# 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:** 42
### Author:  [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/821 "2015-08-05T07:41:37Z")
I think much of anti-feminism is driven by politics.
From what I’ve seen, they fall into two political categories: Small government/free market Libertarians (we don’t need no govt programs for minority groups/special interests), and social Conservatives (a woman’s place is in the home/subservient to men).
At some point their ranting digresses into how feminism is trying to further a socialist-Marxist agenda, just as feminism was associated with the “communist scare” earlier in history.
What many of them don’t realize is that patriarchy is basically a pyramid scheme. Not all women are equally oppressed, and not all men are equally privileged.
I can understand how some guy at the bottom of the pyramid would think of himself as a victim; what he doesn’t seem to see is that the weight on his back isn’t feminism, but the people at the top of the pyramid. Feminism is actually trying to dismantle that, and should be their natural allies, but the anti-feminists use propaganda to divert them from the real problem.
_Et voila! Cherchez la femme_.
---
### Author:  [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/822 "2015-08-05T09:08:49Z")
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
Wait what? I think most feminists I know (including my own father), would argue for more equal distribution to parenting responsibilities and household work, and more appreciation for the role fathers play in child raising. I see that feminists who claim for paid maternal leave in the US area also asking for father’s leave, and asking for a general parental leave, so that both of them can get time to bond with the baby. I see feminists advocating men are equally responsible for household matters such as cleaning and cooking, as that would decrease the stress for working women, who have to work outside the house yet many people in society still expect them to keep the house tidy and meals served.
I just don’t get where do you get your conclusions, or if you’re confusing some messages (that may actually be coming from social conservative groups), and applying them to feminism as a whole.
---
### Author:  [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/823 "2015-08-05T10:39:18Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#):
>
> 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.
Some say Romeo and Juliet is really a comedy or satire. Not a romance at all. He was ridiculing the idea of dying for the love of a silly 13yo girl. It certainly has this baroque quality to it. And Jack should have tossed that silly pampered rich girl Rose off the goddamn wood and climbed on top of it himself. He actually showed some promise as a person, she was just a rich girl going through life feeling sorry for herself. So she grew as a person and was eventually able to ride on a stupid horse, big fucking deal.
But whatever, those man-saves-damsel-in-distress movies mainly illustrate male fantasies I think. For the female perspective we should go to chicklit, like Twilight or 50 Shades. So men dream of a pretty but troubled girl they can save. Women dream of a rich and scary alpha dude that’ll treat her like shit and rape fuck her. European girls seem a bit mellower with their Bridget Jones’s fantasies – just a top notch bloke who’ll take care of her and save her from her dreary existence, and not so much rape fuck. Whatever, men’s fantasies seem a great deal more feminist friendly than women’s fantasies. They say it’s the same with porn. All the really nasty degrading shit, rape porn, etc. Supposedly, it’s mainly women who’re into that stuff. I don’t know why women have such repulsive fantasies, but if we could try to avoid blaming men for them, then that’d be nice. We just want to save you and give you roses.
> [@camille](#):
>
> What many of them don’t realize is that patriarchy is basically a pyramid scheme. Not all women are equally oppressed, and not all men are equally privileged.
And what about the matriarchy? As far as there even exists anything resembling a patriarchy, the matriarchy (and toxic femininity) are much more damaging. I heard that the matriarchal establishment in France even made it illegal by law to verify by DNA the paternity of your own children. Cherchez la femme!
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/824 "2015-08-05T11:16:19Z")
> [@Rune](#):
>
> But whatever, those man-saves-damsel-in-distress movies mainly illustrate male fantasies I think. For the female perspective we should go to chicklit, like Twilight or 50 Shades. So men dream of a pretty but troubled girl they can save. Women dream of a rich and scary alpha dude that’ll treat her like shit and rape fuck her. European girls seem a bit mellower with their Bridget Jones’s fantasies – just a top notch bloke who’ll take care of her and save her from her dreary existence, and not so much rape fuck. Whatever, men’s fantasies seem a great deal more feminist friendly than women’s fantasies. They say it’s the same with porn. All the really nasty degrading shit, rape porn, etc. Supposedly, it’s mainly women who’re into that stuff. I don’t know why women have such repulsive fantasies, but if we could try to avoid blaming men for them, then that’d be nice. We just want to save you and give you roses.
All this “supposedly” stuff (and referring to Twilight or 50 Shades rather than the utterly enormous Romance genre) is rich. So a lot of your notions about women and feminism are ridiculous – that’s not going to convince me that feminism is bad.
> [@](#):
>
> And what about the matriarchy? As far as there even exists anything resembling a patriarchy, the matriarchy (and toxic femininity) are much more damaging. I heard that the matriarchal establishment in France even made it illegal by law to verify by DNA the paternity of your own children. Cherchez la femme!
You heard? LOL! Everyone alert the newspapers! **Rune** heard that something bad happened in France!
In other words – do you have a cite that this is something that happened beyond your own mind?
---
### Author:  [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/825 "2015-08-05T11:27:07Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> All this “supposedly” stuff (and referring to Twilight or 50 Shades rather than the utterly enormous Romance genre) is rich. So a lot of your notions about women and feminism are ridiculous – that’s not going to convince me that feminism is bad.
>
> You heard? LOL! Everyone alert the newspapers! **Rune** heard that something bad happened in France!
>
> In other words – do you have a cite that this is something that happened beyond your own mind?
Quality post right there. The LOL is always a dead giveaway for top notch posts. All of two secs: [Code pénal - Article 226-28](http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&idArticle=LEGIARTI000024325278&dateTexte=20130207) + [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_testing) A maximum sentence of one year in prison and euro 15,000 fine to test your own damn kids. The matriarchy is really strict on that kind of insubordination.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/826 "2015-08-05T11:41:38Z")
> [@Rune](#):
>
> Quality post right there. The LOL is always a dead giveaway for top notch posts. All of two secs: [Code pénal - Article 226-28](http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&idArticle=LEGIARTI000024325278&dateTexte=20130207) + [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_testing) A maximum sentence of one year in prison and euro 15,000 fine to test your own damn kids. The matriarchy is really strict on that kind of insubordination.
My French is pretty bad, but from what I can tell that doesn’t say what you think it says.
---
### Author:  [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/827 "2015-08-05T11:45:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> My French is pretty bad, but from what I can tell that doesn’t say what you think it says.
Then use the Wiki link I posted:
> [@](#):
>
> Paternity testing is regulated by the state and only allowed in certain cases:
>
> - Without a court order the express consent of the person must be obtained in writing before the carrying out of the examination, after the person has been duly informed of its nature and its purpose.[18]
> - With a court order (if consent could not be obtained)
>
> This is partially due to the official desire to “preserve the peace” within French families, with the French government citing psychologists who state that fatherhood is determined by society, rather than biology. French men often circumvent these laws by sending samples of DNA to foreign laboratories, but risk prosecution if caught. The maximum penalty for carrying out secret paternity testing is one year in prison and a €15,000 fine.[19]
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/828 "2015-08-05T11:46:43Z")
It seems to say that parental DNA testing is regulated by the state, and requires a court order. That’s a bit different than saying fathers aren’t allowed to test their children.
---
### Author:  [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/829 "2015-08-05T11:47:08Z")
This might blow your mind, Rune, but have you considered that some (but not all) women are into the 50 Shades stuff, just like some (but not all) men are into the knight-in-shining-armor stuff?
Goddamn, why does gender stuff make everyone forget basic standards of evidence? Something like half the world is men or women, and everyone has personally met the barest, tinest, most miniscule fraction of them! Your intuition about all men or all women is no more necessarily representative than that of a tube worm on a volcanic vent representing average temperature, pressure, and sulfur levels!
It was kind of stupidly lol-worthy how the one factual claim you made got dismissed for ideological reasons when a 30-second Google would have revealed the truth.
---
### Author:  [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/830 "2015-08-05T11:53:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> It seems to say that parental DNA testing is regulated by the state, and requires a court order. That’s a bit different than saying fathers aren’t allowed to test their children.
And if there is no court order the person being tested must consent in writing. I presume that for a minor the person’s guardians must consent. Probably makes those home test kits from CVS illegal in France.
Still doesn’t sound oppressive.
---
### Author:  [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/831 "2015-08-05T11:58:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> It seems to say that parental DNA testing is regulated by the state, and requires a court order. That’s a bit different than saying fathers aren’t allowed to test their children.
How on Earth is that different? Are men or are men not allowed to test their children without state approval? That’s like saying stealing isn’t actually illegal in France, it’s just regulated by the state and require court approval (in which case it’s called expropriation).
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/832 "2015-08-05T12:01:00Z")
> [@Rune](#):
>
> How on Earth is that different? Are men or are men not allowed to test their children without state approval? That’s like saying stealing isn’t actually illegal in France, it’s just regulated by the state and require court approval (in which case it’s called expropriation).
Starting a business isn’t illegal, but in some localities some types of businesses are regulated. Being a doctor isn’t illegal but a random person can’t open a doctor’s office without being licensed. Regulation does not equal illegal.
---
### Author:  [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/833 "2015-08-05T12:16:21Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> Starting a business isn’t illegal, but in some localities some types of businesses are regulated. Being a doctor isn’t illegal but a random person can’t open a doctor’s office without being licensed. Regulation does not equal illegal.
Stealing isn’t illegal, it’s just regulated by the state. Killing isn’t illegal, it just requires state mandate. Regulation does not equal illegal, ergo stealing and murdering are perfectly legal. Is there actually a single thing which is illegal anywhere?
What point are you actually trying to make with such distinctions? Men are for ideological reasons severely restricted from seeking certainty in matters which are of great importance to them. They have resorted to circumvent this restriction by using out-of-country services, but the penalties according to law if discovered and convicted are substantial. Does that seem to you to be a law born out of patriarchal oppression?
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/834 "2015-08-05T12:19:37Z")
> [@Rune](#):
>
> Stealing isn’t illegal, it’s just regulated by the state. Killing isn’t illegal, it just requires state mandate. Regulation does not equal illegal, ergo stealing and murdering are perfectly legal. Is there actually a single thing which is illegal anywhere?
Murder and theft are never legal. There are times when killing and taking something might be legal, but by law those instances (perhaps self-defense and judicial seizure of property) are neither murder nor theft. Theft and murder are not regulated, they’re outlawed.
> [@](#):
>
> What point are you actually trying to make with such distinctions?
These are actual distinctions and differences. Starting a business and murdering someone really are different and not comparable. Regulation and outlawing something really are different.
> [@](#):
>
> Men are for ideological reasons severely restricted from seeking certainty in matters which are of great importance to them. They have resorted to circumvent this restriction by using out-of-country services, but the penalties according to law if discovered and convected are substantial. Does that seem to you to be a law born out of patriarchal suppression?
When have I claimed that such a law came from “patriarchal suppression”? I don’t think it’s a good law (because I don’t believe it is any more likely to “preserve the peace” in families – if a father suspects he is not the father, having a harder time of testing isn’t going to assuage his fears), but not all bad laws come from patriarchal ideals in culture and society. This one appears to come from a misguided view that not knowing will somehow “preserve the peace” inside of families, and I don’t see how that’s reasonable.
---
### Author:  [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/835 "2015-08-05T12:50:49Z")
Have you ever noticed a thread you weren’t particularly interested in and decided not to get into, and then it blows up into like 500 or more posts, and decided to have a look thinking “I wonder if the OP is going to be depressingly exactly what I think it will be”? This is a thread like that for me.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
This sentence makes no sense either logically or with reference to how the real world works.
1. If an action is “up to” someone, then appending the “if they want to” qualifier makes no sense. You’re stating someone has a responsibility to take action but only if they feel like it. Taken literally your sentence is completely without content or meaning; it is logically equivalent to saying “all animals are dogs unless they are not dogs.”
2. Nobody who self-identifies as a member of a group has any obligation to defend that group from some guy on a message board who present ignorant straw man arguments, which is a perfect description of your OP. I actually know many active feminists and they do not in any way resemble the description in your OP, which is essentially a pile of toned-down malarkey from Rush Limbaugh’s “Feminazi” rants in the early 90s.
Defending the truth is fine, but there is a point at which an argument is simply crap and does not deserve response.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/836 "2015-08-05T13:16:04Z")
Before I start on this, **LinusK** , care to respond about the shirt incident? Do you see why I think your assertions about feminists wanting to control the shirts men wear as ridiculous? Do you see the difference between saying “you shouldn’t have worn that shirt” and wanting such control?
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> 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.
These all sound like ways in which patriarchal ideals harm men. We’ve made this claim over and over again – patriarchy doesn’t just harm women, it also harms men and children.
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
You are making claims about feminism that I believe are false. These things you say about feminism are not accurate for my feminism, nor for the feminism of the feminists I know, talk to, and read about. It may be accurate for some small number of feminists, but that’s not feminism as a whole.
> [@](#):
>
> 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](http://freakonomics.com/2010/12/17/the-truth-about-gay-and-lesbian-income/)
>
> [Marketing Forward Blog -](http://www.experian.com/blogs/marketing-forward/2012/07/20/sim-a-look-at-household-income-and-discretionary-spend-of-lesbian-gay-and-heterosexual-americans/)
>
> They’re just the first three that came up when I googled “income gays vs. straights”.
Those are mixed – they seem to agree that gay couples in general earn more than straight couples, but gain individuals may earn less (especially gay men).
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
I don’t believe this is so. You have found some surveys that indicate that close to as many men may have been hit or slapped as women, but there are numerous other surveys that indicate that women are [as much as six times](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_United_States#Gender_aspects_of_abuse) more likely to be abused. It may be differing definitions – many men may not see a slap as abuse, or something like that. According to Martin S. Fiebert (in the link), women are as likely to be abusive as men, but women are much more likely to be seriously harmed.
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
It’s not that small a category – [more than 2000 murder victims per year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_United_States#Murder) in intimate partner violence. 70% of those murder victims are women.
And that’s just murders – most intimate partner violence does not end in murder. Looking at health care costs, which looks like a reasonable way to evaluate the severity of injuries, intimate partner violence is about [three to six times as harmful](http://www.caepv.org/getinfo/facts_stats.php?factsec=2), in terms of injuries requiring medical treatment, to women as to men.
---
### Author:  [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/837 "2015-08-05T15:26:16Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> This one appears to come from a misguided view that not knowing will somehow “preserve the peace” inside of families, and I don’t see how that’s reasonable.
Actually it seems to come from the view that fatherhood is entirely a social construct and as such can be controlled, formed and conformed after state ideology. Fatherhood as a social construct is certainly not a flower that has blossomed in any patriarchal garden, and the issue of family and fatherhood is such a central element of existence that having such a hostile male ideology at the heart of it belies any notion of a patriarchy with any power. It does however point to strong and extremely toxic matriarchal tendencies, which I’m sure we all can agree on of course should be opposed just the same as if they were patriarchal.
Btw. [Air conditioning is literally patriarchy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNH0bmYT7os)
---
### Author:  [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/838 "2015-08-05T15:36:02Z")
How is this law matriarchal, again?
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/839 "2015-08-05T15:36:28Z")
So this thread is going down in flames (well, I guess it started there) but can we point to any progress? I’ll pick a discrete example: LinusK, are you willing to concede that some feminists talk about prison rape?
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/840 "2015-08-05T15:53:36Z")
> [@Rune](#):
>
> Actually it seems to come from the view that fatherhood is entirely a social construct and as such can be controlled, formed and conformed after state ideology.
I disagree, but whatever.
> [@](#):
>
> Fatherhood as a social construct is certainly not a flower that has blossomed in any patriarchal garden, and the issue of family and fatherhood is such a central element of existence that having such a hostile male ideology at the heart of it belies any notion of a patriarchy with any power.
Not sure what you’re saying here, or what relevance it has to anything I’ve said.
> [@](#):
>
> It does however point to strong and extremely toxic matriarchal tendencies, which I’m sure we all can agree on of course should be opposed just the same as if they were patriarchal.
The second part sounds fine to me – as to the first part, I think we disagree on the source of the law, and are unlikely to change each other’s mind.
> [@](#):
>
> Btw. [Air conditioning is literally patriarchy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNH0bmYT7os)
Not watching a video right now. Care to summarize?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=41)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=43)