# 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:** 41
### Author:  [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/801 "2015-08-03T17:04:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> 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.
But the alternative is, apparently, to treat all men like potential rapists with the likes of mandatory anti-rape seminars. Where are all the other seminars, mandatory or otherwise, demanding that people don’t break other laws? Why should so many men be lectured to about something that they have absolutely zero intention of doing? Isn’t that kind of like treating innocent people like potential criminals?
And whilst we are talking about victim blaming:
> **[Solange and Jay-Z: it's simply not the same if a man is hit by a woman |...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/18/solange-jay-z-beyonce-fight-assault-domestic-violence-men-women)**
>
> Barbara Ellen: Men are bigger than women. And they're not routinely the least bit scared of us
[http://jezebel.com/the-top-theories-about-why-solange-attacked-jay-z-1575320718](http://jezebel.com/the-top-theories-about-why-solange-attacked-jay-z-1575320718)
The mountains of blogs and newspaper articles regarding that incident and what Jay-Z could have done to cause it sickened me. They far outnumbered the articles that just said straight up “that was assault, Jay-Z is a victim”.
---
### Author:  [@Emiliana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emiliana)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/802 "2015-08-03T17:11:25Z")
Alternative to what? Not blaming the victim? And what on earth is a mandatory rape seminar?
---
### Author:  [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/803 "2015-08-03T18:02:39Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> The focus should be on the rapists and not on victim behavior. Victim behavior has nothing to do with the societal problem of rape.
That’s what you get when you let ideology dictate your choices in the real world. That is, you get rubbish. The focus should be on whatever leads to fewest rapes without inconveniencing women (& innocent men) unduly. This focus of course includes teaching women prudent behavior and tackling potential dangerous situations when that is the most efficient way to decrease rapes ([Sexual-assault prevention program cut rape rate nearly in half](http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/sexual-assault-prevention-program-cut-rape-rate-nearly-in-half-1.3109186)). We’re on d’oh territory here.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/804 "2015-08-03T19:37:41Z")
> [@amanset](#):
>
> But the alternative is, apparently, to treat all men like potential rapists with the likes of mandatory anti-rape seminars.
Says who?
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/805 "2015-08-03T19:45:17Z")
> [@Rune](#):
>
> That’s what you get when you let ideology dictate your choices in the real world. That is, you get rubbish. The focus should be on whatever leads to fewest rapes without inconveniencing women (& innocent men) unduly. This focus of course includes teaching women prudent behavior and tackling potential dangerous situations when that is the most efficient way to decrease rapes ([Sexual-assault prevention program cut rape rate nearly in half](http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/sexual-assault-prevention-program-cut-rape-rate-nearly-in-half-1.3109186)). We’re on d’oh territory here.
Your cite doesn’t claim that there were fewer rapes because of this course, only that recipients of the course were less likely to be raped. That’s all fine – I’m all for giving women tools to keep themselves safe. That’s not victim blaming.
But as the article says, that is not attacking the cultural problem of rape. Men who want to rape will rape, and they’ll find victims who are vulnerable. I think helping women reduce their vulnerability is fine, but it doesn’t attack the source of the problem – _men who desire to commit rape and are willing to actually commit rape_. And considering [how many men](http://jezebel.com/1-in-3-college-men-admit-they-would-rape-if-we-dont-ca-1678601600) don’t see certain kinds of rape as rape, this just shows us the scope of the problem. Educating those men might actually lead to less rapes in society – educating women might reduce their own chance of being raped (a good outcome, to be sure), but I don’t see what it does to reduce rape as a problem in society.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/806 "2015-08-03T20:05:34Z")
> [@Emiliana](#):
>
> Alternative to what? Not blaming the victim? And what on earth is a mandatory rape seminar?
Colleges have occasional “mandatory” awareness thingies. My old college had a (much-needed) one on health and hygiene. (Amazing how many college-age students don’t know about soap and water…)
Being forced (ooh! fascism!) to sit through one or two public service sessions isn’t so big a violation of anyone’s rights: it’s part of the contractual deal to obtain a college degree. I also had to take a P.E. class, some math, and some social/cultural classes. That was “mandatory” too. Big deal.
---
### Author:  [@Emiliana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emiliana)
#### Post date: [August 3, 2015, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/807 "2015-08-03T21:50:12Z")
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> Colleges have occasional “mandatory” awareness thingies. My old college had a (much-needed) one on health and hygiene. (Amazing how many college-age students don’t know about soap and water…)
>
> Being forced (ooh! fascism!) to sit through one or two public service sessions isn’t so big a violation of anyone’s rights: it’s part of the contractual deal to obtain a college degree. I also had to take a P.E. class, some math, and some social/cultural classes. That was “mandatory” too. Big deal.
Ah, _those_ mandatory rape seminars. Gotcha. I’m fairly certain our incoming freshmen sit through one of them, although they are a bit broader in focus. Bystander education and all of that. Then there’s the cultural diversity role playing, the tour of the library, and an optional harbor boat cruise. Nothing more oppressive than college.
I had to take three gym classes _and_ demonstrate that I could swim two lengths of the pool.
---
### Author:  [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2015, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/808 "2015-08-04T01:11:08Z")
> [@Emiliana](#):
>
> I had to take three gym classes _and_ demonstrate that I could swim two lengths of the pool.
Tyranny! TYRRANY!!!
---
### Author:  [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2015, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/809 "2015-08-04T09:30:50Z")
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> Colleges have occasional “mandatory” awareness thingies. My old college had a (much-needed) one on health and hygiene. (Amazing how many college-age students don’t know about soap and water…)
>
> Being forced (ooh! fascism!) to sit through one or two public service sessions isn’t so big a violation of anyone’s rights: it’s part of the contractual deal to obtain a college degree. I also had to take a P.E. class, some math, and some social/cultural classes. That was “mandatory” too. Big deal.
Well thankfully when I went to University all that was mandatory was my courses and my exams, both in the subject I was studying.
As some people seem to have missed the point, I’ll spell it out for you.
A common trope is that rather than teaching women how not to be raped, we should be teaching men not to rape. The normal way this is presented is with mandatory anti-rape seminars, which is now becoming reasonably common. Not only is this treating the innocent like potential criminals, it also seems to be purely for rape. There doesn’t seem to be mandatory seminars about how not to assault people, steal things or suchlike.
Basically, it is singling out innocents to demand they listen to you about how not to do this one, hideous, thing that they never had any intention of doing in the first place. It is an extension of the radical feminist trope of “all men are potential rapists”. Surely you can see that being treated that way isn’t exactly something that many men are going to be OK with?
---
### Author:  [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2015, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/810 "2015-08-04T09:38:30Z")
Perhaps they could have mandatory anti-fake-rape-accusation seminars for the women. Then all will be equally unhappy.
---
### Author:  [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2015, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/811 "2015-08-04T14:40:45Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> Sorry I didn’t get to this sooner.
>
> 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.
If I say feminism is “about” gender equality, and you say feminism is “about” privileges for women, where do we go from there? We each present things feminists have done and said as evidence for our positions, correct? So, let’s just cut straight to that part. Words and deeds are objective, ineffable qualities are subjective.
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> Which brings me to another question: what is feminism trying to achieve?
Gender equality, and freedom from gender roles - no person being prevented from doing what they want to do on account of their gender.
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> 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):
So, why were women given a subordinate role in pretty well every single human society?
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> [Your link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_war)is one paragraph, so I’ll quote it here:
I actually used that article because the nice, neat list of links to articles about the role of women in war, from ancient times to now. They are below that paragraph.
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> 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.
The “gathering” half of hunting and gathering was, in fact, typically done by women.
But yes, giving birth was part of the “work” done by women. Are you saying that it’s easier than plowing a field, or…?
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> 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.
When I wrote “what you mainly see…”, I was referring to films other than your examples. You realize that the male protagonist rescues the female protagonist far more often than he dies for her benefit, right?
But to speak to your examples, Sarah Conner proves _her_ worth by killing the Terminator. She’s thus worthy of giving birth to and raising the savior of humanity.
I haven’t seen _Titanic_ in a long time, but I recall Rose being fairly bland and passive, as opposed to primal-life-force Leo and despicable-brute Billy Zane.
> [@Linusk](#):
>
> Fine. If Western women aren’t oppressed, what is the goal of feminism?
As above: gender equality and freedom. There’s a vast space between oppression, and equality.
---
### Author:  [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2015, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/812 "2015-08-04T14:50:05Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> Sorry to come back to this, but honestly, your response sounds like something you remembered from a Womyn’s Studies class. It’s certainly not descriptive of the movies themselves.
Again, I was referring to movies generally. With thousands of films released each year, it’s not hard to find counter-examples to any trend.
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> For one, Reese kills nobody, not even the terminator. It’s Sarah, not Reese, who kills the villain. Reese does buy Sarah time, by blowing himself up. But Sarah is certainly not Kyle’s “reward”: he’s dead.
There’s no one else for Reese to kill; the Terminator has no goons or soldiers. Reese does use violence, as I’m sure you’ll concede. At any rate, Reese isn’t the protagonist.
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> Jack saves Rose, but he doesn’t kill anyone: he does it by finding her a make-shift raft. He then romantically professes his love, while freezing to death, before sinking to the bottom of the ocean. Rose is not his “reward”: he’s dead.
Yep, _Titanic_ is a different sort of story, a tragic romance, star-crossed lovers doomed to be apart. _Romeo and Juliet_ is the template here, in which both lovers die. Rose doesn’t, because otherwise the framing device wouldn’t work, and Cameron couldn’t link the 1912 storyline with modern efforts at exploring the wreckage. But for that, it’d be more fitting for Rose to choose to drown with Jack.
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> Wesley kills no one, except perhaps the Sicilian (who arguably kills himself). He doesn’t even kill the villain. He is lucky enough not to die. And he does ride off into the sunset, with his true love. But why is **he** the one who is “rewarded”? Isn’t Buttercup every bit as “rewarded” as he is?
Because Buttercup doesn’t _do_ anything. Wesley literally runs a gauntlet of dangers, survives torture, and outwits the villain. Buttercup…looks good in a dress? She’s done nothing to earn a reward, Wesley has.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2015, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/813 "2015-08-04T15:11:46Z")
**LinusK** missed or ignored my long response to many of his questions, so I’m reposting it here in the hopes that he will respond:
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> 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”.
>
> I suspect the latter.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> 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.
>
> Advocating for education for women in countries in which women are poorly educated due to misogynistic cultural and societal practices.
>
> As are feminists.
>
> Women (and everyone) should not be shamed or otherwise criticized or made to feel poorly for having sex with other consenting adults.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> I have the same answer as for number 9. Specific focus is needed to overcome these societal biases, in my opinion.
>
> Me too. Luckily, there are plenty of qualified and capable women (and black people) that would do great but are passed over.
>
> 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:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2015, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/814 "2015-08-04T19:59:39Z")
> [@amanset](#):
>
> Well thankfully when I went to University all that was mandatory was my courses and my exams, both in the subject I was studying.
You’re proud of your ignorance?
> [@](#):
>
> A common trope is that rather than teaching women how not to be raped, we should be teaching men not to rape. The normal way this is presented is with mandatory anti-rape seminars, which is now becoming reasonably common. Not only is this treating the innocent like potential criminals, it also seems to be purely for rape. There doesn’t seem to be mandatory seminars about how not to assault people, steal things or suchlike.
You’re wrong, and twice. First, yes, it’s perfectly valid to hold “good behavior” training for college students, because some of them have been poorly socialized at home or in grade school. And second, as a matter of fact colleges hold other kinds of awareness seminars, such as the health and hygiene training I mentioned earlier.
> [@](#):
>
> Basically, it is singling out innocents to demand they listen to you about how not to do this one, hideous, thing that they never had any intention of doing in the first place. It is an extension of the radical feminist trope of “all men are potential rapists”. Surely you can see that being treated that way isn’t exactly something that many men are going to be OK with?
Since some of the men in that audience will go on to commit rape, your complaints are ill-founded. The ideal is to reduce the number of such crimes, and such awareness seminars seem to have this benefit.
Since many of the men in the audience know women who have been raped, a good many of us are absolutely OK with it. If others can be spared that misery, then sitting to a couple hours of lecture is a small price.
---
### Author:  [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2015, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/815 "2015-08-04T22:18:57Z")
> [@amanset](#):
>
> … Basically, it is singling out innocents to demand they listen to you about how not to do this one, hideous, thing that they never had any intention of doing in the first place. …
Are you sure that all men see it as “hideous”? Maybe the ‘knock woman on head with brick and drag her into alley,’ sure, but…are you sure that all men see putting a roofie in a woman’s drink and then “getting in there, son” as being a hideous act? Is it possible that many still feel that’s okay, if you can get away with it?
Might there be some men who have watched practically every 1970s or 1980s comedy movie set in a high school or college, and enjoyed the scenes in which male characters manage to “get some” from unconscious female characters? Is it possible that many such men would never have thought of doing such a thing as “rape”? After all, if it’s in a movie, it must be okay…
That’s the sort of thing those seminars are for, surely. (And, yes, I _am_ calling you Shirley.) Not everything _now_ considered to be rape by the majority of both men and women, is considered to be rape by all males. Many will be shocked at the suggestion that it’s not okay to penetrate an unconscious woman. It’s doing them a favor to inform them that their ideas are mistaken, and could bring them to harm in our current legal system.
---
### Author:  [@Emiliana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emiliana)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2015, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/816 "2015-08-04T23:01:00Z")
A freshman once told me that once women starting drinking at college parties, they were agreeing to have sex. Seriously. He truly believed this. Other guys had told him.
He most certainly had no intention of committing rape. Total sweetheart. Just clueless about sex, consent, alcohol, women, men, parties, you name it.
Unless you work with them, you’d be astonished what young people don’t know.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2015, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/817 "2015-08-04T23:05:47Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> Are you sure that all men see it as “hideous”? Maybe the ‘knock woman on head with brick and drag her into alley,’ sure, but…are you sure that all men see putting a roofie in a woman’s drink and then “getting in there, son” as being a hideous act? Is it possible that many still feel that’s okay, if you can get away with it?
According to this survey, about [a third of college-age men](http://jezebel.com/1-in-3-college-men-admit-they-would-rape-if-we-dont-ca-1678601600) are fine with rape as long as it’s not called rape.
---
### Author:  [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/818 "2015-08-05T02:01:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> 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”.
>
> I suspect the latter.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> 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.
>
> Advocating for education for women in countries in which women are poorly educated due to misogynistic cultural and societal practices.
>
> As are feminists.
>
> Women (and everyone) should not be shamed or otherwise criticized or made to feel poorly for having sex with other consenting adults.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> I have the same answer as for number 9. Specific focus is needed to overcome these societal biases, in my opinion.
>
> Me too. Luckily, there are plenty of qualified and capable women (and black people) that would do great but are passed over.
>
> 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.
Sorry for the long delay. I started a response, and then got unhappy with it, so I started thinking about why I was unhappy. And what I realized was I wasn’t accurately stating what I think. So I decided to think about it some more.
Anyway, I’ll try to take a s stab at it. First of all, (and this is a compliment, not a complaint) you seem like someone who is especially interested in women’s comfort, safety, and well-being. Again, that’s a compliment. It’s admirable.
We live in a society in which men are encouraged to look after the safety, well-being, and comfort of women. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it is part of what defines being a man. It is, as I’ve argued, not just part of our cultural heritage, but part of our biological heritage, as well. For the most part, I don’t have a problem with it. If part of being a man includes doing the heavy lifting, taking risks, and being on the front line, I’m OK with that.
But there are some problems with that paradigm. One is that it’s really one that was created in, and for, a different world than the one we live in today. (Thus the feminist discussions about whether men are “obsolete”. The answer, by the way, is “No”, but whatever.) Another problem is that part of that baggage includes a rule that men are not supposed to complain, or show weakness. It’s why, for example, men are so much less likely to go to the doctor, more likely to ignore physical or even mental health issues, and likely to have their complaints taken seriously if they seek treatment. Among our tribal ancestors, a man who complained or showed weakness was a man who could not be counted on. He was a man who risked being left behind, or, at least, one who was less likely to reproduce. Of course, we don’t live in that world anymore.
If women are “ornaments” - a feminist complaint - then men are appliances. The thing about appliances is, if they don’t work they get thrown away. That’s one reason for the great imbalance between men and women in terms of homelessness, imprisonment, and suicide. Some men don’t work, so society throws them away.
Women, of course, have the right to be seen as people, not ornaments. And men have the right to be seen as people too.
It’d be great if feminism really were about equality. But it’s not. It’s about portraying men as victimizers, and women as victims. It claims to be about “empowering” women - but not by encouraging them to be agents, who make their own choices, and take responsibility for the choices they make - but by demanding that society empower women for them, and blaming society when women don’t make the choices feminists want them to make. In other words, it objectifies women. And it abuses so-called “patriarchy,” by constantly coming up with ever more obscure and ridiculous things to complain about, and demanding that society pay attention, no matter how stupid the complaints. It seeks to create double-standards, rather than eliminate them, and it actively suppresses facts that conflict with its agenda. It deprecates the value of fathers in homes, while ignoring the evidence that fatherlessness is a prime indicator of worse outcomes for children. It does everything it can to make marriage a bad deal for men, to the point where more men are opting out. Feminism, in short, is bad for men, it’s bad for women, and it’s bad for children.
I realize that doesn’t address all the points you made.
Here are some cites for gay income:
[http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/01/gay-couples-more-educated-higher-income-than-heterosexual-couples](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/01/gay-couples-more-educated-higher-income-than-heterosexual-couples)
> **[The Truth About Gay and Lesbian Income - Freakonomics](https://freakonomics.com/2010/12/the-truth-about-gay-and-lesbian-income/)**
>
> Joe Clark, who has previously written about women's hockey, took a look at the myths surrounding gay and lesbian income statistics. Interestingly, Clark found that "\[g\]ay males earn less than straight males, often much less. Meanwhile, lesbians earn...
> **[Marketing Forward Blog](https://www.experian.com/blogs/marketing-forward/)**
>
> Marketing insight and consumer trends from Experian Marketing Services -
They’re just the first three that came up when I googled “income gays vs. straights”.
There’s tons of cites up-thread about domestic violence. The weight of the evidence, I believe, shows that men and women commit domestic violence in roughly equal measures. As far as domestic violence that results in serious injury or death, women are more likely to be victims. That’s a small category, however: most domestic violence does not result in serious injury or death. That’s not to trivialize or minimize it, just to say it’s not typical of domestic violence cases.
If there’s other things you want me to address, let me know. For the moment I’m out of time.
---
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/819 "2015-08-05T02:32:48Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> I realize that doesn’t address all the points you made.
You misspelled “any.”
---
### Author:  [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/820 "2015-08-05T05:53:46Z")
What a steaming pile of willful ignorance.
After 17 pages of explanations and evidence refuting his claims, he continues to copy and paste the same nonsense that was in the OP.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=40)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=42)