
> Again, I need more clarity. I asked if boys are less intelligent. Do you think they are?
The “yes” answer is in response to the question of whether there are other explanations. I don’t think they have lower IQs.
> [@](#):
>
> As for the rest of the post, are those your opinions, or do you think they’re facts?
I thought it was pretty well established medically, sociologically and psychologically.
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
And you can find a career dead end that will provide that necessary second income and give you the flexibility to raise a family. These jobs are taken mostly by women rather than men because women are expected to take a step back for their family while men are not. At least not as much.
---
### Author:  [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)
#### Post date: [August 2, 2015, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/783 "2015-08-02T21:21:27Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> 2.) Domestic violence. I’ve argued at length that actual perpetration of violence is approximately equal between the sexes. The idea that it’s mostly men doing it is not based on fact: it’s a stereotype. While I’m against ALL domestic violence, the solution lies not in assuming men are perpetrators, but in looking at all the factors that play into it, and starting from there.
No. You’ve _repeated_ it at length while ignoring the whole spectrum of IPV. The only\* category\* of domestic violence that is perpetrated equally is is [Situational Couple Violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_partner_violence#Situational_couple_violence):
Situational couple violence,[1] also called common couple violence, is not connected to general control behavior, but arises in a single argument where one or both partners physically lash out at the other.[1][20] This is the most common form of intimate partner violence, particularly in the western world and among young couples, and involves members of both sexes nearly equally. Among college students, Johnson found it to be perpetrated about 44% of the time by women and 56% of the time by men.[1]
It is a relationship dynamic "in which conflict occasionally gets ‘out of hand,’ leading usually to ‘minor’ forms of violence, and rarely escalates into serious or life-threatening forms of violence.”[31]
In situational couple violence, acts of violence by men and women occur at fairly equal rates, with rare occurrences of injury, and are not committed in an attempt to control a partner.[32] It is estimated that approximately 50% of couples experience situational couple violence in their relationships.[32]
It is not comparable to the more severe or chronic categories of IPV, which are largely perpetrated by men.
**Situational couple violence is characterized by a few main traits** :
```
**Mode** : Mildly aggressive behavior such as throwing objects, ranging to more aggressive behaviors such as pushing, slapping, biting, hitting, scratching, or hair pulling.
**Frequency** : Less frequent than PT, occurring once in a while during an argument or disagreement.
**Severity** : Milder than PT, very rarely escalates to more severe abuse, generally does not include injuries that were serious or that caused one partner to be admitted to a hospital.
**Mutuality** : Violence may be equally expressed by either partner in the relationship.
**Intent** : Occurs out of anger or frustration rather than as a means of gaining control and power over the other partner.
```
Either you don’t know how to analyze data, or you are not interested in doing so, and are simply repeating misleading anti-feminist propaganda, ad nauseam. You give no indication you are interested in trying to understand or solve the problem.
You are not debating, you are witnessing. And you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [August 2, 2015, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/784 "2015-08-02T21:26:25Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> Really?
>
> Do you happen to have a citation to support this claim?
Quest for Fire.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [August 2, 2015, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/785 "2015-08-02T21:56:31Z")
> [@Rune](#):
>
> . . . ehh. Suicide victims. Workplace fatalities. Homicide victims. False rape accusations. Early death. Cut off from children. Combat deaths. Sentence inequality. Prostate cancer. Homelessness.
Just to jump on one of those: combat casualties disproportionately affect men because women are denied the right to serve in combat! That’s a symptom of sexual inequality in the first place!
Prostate cancer is silly, because it’s definitionally male. (Just as most cases of breast cancer – but not all – are in women.)
And, anyway, you’d be completely wrong to suggest that feminists don’t care about prostate cancer. Many feminists have sons, brothers, fathers, uncles, and other relatives who suffer from this.
Feminists care about all of these issues. It’s completely wrong to claim that they are “silent” here. It’s also absurd to demand that they devote “equal” attention to these, as opposed to specifically feminist issues such as rape and income inequality.
This is still “mote in the neighbor’s eye” reasoning.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [August 2, 2015, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/786 "2015-08-02T21:58:52Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> I’m trying to figure out from our post - because you seem to be making several contradictory arguments simultaneously - is feminism about equality, or not?
Yes. And there are no contradictions. You’re parodying a demand for “exact” equality – but that’s a foolish Vonnegut fantasy, not reality. Feminism is about equality – but it doesn’t spend exactly as much effort on promoting women’s athletics as it does to trying to reduce rape. Only a fool would demand such meta-equality.
---
### Author:  [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)
#### Post date: [August 2, 2015, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/787 "2015-08-02T22:49:53Z")
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> Yes. And there are no contradictions. You’re parodying a demand for “exact” equality – but that’s a foolish Vonnegut fantasy, not reality. Feminism is about equality – but it doesn’t spend exactly as much effort on promoting women’s athletics as it does to trying to reduce rape. Only a fool would demand such meta-equality.
Clearly some causes are more equal than others.
Actually…huh. I don’t have any numbers, but has anyone tried to estimate rapes per capita in prison, versus on college campuses, and then compare the amount of ink and pixels spent by feminist blogs and writers on the two topics? As always, there are many feminists who do have a good handle on the numbers and who do have a clue about the relative impact of certain inequalities (which is to say, not Trinopus), but they do not appear to be in the majority. And bringing out those few good examples and declaring them What Feminism Is is about as persuasive as LinusK’s counter-list, which is to say not very.
And again…does this really matter? Does it pick anyone’s pocket or break anyone’s leg if people think feminism is the best or the worst, if they also think that people should treat each other fairly and equitably?
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 2, 2015, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/788 "2015-08-02T23:33:04Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> The point is that the same movement demands both that right to control the shirts men wear, and the right of women to wear whatever they want, in public - including nothing at all. To me, that’s a double-standard. What do you think?
I’m unaware of feminism (or any movement) demanding “the right to control the shirts men wear”. If you have any evidence of this, I’d love to see it, but feminists saying “you shouldn’t have worn that shirt” to someone is completely different than insisting on “the right to control the shirts men wear”.
If that’s what you’re comparing, then that’s utterly ridiculous, and can’t even be serious. Explore this and tell me what you really mean, please – I hope you’re not trying to say that criticizing someone for wearing a certain shirt is “demanding the right to control the shirts men wear”.
> [@](#):
>
> Honestly, I paid little attention to it when it happened - although I was aware of it, because I read the news, and see the headlines. Whether it was a freakout is, I guess, a matter of opinion. The fact he felt the need to beg forgiveness indicates either there was a lot of hostile attention thrown his way, or he’s a very sensitive person.
>
> I suspect the former.
I suspect the latter.
> [@](#):
>
> There’s a lot there, so I’ll take them one at a time.
>
> 1.) Equal pay. This has already been discussed, so I’ll limit my comments.
> (a) The 77% gap (or whatever it is) is a myth. When you control for things like years of experience and number of hours worked, the difference shrinks to approximately 5%.
Some of those things controlled for include things like education and professional choice, which may actually be part of the problem. If some women don’t feel welcome in certain fields, then that’s a serious problem and that part of the pay gap should be corrected.
> [@](#):
>
> (b) The fact that there is a difference does not automatically mean discrimination. Jews, gays, and Asian-Americans all make more than average. If you think a difference in pay automatically means discrimination, you must think they’re beneficiaries of discrimination. I don’t think that. Do you?
Not necessarily, but it’s possible (and I’d like to see a cite that gays in particular make more than average). Not all pay gaps necessarily point to discrimination, but some may.
> [@](#):
>
> 2.) Domestic violence. I’ve argued at length that actual perpetration of violence is approximately equal between the sexes. The idea that it’s mostly men doing it is not based on fact: it’s a stereotype. While I’m against ALL domestic violence, the solution lies not in assuming men are perpetrators, but in looking at all the factors that play into it, and starting from there.
From my understanding, far, far more women end up in the hospital due to domestic violence than men. Unless you have statistics that women are injured as severely and/or as often due to domestic violence, then this is a serious problem that affects lots and lots of women and should be addressed.
> [@](#):
>
> 3.) I’m pro-abortion. I’m against Republicans who are trying to limit abortion options for poor women, or requiring 24-hour waiting periods, or sonograms, or other ridiculous irrational attempts to make it more difficult than it already is. I will give you this one: maintaining the right and ability of women to obtain safe legal abortions is a legitimate feminist issue, and there are - in fact - real actual political forces trying to do what they can to take it away.
Fair enough.
> [@](#):
>
> 4.) Cat-calling and sexual harassment. I have mixed feelings about this one. I’m pro-people being able to walk anywhere, without being harassed. Having said that, I suspect feminists have both misrepresented the problem, and tried to use it to paint men generally as harassers. I suspect it’s less than 1% of the male population that’s doing any actual harassing, and the message needs to be directed at them, not at men in general. Taking it one step further, some feminists seem to think harassment includes looking at a woman, or saying “hi”. I think that’s ridiculous.
I’m unaware that anyone thinks looking at women is harassment. As for saying “hi”, that probably depends on the individual and the circumstance – if a woman is a captive audience (like on public transportation) and minding her own business (like, say, reading a paper), then even “hi” might be a very minor form of harassment. I don’t think anyone should be arrested for saying “hi”, but I would encourage men not to offer unsolicited greetings to women in public places unless you have a very clear indication that they are interested.
As for the percentages, nearly every young woman I know of reports being approached multiple times per day by strange men. Some consider it harassment, some consider some of it harassment and some of it a nuisance but not harassment, and some consider it virtually nothing and ignore it. None of them welcome it. Since it costs me nothing not to do it, I have stopped offering greetings or any conversation unsolicited to strange women. I encourage others to do the same, at least in the big cities – I understand cultural practices in small town America may be different.
> [@](#):
>
> 5.) “for education of women in places in which it is much harder”: I’m not sure what you mean by that. You’ll have to clarify.
Advocating for education for women in countries in which women are poorly educated due to misogynistic cultural and societal practices.
> [@](#):
>
> 6.) Genital mutilation: Any thinking person is against genital mutilation.
As are feminists.
> [@](#):
>
> 7.) Slut-shaming: That’s kind of vague. I could try to respond, but I’d prefer if you elaborated.
Women (and everyone) should not be shamed or otherwise criticized or made to feel poorly for having sex with other consenting adults.
> [@](#):
>
> 8.) Victim-blaming in rapes: This one needs a little unpacking. A while ago, I accidentally left my car unlocked, while I ran into a corner-store. When I came back, my laptop was gone. What I took away from that is to make sure I lock my car every single fucking time, no matter what. Was I victim-blaming? Maybe. But I was still doing what I could to make sure it didn’t happen again. I’m anti-rape (duh) and anti-crime in general (also duh). But i still think it makes sense to take precautions. We can come back to this one, if you want. I think there is more to say, but I don’t want to get into it, unless you or someone is interested.
Rapists don’t rape because someone wore revealing clothing. Rapists don’t rape because someone walked alone at night. Rapists don’t rape because someone had too much to drink. Rapists rape because they choose to rape, period. The only fault for rape lies with the rapist. The focus should be on the rapists and not on victim behavior. Victim behavior has nothing to do with the societal problem of rape.
> [@](#):
>
> 9.) Electing women into political offices: [Women make up 50.8%](http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html) of the US population, as of 2014. They could, if they wanted, elect women for every political office in the country. My own opinion is that people should vote for whoever they want, regardless of gender. I will probably be voting for Hillary in 2015. (Maybe Bernie first, and then Hillary.) Either way, like I said, I don’t think it’s the gender of the candidate that’s important.
I don’t believe that it just so happens that there are very few women in high office, any more then it just so happens that we didn’t have a black president until 2009. There were multiple forces working against these achievements. Without specifically focusing on getting women (or black people, for example) elected, I see no reason to believe that more women or black people would get elected. Women are just as capable of serving in office as men, just as black people are just as capable as white people. That few have achieved high office is an indictment of societal biases and not the lack of skill and capability among women or black people.
> [@](#):
>
> 10.) Promoting women’s advancement in fields with few women at the top: generally speaking, I think promotions should go to the best person for the job, regardless of gender.
I have the same answer as for number 9. Specific focus is needed to overcome these societal biases, in my opinion.
> [@](#):
>
> I disagree that women should be promoted or elected, just for being women.
Me too. Luckily, there are plenty of qualified and capable women (and black people) that would do great but are passed over.
> [@](#):
>
> And I think the feminist push for “equal pay” is based on a misrepresentation of what’s actually going on - a misrepresentation that’s in many cases perpetuated by feminists.
I disagree – many of those factors that go into the gap may indeed be part of societal biases. If many women don’t feel welcome in a specific field, then that’s part of the societal problem, in my view.
---
### Author:  [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)
#### Post date: [August 2, 2015, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/789 "2015-08-02T23:46:29Z")
> [@camille](#):
>
> No. You’ve _repeated_ it at length while ignoring the whole spectrum of IPV. The only\* category\* of domestic violence that is perpetrated equally is is [Situational Couple Violence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_partner_violence#Situational_couple_violence):
>
> Situational couple violence,[1] also called common couple violence, is not connected to general control behavior, but arises in a single argument where one or both partners physically lash out at the other.[1][20] This is the most common form of intimate partner violence, particularly in the western world and among young couples, and involves members of both sexes nearly equally. Among college students, Johnson found it to be perpetrated about 44% of the time by women and 56% of the time by men.[1]
>
> It is a relationship dynamic "in which conflict occasionally gets ‘out of hand,’ leading usually to ‘minor’ forms of violence, and rarely escalates into serious or life-threatening forms of violence.”[31]
>
> In situational couple violence, acts of violence by men and women occur at fairly equal rates, with rare occurrences of injury, and are not committed in an attempt to control a partner.[32] It is estimated that approximately 50% of couples experience situational couple violence in their relationships.[32]
>
> It is not comparable to the more severe or chronic categories of IPV, which are largely perpetrated by men.
>
> **Situational couple violence is characterized by a few main traits** :
>
> ```
> **Mode** : Mildly aggressive behavior such as throwing objects, ranging to more aggressive behaviors such as pushing, slapping, biting, hitting, scratching, or hair pulling.
> **Frequency** : Less frequent than PT, occurring once in a while during an argument or disagreement.
> **Severity** : Milder than PT, very rarely escalates to more severe abuse, generally does not include injuries that were serious or that caused one partner to be admitted to a hospital.
> **Mutuality** : Violence may be equally expressed by either partner in the relationship.
> **Intent** : Occurs out of anger or frustration rather than as a means of gaining control and power over the other partner.
>
> ```
>
> Either you don’t know how to analyze data, or you are not interested in doing so, and are simply repeating misleading anti-feminist propaganda, ad nauseam. You give no indication you are interested in trying to understand or solve the problem.
>
> You are not debating, you are witnessing. And you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
Your source is a Wikipedia article. According to your source,
> [@](#):
>
> The theory that women perpetrate intimate partner violence (IPV) at roughly the same rate as men has been termed “gender symmetry.” The earliest empirical evidence of gender symmetry was presented in the 1975 U.S. National Family Violence Survey carried out by Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles on a nationally representative sample of 2,146 “intact families.” The survey found 11.6% of men and 12% of women had experienced some kind of IPV in the last twelve months, while 4.6% of men and 3.8% of women had experienced “severe” IPV.[8][9] These unexpected results led Suzanne K. Steinmetz to coin the controversial term “battered husband syndrome” in 1977.[10] Ever since the publication of Straus and Gelles’ findings, other researchers into domestic violence have disputed whether gender symmetry really exists.[11][12][13][14] Numerous other empirical studies since 1975 suggest there is evidence for it.[15][16][17][18]
Murray A. Straus, Richard J. Gelles and Suzanne K. Steinmetz - but mainly Suzanne - were the ones I’d referred to earlier, as being subjected to bomb threats, among other things.
The proponents of the Duluth model, on the other hand, are academic feminists who use patriarchy theory as their touchstone for understanding, and perpetuating their views on, domestic violence. It is a political movement, like feminism itself.
[The Duluth model:](http://www.theduluthmodel.org)
> [@](#):
>
> A community using the Duluth Model approach:
>
> Has taken the blame off the victim and placed the accountability for abuse on the offender.
> Has shared policies and procedures for holding offenders accountable and keeping victims safe across all agencies in the criminal and civil justice systems from 911 to the courts.
> **Prioritizes the voices and experiences of women who experience battering in the creation of those policies and procedures.**
> Believes that battering is a pattern of actions used to intentionally control or dominate an intimate partner and **actively works to change societal conditions that support men’s use of tactics of power and control over women.**
> Offers change opportunities for offenders through court-ordered educational groups for batterers.
> Has ongoing discussions between criminal and civil justice agencies, community members and victims to close gaps and improve the community’s response to battering.
The Duluth model, in other words, \*assumes \*that men are perpetrators, and women are victims, and starts from there.
I take it from your posts that you’re a supporter of the Duluth model. It should be obvious, I hope, that I’m not.
If you are, it’s unlikely we’re going to make any progress. The Duluth model is not empirically driven; it’s politically driven. It’s been described as impervious to data.
Trading cites back and forth isn’t going to solve anything.
I’ve already said I believe men and women are approximately equally likely to be perpetuators of domestic violence. That’s what non-Duluth model studies show.
Men are, nevertheless, more likely to be arrested - even if they’re the actual victim of the crime - because of social stereotypes and the political influence of the Duluth model itself. They’re also more likely to be prosecuted, convicted, and to receive harsher sentences.
As an exercise, let’s try substituting out a couple of words in the Duluth model.
_“The Duluth model prioritizes the voices and experiences of **men** who experience battering… It actively works to change societal conditions that support **women’s** use of tactics of power and control over **men**.”_
Are you ok with that?
Anyway, why not lay your cards on the table? If you don’t think that women are about as likely to resort to violence in an intimate relations as men, what do you think?
---
### Author:  [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)
#### Post date: [August 2, 2015, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/790 "2015-08-02T23:59:42Z")
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> Just to jump on one of those: combat casualties disproportionately affect men because women are denied the right to serve in combat!
Dude, seriously? The _ **right** _ to serve in combat?
> [@](#):
>
> That’s a symptom of sexual inequality in the first place!
>
> Prostate cancer is silly, because it’s definitionally male. (Just as most cases of breast cancer – but not all – are in women.)
You’ve probably forgotten by now, but breast cancer gets something like $6000 per death, compared $90 per person for heart disease - the number #1 cause of death. Breast cancer doesn’t even make it into the top ten - it’s just below suicide.
Anyway, the point is that breast cancer gets disproportionate funding _because it affects women._ Prostate cancer gets less because it affects men.
> [@](#):
>
> And, anyway, you’d be completely wrong to suggest that feminists don’t care about prostate cancer. Many feminists have sons, brothers, fathers, uncles, and other relatives who suffer from this.
>
> Feminists care about all of these issues. It’s completely wrong to claim that they are “silent” here. It’s also absurd to demand that they devote “equal” attention to these, as opposed to specifically feminist issues such as rape and income inequality.
>
> This is still “mote in the neighbor’s eye” reasoning.
I still don’t get it. Is feminism about equality, or about what’s best for women?
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/791 "2015-08-03T00:03:14Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> Dude, seriously? The _ **right** _ to serve in combat?
Denying women combat roles denies promotion opportunities, since combat records and medals factor heavily into high promotions.
> [@](#):
>
> Anyway, the point is that breast cancer gets disproportionate funding _because it affects women._ Prostate cancer gets less because it affects men.
You haven’t established that this is the case rather than better marketing for breast cancer.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/792 "2015-08-03T00:33:46Z")
> [@robertliguori](#):
>
> Clearly some causes are more equal than others. . . .
Well, duh! The NRA doesn’t spend even a tenth of the money they spend opposing handgun control laws on opposing machine-gun control laws. I guess the machine-gun ban is perfectly okay with them.
(And they have done nothing to reassert our rights to grenade launchers!)
I guess they’re just a band of hypocrites…
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/793 "2015-08-03T00:37:44Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> Dude, seriously? The _ **right** _ to serve in combat?
Yes, obviously. It’s something some women want to do, and are prevented by law.
Why is this difficult for you to comprehend? Don’t you imagine there are heroic women, strong and skilled, with the necessary aggression and discipline, to be combat soldiers, who want to share in the honor, glory, patriotism, and elan?
---
### Author:  [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/794 "2015-08-03T00:53:35Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Denying women combat roles denies promotion opportunities, since combat records and medals factor heavily into high promotions.
We haven’t been in a real war for generations, so people forget. And there’s approximately zero chance we’ll be in a real war in the foreseeable future. So maybe medals are a big deal right now.
But for people who’ve actually been in combat, it’s the last place any sane person wants to be.
> [@](#):
>
> You haven’t established that this is the case rather than better marketing for breast cancer.
Ok. So why does breast cancer get better marketing?
---
### Author:  [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/795 "2015-08-03T01:00:25Z")
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> Yes, obviously. It’s something some women want to do, and are prevented by law.
>
> Why is this difficult for you to comprehend? Don’t you imagine there are heroic women, strong and skilled, with the necessary aggression and discipline, to be combat soldiers, who want to share in the honor, glory, patriotism, and elan?
I don’t doubt for a second that there are heroic women, strong and skilled with the necessary aggression and discipline to be combat soldiers.
I’m asserting that a real war is the last place a sane person wants to be. It’s an obligation, not a privilege.
I suspect you think women should have the right to be combat soldiers, if they want to, but not the obligation, if they don’t.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/796 "2015-08-03T01:02:56Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> We haven’t been in a real war for generations, so people forget. And there’s approximately zero chance we’ll be in a real war in the foreseeable future. So maybe medals are a big deal right now.
>
> But for people who’ve actually been in combat, it’s the last place any sane person wants to be.
I served. I didn’t see combat. But I could have if I wanted, and some of my fellows wanted too. Some of the women couldn’t serve in the capacity they desired, no matter how capable they were. That’s wrong.
> [@](#):
>
> Ok. So why does breast cancer get better marketing?
Presumably they hired a better firm.
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/797 "2015-08-03T01:06:45Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> I suspect you think women should have the right to be combat soldiers, if they want to, but not the obligation, if they don’t.
I think women and men should have the right to be combat soldiers if they want to and not the obligation if they don’t.
---
### Author:  [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/798 "2015-08-03T01:44:59Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> Your source is a Wikipedia article. According to your source,
>
> Murray A. Straus, Richard J. Gelles and Suzanne K. Steinmetz - but mainly Suzanne - were the ones I’d referred to earlier, as being subjected to bomb threats, among other things.
Seriously? Are you a bot?
We’ve been over this again and again. I told you why those studies are misleading:
\*\*They combined all the categories of IPV in their results. There are different categories of IPV. Situational Couple Violence is the most common, but the least severe. The chronic, more severe categories of IPV are largely perpetrated by men. \*\*
You continue to ignore this, and go on repeating yourself. No one is lying or misleading anyone about these numbers _except_ the anti-feminists. You know nothing about how this works in real life; you are just accepting everything Karen Straughan says because you _like_ her. And you obviously want it to be true.
It’s kind of funny when you think about it: You’re being manipulated by a woman to serve her purposes.
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> The proponents of the Duluth model, on the other hand, are academic feminists who use patriarchy theory as their touchstone for understanding, and perpetuating their views on, domestic violence. It is a political movement, like feminism itself.
>
> [The Duluth model:](http://www.theduluthmodel.org)
>
> The Duluth model, in other words, \*assumes \*that men are perpetrators, and women are victims, and starts from there.
>
> I take it from your posts that you’re a supporter of the Duluth model. It should be obvious, I hope, that I’m not.
You’ve obviously taken nothing from my posts.
I know all about the Duluth model, I’ve been involved in DV and sexual assault advocacy for over 20 years. What _you_ don’t know (because your Guru doesn’t mention it) is that advocacy feminists have acknowledged the Duluth model is not effective for all IPV situations (especially situational couple violence, which has different underlying issues).
Even the developers admitted that. It was developed when there was no other model available, and once they saw the data, and experienced the results they realized the problem and [admitted](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model#Criticism) it:
_“By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with.”_
BTW, it still might\* formally\* be considered the default model, but no advocacy program I know of or was involved with uses it in practice for most cases, and this is going back 20 years. There is no perfect one size fits all program, because _not all cases of IPV are alike_, no matter how much you’d like to conflate them.
Why don’t you take a break from watching propaganda videos and go volunteer for a crisis program and see for yourself? Do any anti-feminists actually help people, or do they just want to tear down feminism? What do you think that will do for the IPV problem? Do you think women who are violent will suddenly stop because feminism is over? Are feminists controlling them somehow?
And who will take on these problems men face when feminism is over? Anti-feminists? lol. Tell you what, don’t take my word for it, go to the VfM forum and suggest organizing to start a shelter or program for abused men and see what happens. You’ll be told it’s not what they do, and if you persist, you’ll be banned. They’ll think you are a troll because they openly admit that “only a feminist would say something like that”.
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> Trading cites back and forth isn’t going to solve anything.
Solve? Is that your goal? Come back when you have some real experience.
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> I’ve already said I believe men and women are approximately equally likely to be perpetuators of domestic violence. That’s what non-Duluth model studies show.
Yes, you keep saying it, and it continues to be ignorant. What is a “non-Duluth model” study? You mean the studies that _conflate_ situational couple violence with the more severe categories, which has been explained to you over and over again.
Do you think all cases of IPV are the same? Do expect to intelligently debate how to solve a problem you insist on remaining ignorant about?
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/799 "2015-08-03T01:58:19Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> I don’t doubt for a second that there are heroic women, strong and skilled with the necessary aggression and discipline to be combat soldiers.
>
> I’m asserting that a real war is the last place a sane person wants to be. It’s an obligation, not a privilege.
>
> I suspect you think women should have the right to be combat soldiers, if they want to, but not the obligation, if they don’t.
You suspect, as over and over and over in this thread, incorrectly. Maybe if you’d stopped projecting, and actually started listening, you wouldn’t come across as so intransigent.
What part of “equal” do you not comprehend?
War may be insane, but sane people go to war. Or do you really want to put the slur of mental illness of every soldier who ever fought? George Washington: psycho. Douglas MacArthur: nutso. Audie Murphy, fucking cuckoo…
(Oh, wait, Audie Murphy was fucking cuckoo…)
---
### Author:  [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/800 "2015-08-03T02:52:27Z")
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> Well, duh! The NRA doesn’t spend even a tenth of the money they spend opposing handgun control laws on opposing machine-gun control laws. I guess the machine-gun ban is perfectly okay with them.
>
> (And they have done nothing to reassert our rights to grenade launchers!)
>
> I guess they’re just a band of hypocrites…
Or people who claim that the NRA defend the right to all arms equally would be wrong.
Or there could be a point there! Maybe we can do some studies and see what firearms people generally want access to (which I assume will be mostly handguns and single-shot longarms like shotguns and bolt-action rifles for hunting), and cross-index the lobbying by what firearms are both desired and heavily restricted. If no one wants full-auto machine guns, then their lack is less of an issue. Hell, I dunno the ins and outs of firearm lobbying and regulation.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=39)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=41)