# 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:** 43
### Author:  [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/841 "2015-08-05T16:08:27Z")
> [@amanset](#):
>
> 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 | Barbara Ellen | The Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/18/solange-jay-z-beyonce-fight-assault-domestic-violence-men-women)
>
> [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”.
I didn’t finish reading the first link, because I stopped here:
> [@](#):
>
> \*\* Solange and Jay-Z: it’s simply not the same if a man is hit by a woman
> \*\*
> Who knows what prompted Solange Knowles to lash out at her brother-in-law, Jay-Z, in a lift at the Met ball, held back by a bodyguard, while her sister, Beyoncé, passively observed? Was Solange drunk, frustrated about her career, sticking up for her sister – all or none of the above? The recently released (carefully vague) statement from the Knowles-Carter camp about the “unfortunate incident” revealed nothing. However, in my opinion, it would be a mistake to view that video scuffle as in any way comparable, never mind equivalent, to the bulk of male on female violence.
>
> Since the incident, there have been relentless debates along the lines of: “If it had been Jay-Z attacking Solange, there would have been an outcry, he’d have been arrested, his career and reputation destroyed – so why does a woman get away with it?” However, this seems painfully simplistic. While there are exceptions, in the majority of cases, FOM violence is different to MOF violence, in myriad ways, ranging from context, scale and intent to self-defence, sexual attacks and death rates.
:smack: “We feminists are all about eliminating double standards… unless they benefit us.”
I made it through most of the Jezebel article, and here are the highlights:
> [@](#):
>
> **The Top Theories About Why Solange Attacked Jay Z**
>
> 1.) Solange is a nasty drunk.
>
> …Could Solange have just been over-served? The fight did take place at the end of the night, which is when people are usually at their drunkest.
>
> 2.) Jay Z insulted her as a mother.
>
> …If it was something that Jay Z said to her that set Solange off, it would have to be something that really cut to the bone…
>
> 3.) She was sticking up for her sister.
>
> Beyoncé and Solange have both intimated in the past that Solange is the more outspoken of the two and she doesn’t mind going to bat for her big sister. The most striking thing about the elevator video is how calm Beyoncé appears—as though this is something that has happened before.
>
> Why didn’t she try to hold her sister back? Why did she step aside and let her sister high-kick her husband right in the chest? Why is she letting her sister scream at her husband without correcting her? Maybe because Beyoncé thinks Jay deserved Solange’s wrath…
>
> Solange’s methods of attack are also interesting, and they indicate that Jay Z did something she felt was pretty reprehensible. She repeatedly tries to kick him in the crotch, she spits on him twice, she throws her handbag at him and when he hands her shoe back to her, she tries to beat him with it.
There’s not much to say about that, except that this is feminism at it’s core.
Note that it doesn’t say Solange’s methods of attack were reprehensible (kicking him in the balls, spitting on him, beating him with her shoe…) **but that Jay Z “must have” done something reprehensible to deserve it.**
Imagine anyone anywhere saying a woman “must have deserved it, **because of** the viciousness of the attack.”
Now, I don’t know anything about Jay Z, but a quick google image search seems to show he’s a strong young man. My guess is he could have knocked Solange on her ass with one good punch to the face.
He didn’t do that.
Why?
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/842 "2015-08-05T16:12:28Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> I didn’t finish reading the first link, because I stopped here:
>
> :smack: “We feminists are all about eliminating double standards… unless they benefit us.”
>
> I made it through most of the Jezebel article, and here are the highlights:
>
> There’s not much to say about that, except that this is feminism at it’s core.
>
> Note that it doesn’t say Solange’s methods of attack were reprehensible (kicking him in the balls, spitting on him, beating him with her shoe…) **but that Jay Z “must have” done something reprehensible to deserve it.**
>
> Imagine anyone anywhere saying a woman “must have deserved it, **because of** the viciousness of the attack.”
>
> Now, I don’t know anything about Jay Z, but a quick google image search seems to show he’s a strong young man. My guess is he could have knocked Solange on her ass with one good punch to the face.
>
> He didn’t do that.
>
> Why?
You seem to be agreeing with feminists like **jsgoddess** who believe that it’s wrong to blame Jay-Z for getting attacked by Solange.
This feminist also agrees – so you agree with multiple feminists on this issue. Good for you.
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/843 "2015-08-05T16:19:11Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> You seem to be agreeing with feminists like **jsgoddess** who believe that it’s wrong to blame Jay-Z for getting attacked by Solange.
>
> This feminist also agrees – so you agree with multiple feminists on this issue. Good for you.
You aren’t supposed to tell him about the feminism cooties.
---
### Author:  [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/844 "2015-08-05T16:23:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> 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.
[Bolding mine.] I’m glad we’re on the same page. I sort of inferred you thought telling women to take precautions - the same way we do with other kinds of crimes - was victim-blaming. I’ll make an effort to look at the cite in your second paragraph, when I get time.
---
### Author:  [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/845 "2015-08-05T16:23:19Z")
> [@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.
I’m a broken record about this stuff by now, but, as with **Linus** , I don’t think you have the level of knowledge required to make an informed critique of this law. I don’t either, but my reading suggests I might be a little ahead of you, and it seems a lot more complex than you’re treating it. I mean, we’re dealing with a Wiki summary of the interplay between a French criminal statute about using someone’s genetic fingerprint and French custody and child support laws. And all the statute really says is that if you’re going to DNA test somebody for the purposes of establishing parentage, it has to be in conjunction with some kind of civil proceeding, and you have either get their consent or you have to go to the court and get a court order.
In other words, you can’t just send away a vial of pee to French Wal-Mart, get a letter back saying “not the father,” and then just walk away, leaving the other parent with the burden of figuring out how to litigate the case to get some kind of legal determination to find out whether or not you’re even telling the truth about it. Instead, you have to go to the court and say that you aren’t the father, and that you can prove it, and then prove it. Then you can walk away and not pay child support or whatever you’re attempting to do.
You can feel however you like about the wisdom of this approach - I think it’s at the very least debatable, and maybe you believe you shouldn’t have to have a court’s stamp of approval before you sever ties with very small people who erroneously think you’re their father. But as with pretty much every subject that’s come up thus far in this thread, it’s a little more complicated than “matriarchy imposes one year in prison to test your kids, feminism is tyranny, QED.”
---
### Author:  [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/846 "2015-08-05T17:40:46Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#):
>
> In other words, you can’t just send away a vial of pee to French Wal-Mart, get a letter back saying “not the father,” and then just walk away, leaving the other parent with the burden of figuring out how to litigate the case to get some kind of legal determination to find out whether or not you’re even telling the truth about it.
No, that’s nor what the law says. It is quite reasonable and goes without saying that to cut your obligations you require valid proof – that is from a sanctioned test facility. However that’s not what is going on here. It’s the mere usage of DNA testing for private use which has been made illegal. Supposedly this is also so that a person cannot take biological samples from a stranger and submit them for DNA testing, which might be reasonable, but a man’s child is not a stranger.
In any case, this need not be discussed on the basis of what goes on in France. We’ve already established in this thread that it’s meaningless to talk about feminism (and anti-feminism) since there’s no agreement on what feminism constitutes, however I certainly reserve the right to be anti-feminist when feminism is defined by opinion like this vile witch who’d use paternity uncertainty as a tool in her perputal power struggle against men:
> [@](#):
>
> Now, a cotton-wool swab with a bit of saliva, plus a small fee, less than £200, can settle the matter. At a stroke, the one thing that women had going for them has been taken away, the one respect in which they had the last laugh over their husbands and lovers. **DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science** , a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with.
>
> …
>
> But in making paternity conditional on a test rather than the say-so of the mother, it has removed from women a powerful instrument of choice. I’m not sure that many people are much happier for it.
[Who’s the daddy?](http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/6391918/whos-the-daddy/)
---
### Author:  [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/847 "2015-08-05T18:32:10Z")
What you’re not taking into account is: what’s step two?
Step one, totally legal, non-sanctionable private DNA test without the consent of the people being tested and without the approval of a court, and without filing any cases in which the result will be used as evidence (which is what you’re looking for with the repeal of that statute). Regardless of what the result is, what have you succeeded at doing, practically speaking? I go and get my baby tested, and I’m not the baby daddy. And therefore… what?
And sure, this is just what one person said in France, and you have every right to think it’s crazy, like I said. But if you’re going to hold it up as an example of a powerful nation legislating on the basis of some crazy matriarchal impulse, I think it’s fair to look at what the law is really saying, regardless of why that one person thinks it’s a good idea.
---
### Author:  [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/848 "2015-08-05T18:59:21Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#):
>
> I go and get my baby tested, and I’m not the baby daddy. And therefore… what?
Profit?
---
### Author:  [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/849 "2015-08-05T19:20:12Z")
Goes without saying that profit is step 3. But what’s #2?!
---
### Author:  [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/850 "2015-08-05T19:25:26Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> 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.
I just joined this a page ago so I may be behind but. . . domestic violence is roughly equal in men and women? Women have a 6 times higher rate [according to the Bureau of Justice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_United_States#cite_note-ncj154348-27). [“[Domestic violence] resulted in 2,340 deaths in 2007. Of these deaths, 70% were females and 30% were males.”](http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/IPV_factsheet-a.pdf) That’s equal? Or are you relying on “situational couple violence” statistics, which nobody uses when they talk about domestic violence?
Maybe feminist come in different varieties based on their location or something? My wife considers herself one, and this really doesn’t sound like her. I even asked her some questions yesterday just to check:
Me: Are you a feminist?
Her: Yes . . .
Me: So men and women should make the same amount of money?
Her: Yes.
Me: What about maternity leave?
Her: You know I wish you had more than a week off for our kids! I would have loved if you had taken longer-
Me: OK, so you think men should have time off for child care too.
Her: Yes, both parents are important when it comes to kids!
Me: What about criminal sentences? Should they be reduced for women?
Her: I’m sorry to say it but no, a crime is a crime. I can’t affect what a judge or a jury will decide though.
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> 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.
I like taking care of my wife. I hold doors for her, get her coat, ask her if she needs things while I’m up, and like to think that I would sacrifice my life to a rampaging monster to save her. _However_ I do those same things to random people too, male or female. We are teaching both our son and daughter to be the same way.
If you want to do heavy lifting, take risks, and be on the front line that’s cool. The world needs people to fill those roles. But _you’ve_ decided that it has to be men doing it for women and not you doing it for [random person].
That’s what the feminist I know say, at least. Apparently the ones around you say different things.
---
### Author:  [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/851 "2015-08-05T20:16:21Z")
> [@Gedd](#):
>
> Or are you relying on “situational couple violence” statistics, which nobody uses when they talk about domestic violence?
Yes, that’s exactly what he’s doing, and it’s been explained to him over and over again.
He’s witnessing for the anti-feminist propaganda. He doesn’t care about reality. He doesn’t care about how it impacts women - or men. It’s just another “factoid” he likes to repeat in the hope that someone will believe it if they hear it often enough.
Here’s a handy bar graph showing the impact levels for women and men from the [CDC](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm) study (which he actually quoted from at one point):
[_Lifetime prevalence of contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner with intimate partner violence–related impact, by sex — National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011_\*](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/s6308a1f2.gif)
---
### Author:  [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/852 "2015-08-05T20:38:58Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> …I made it through most of the Jezebel article, and here are the highlights:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > The Top Theories About Why Solange Attacked Jay Z …Solange’s methods of attack are also interesting, and they indicate that Jay Z did something she felt was pretty reprehensible. She repeatedly tries to kick him in the crotch, she spits on him twice, she throws her handbag at him and when he hands her shoe back to her, she tries to beat him with it.
>
> There’s not much to say about that, except that this is feminism at **it’s** core.
Your conclusion is fully as respectable as is your English.
---
### Author:  [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/853 "2015-08-05T20:43:35Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#):
>
> 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.
Interesting study; small excerpt from your linked article:
> [@](#):
>
> A small survey of college men points at something equal parts interesting and disturbing: one in three of them say they would be willing to “use force to obtain intercourse” as long as nobody would find out and there would be no consequences. But very few were willing to say they would commit rape, suggesting that they don’t quite see that forced sex and rape are the same thing.
That so many don’t believe forced sex is rape, justifies the mandatory seminars, one would think.
---
### Author:  [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/854 "2015-08-05T20:44:47Z")
> [@camille](#):
>
> Yes, that’s exactly what he’s doing, and it’s been explained to him over and over again.
>
> He’s witnessing for the anti-feminist propaganda. He doesn’t care about reality. He doesn’t care about how it impacts women - or men. It’s just another “factoid” he likes to repeat in the hope that someone will believe it if they hear it often enough.
>
> Here’s a handy bar graph showing the impact levels for women and men from the [CDC](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm) study (which he actually quoted from at one point):
>
> [_Lifetime prevalence of contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner with intimate partner violence–related impact, by sex — National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011_\*](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/s6308a1f2.gif)
I see. My bad. This is what I get for clicking on “Last Page” and not looking at how many there were.
---
### Author:  [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/855 "2015-08-05T20:53:20Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#):
>
> Regardless of what the result is, what have you succeeded at doing, practically speaking? I go and get my baby tested, and I’m not the baby daddy. And therefore… what?
I don’t care to second guess other people. What they do with the knowledge is up to themselves. Presumable many will use it to demand a divorce and termination of child support (& contact) – requiring another test by a state sanctioned service provider; others may chose other options. I don’t know and don’t really care either way. The important thing is that the state has absolutely no business going out and actively prevent cuckolded men from discovering the truth – like you know, how it is in most nations.
Beyond that, then I personally think it should be possible to sue the deceiving mother for fraud and force her to pay back any child payments which may have been made while the couple were separated. Perhaps a cause for feminists?
---
### Author:  [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/856 "2015-08-05T20:56:55Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#):
>
> Interesting study
…which was quickly totally discredited when it was released (sample size of 72, from one class at one university, dubious questions, etc.) I’ve seen surveys with a higher and more representative sample size, which showed a higher percentage of Americans think the world is flat. Just another example of how feminists insist on using bogus statistics and surveys. In any case, a good part of humanity (men and women) would visit a great deal of harm on other humans if there were no consequences. It’s just the way we are.
---
### Author:  [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/857 "2015-08-05T20:57:56Z")
> [@Gedd](#):
>
> I see. My bad. This is what I get for clicking on “Last Page” and not looking at how many there were.
No, not your bad at all. Believe me you saved yourself a lot of aggravation and time by not reading the whole thread. And it’s good that others refute him on this and most of his other claims without letting his repeated posts stand without comment.
---
### Author:  [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2015, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/858 "2015-08-05T21:29:29Z")
> [@Rune](#):
>
> …which was quickly totally discredited when it was released (sample size of 72, from one class at one university, dubious questions, etc.) I’ve seen surveys with a higher and more representative sample size, which showed a higher percentage of Americans think the world is flat. Just another example of how feminists insist on using bogus statistics and surveys. In any case, a good part of humanity (men and women) would visit a great deal of harm on other humans if there were no consequences. It’s just the way we are.
Your second-to-last sentence seems to invalidate your criticism of the study. If lots of humans would visit harm on others were there no consequences, then that’s a sign that we have a lot of things to improve.
---
### Author:  [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)
#### Post date: [August 6, 2015, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/859 "2015-08-06T01:50:53Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#):
>
> 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.
That’s true. I’m thinking of some other movies… Harry Potter, Jacob’s Ladder, Game of Thrones (technically not a movie), Unforgiven, Gran Torino, Shane, Out of Africa, Sid & Nancy… but none of these really fit the womyn’s studies template you described.
The Princess Bride comes closest, which I’ve already mentioned. Perhaps you can think of some.
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
That’s sort of the point: if the template you described was accurate, Reese would have killed the Terminator, and Sarah would have been his reward. That’s not what happened.
I would have thought that a movie could have more than one protagonist. But either way, it still doesn’t fit the model. Because even if you want to say Sarah was the protagonist, that only makes it worse. The protagonist, according to womyn’s studies, is supposed to be a man.
Finally, Sarah quickly became as violent as Reese, once she learned the skills.
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
OK. That’s one interpretation. Another is that Rose survived because Cameron was making an effort to appeal to female viewers: if she’d died, it wouldn’t have been romantic.
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
It’s true she doesn’t earn the reward, but she nevertheless got it.
To paraphrase Calvin (of Calvin & Hobbes) “I never knew anyone who couldn’t live with it.” (Getting a reward s/he didn’t earn.)
It’s worth remembering, Wesley took ridiculous risks to learn the skills that allowed him to save Buttercup, (“Nice work, Wesley. I’ll most likely kill you in the morning.”) And experienced excruciating pain (including being “mostly dead”) along the way. YMMV, but I’d rather wait in the castle. Especially in the real world, where there’s no such thing as “mostly dead.” There’s only “dead.”
Anyway, the moral, if there is one, is that skills and confidence are earned through hard work and sacrifice. Does feminism demand hard work and sacrifice from women? Or does it demand that everyone and everything else to change to accommodate them? Is it concerned about getting women into logging, construction, or working on oil rigs? Or is it mostly concerned about getting women into the plum jobs at the top of the pyramid?
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [August 6, 2015, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/860 "2015-08-06T02:00:48Z")
> [@LinusK](#):
>
> Anyway, the moral, if there is one, is that skills and confidence are earned through hard work and sacrifice. Does feminism demand hard work and sacrifice from women? Or does it demand that everyone and everything else to change to accommodate them? Is it concerned about getting women into logging, construction, or working on oil rigs? Or is it mostly concerned about getting women into the plum jobs at the top of the pyramid?
You’re on to something, but onto it in the worst possible way. Yeah, there’s a strand of feminism that focuses on “getting women into the plum jobs at the top of the pyramid,” and yeah, that kind of feminism can be kind of gross. But the reason it exists is because there’s a branch of feminism that’s by, and caters to, upper-class white women. Those women, like women at pretty much every socioeconomic level and of pretty much every race, notice the equivalent men having doors open that don’t open for themselves. This branch–I think bell hooks calls it “white supremacy feminism” but that’s based on a very old memory–can make the mistake of thinking that the struggles of upper-class white women are somehow universal. And that’s gross.
[edit: not to say that upper-class women shouldn’t fight for parity. That’s fine–as long as they don’t act like that’s the alpha and omega of equality.]
But that’s not remotely the only kind of feminism out there. And it’s a kind that comes in for plenty of criticism from other feminists. [Here’s an example](http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/myths-women-non-traditional-employment/) of feminists fighting for women in more blue-collar jobs. [Check out Tradeswomen, Inc.](http://tradeswomen.org/about/mission-and-history/) Don’t be afraid: [you can do it!](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/We_Can_Do_It!.jpg)
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=42)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=44)