# Anti-Feminism **URL:** \ **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:** 47
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/921 "2015-08-07T20:50:57Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Personal remarks again. You just…whoops. Your post, I mean. Come up with numbers, because people making claims on the internet…well, you believe them if you want to. Okay. 100% of the self-proclaimed feminists in this thread don’t hold all of those loony beliefs that **LinusK** attributes to feminism. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/922 "2015-08-07T20:54:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Is it just coincidence that all the feminists in this thread appear to be of the “sane” variety? Are we just the outliers of some insane feminist horde? > > Or is it possible that most feminists have views similar to ours, and the criticism against the crazy views doesn’t apply to most feminists? > [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Personal remarks again. There is such an incredible disconnect here that I’m honestly baffled. How is what iiandyiiii said a “personal remark”? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/923 "2015-08-07T20:56:31Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I love it when people demand a standard of evidence that they themselves are unable to meet. Evidence for what? I didn’t make all those claims that suit an ideology but can’t be backed up with evidence. I linked to a shedload of evidence for various things I’ve said. I’ll even hold this thread up as evidence. Evidence of an irrational ideology that uses crude but functional psychology to enforce a norm. We Godwinned ages ago, but there’s a sound reason the term Feminazi became popular. And now you get to deploy 'he said ‘feminazi’ and the faithful will froth. I spent 20 years believing the same swill you swallow. It’s in my sincerest best wish for you that you wake up. (And yes, there may well be much wrong, and much that needs sorting out - the young and passionate often attach themselves to any movement that seems to be ‘the answer’. And then there’s the realisation, as with communism for example, that people are the problem and always will be. Women _are_ people, by the way - radical notion, apparently, even to some feminists. Equally appalling people, because that’s the nature of people, whether they have innies or outies). ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/924 "2015-08-07T21:02:58Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Thanks for clarifying. You don’t believe that the stuff so many other people acknowledge is distasteful, hateful, unnecessary, misandrist, ill-founded etc, is a fringe position. It’s the mainstream, you say. OK. Maybe you should slow down? I’ll run through it again: it’s not a “loony fringe” of feminism that drives anti-feminism. Anti-feminism pre-dates all the stuff you’re complaining about; it’s driven by opposition to gender equality, like it always has been. > [@Jack of Words](#): > > I don’t care. I didn’t make the claims. Those who made the claims need to show how they reached that conclusion, if it was anything other than ‘I want to believe this’. I reached that conclusion by interacting with hundreds, maybe thousands, of avowed feminists, and finding zero hateful misandrists in that cohort. > [@Jack of Words](#): > > Feminism was retroactively granted to those who fought for the right of some women to vote, that’s been covered. All that’s happening here is people grasping at nits, to support an ideology that bit them somewhere beyond their intellect. The word “feminist”, in the sense of “women’s rights movement”, [dates back to the late 19th century.](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminist) There’s nothing retroactive about it. > [@Jack of Words](#): > > There are misogynists. I’ve never met one, but historical records show (for a small portion of the population, in certain places, in a short time frame) genuine misogyny. Just as we can see genuine misandrists (some of whom are feminists - but only a loony fringe minority, apparently…) Misogyny exists, sure. Far more prevalent is sexism. > [@Jack of Words](#): > > Aspergers. What’ve you got? (Sorry, I just hit ‘quote’ and I really can’t be bothered to find out what you think you’re referring to here. We have trenches, now, and nobody wants to find peace. Not even the ‘It just means equality’ crowd, who expect their claims of egalitarianism to be accepted, but ignore mine in favour of assuming an egalitarian who rejects their factually _non_-egalitarian ideology _must_ hate women or something. It doesn’t even matter what the something is, it’s just a deep, ideological ‘other’. Your hatred good, anybody else’s rational disputation bad. Yeah, maybe slow down and read the posts you’re responding to. (I’m neuro-typical, for whatever that matters). > [@Jack of Words](#): > > There’s a difference? Yes. This is reflected in the board rules, as well. > [@Jack of Words](#): > > On the subject of _tu quoque_, you did it too? I find your posts so inane that I won’t read any more of them. Count that as a win, if you wish. You can giggle with your fellow ideologues. I’ll get right on that. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/925 "2015-08-07T21:06:03Z")
> [@BrightSunshine](#): > > Your use of “quiet, stay-at-home, ineffectual” to describe most feminists is interesting to say the least. > [@BrightSunshine](#): > > Reminds me of the quote (Rebecca West, according to Google): “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.” > [@KarlGrenze](#): > > So, sane feminists are ineffectual? Sane feminists are quiet? To be feminists, women have to be stay at home? > [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Just to clarify, in order to be a sane and moderate feminist–not one of those extremist loonies–a woman has to be a quiet ineffectual homebody? Well, I was just trying to clarify who these people were that weren’t the loony fringe extremists, that were (according to multiple unsubstantiated claims) ‘most’ feminists. Because the only feminists I notice are out there pulling fire alarms to stifle disgreement, or marching with catchy slogans about toxic masculinity. They’re the ones claiming to achieve things, claiming to have an effect (leaving the rest as ineffectual). They’re the ones out and about changing things (leaving the rest at home). They’re the loud ones (leaving the rest as the quiet ones). So, yeah, nice try painting me as a patriarchal retrograde misognist (so much easier than advancing a rational argument…) But what you’ve actually done is confirm something for me - the proper way to be a feminist is to be the loony fringe extremists. Oh, and it’s worth noting again, **Karl** and **Larry**. We’re talking about _feminists_, not women. Granted, some feminists (women feminists, necessarily) claim their movement of gender equality can’t allow men to be feminists. I don’t know where you stand on the matter, but I don’t give any amount of \*\*\*\*\* what genitalia anyone has, I am concerned with their ideas. I don’t like yours. Feel free to hate me for that, but do try to spare some time to question what _that_ might indicate. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/926 "2015-08-07T21:16:28Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Because the only feminists I notice are out there pulling fire alarms to stifle disgreement, or marching with catchy slogans about toxic masculinity. I don’t think you can post in response to someone you don’t notice, and you’ve been responding to plenty of feminists. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/927 "2015-08-07T21:20:50Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Maybe you should slow down? I’ll run through it again: it’s not a “loony fringe” of feminism that drives anti-feminism. Anti-feminism pre-dates all the stuff you’re complaining about; it’s driven by opposition to gender equality, like it always has been. Maybe I…another personal attack, really? Pfft. Anyway, while you’re repeating your unsubstantiatable claim, I’ll repeat mine: I’m an egalitarian. I want gender equality along with racial equality and all the other equalities. The beauty of being an egalitarian is that we now know I’m not a racist either, or a homophobe etc. The difficulty with feminists is that one can so easily be a racist feminist, etc, > [@Human\_Action](#): > > I reached that conclusion by interacting with hundreds, maybe thousands, of avowed feminists, and finding zero hateful misandrists in that cohort. Well I have been in the habit of saying I’ve met more than my fair share of misandrist feminists, presumably you got my share of the others. Assuming your internet claim has any value. [Hint: It doesn’t]. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > The word “feminist”, in the sense of “women’s rights movement”, [dates back to the late 19th century.](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminist) There’s nothing retroactive about it. And yet the suffragists were suffragists. Who, we’ll recall, didn’t give a \*\*\*\* for lower class women. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Misogyny exists, sure. Far more prevalent is sexism. Yes, very prevalent among feminists, I’ve found (remember, my internet claim is as valid as your internet claim…) > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Yeah, maybe slow down and read the posts you’re responding to. Maybe write something that means something. Or stick with the personal attacks, I don’t mind. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > (I’m neuro-typical, for whatever that matters). For an egalitarian, that matters. Your able-ist privilege…nah, I can’t keep a straight face playing that game, though is truth in it. Of course it matters, but you can only apparently deal with one imbalance at a time. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Yes. This is reflected in the board rules, as well. > > I’ll get right on that. Again, if you can’t be bothered to say something, rather than say nothing in response to whatever it was I said, then I can’t be bothered to track back and fndout what you’re on about. ‘Slow down’, indeed. Try shaping your communication to the medium, rather then demanding others succumb not only to your flawed and indefensible ideology, but also to your preferred communication style. Talk about privilege… ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/928 "2015-08-07T21:28:21Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I don’t think you can post in response to someone you don’t notice, and you’ve been responding to plenty of feminists. Still not making [del]any sense[/del] any _posts_ that make any sense. An unsubstantiable internet claim is just that - a claim to be a feminist, a claim not to be a ‘loony fringe extremist’. We’ve pretty much all agreed that they exist - and even if I were to accept these unsubstantiated internet claims, we’ve got, what, a dozen? Two dozen? Not really outnumbering the evidenced ‘loony fringe extremists’ yet, not even the ones I’ve personally met (the ones who claim that since men have been the oppressors for 4,000 years, then feminism should have a 4,000 year reich, for example - we Godwinned already, but even Hitler wasn’t that ambitious). ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/929 "2015-08-07T21:34:20Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > And yet the suffragists were suffragists. Who, we’ll recall, didn’t give a \*\*\*\* for lower class women. And once again he trots out this general statement, without any evidence, caveats, limitations, or anything that identifies what he’s talking about (which isn’t much). In case anyone forgets precisely what’s going on here, I’ll repost some of the things we do recall about the suffragist conversations in this thread: > [@jsgoddess](#): > > Here, as far as I can tell, is a compilation of all of the suffrage posts. It’s clear from the outset that ddsun was asking about American women. JoW sees that, says he’s not American, then leaps right into talking again about suffrage without any identifiers as to what country he means, which is at best ambiguous. > > Then comes this comment: > > Lots of interesting sleights of hand going on in this post. “We’ve established,” trying to make it sound like there’s been some definitive evidence offered instead of assertions that were apparently about a country outside of the frame of reference of at least one person who identified her frame. Then saying it would be “inaccurate” to call suffragists “necessary.” Then saying the suffragists wanted “more power than other women” and (my favorite) adding “and men” in a nice little ambiguous way that could be read as “more power than other women and other men” or “more power than other women and more power than men.” > > Later, JoW takes issue with my statement that he is blaming suffragists for women over 30 who apparently met some property threshold (I am not familiar with suffrage in the UK) getting the vote before women or men under 30 or women or men who do not meet the threshold. But in that previous thread he said that they wanted “more power than other women and men.” I think it’s fair to say that when someone strives for what they want and gets what they want, they are responsible for the striving and the getting. > > In addition, the idea that if you try to gain equality for a group (both men AND women able to vote, but with the same restrictions) the fact of those restrictions means what about your attempt? Nothing. In the US framework, would we say that suffragists who did not try to hitch women’s suffrage to the 15th Amendment wagon therefore did not care about women’s suffrage? No. We would say that they likely were willing to take what they could get instead of swinging for the fences and missing. Again, the UK situation and the US situation were not the same. Though voting for women on a national scale appears to have happened at roughly the same time in both countries, the paths were not the same. > > And, this still leaves open the question about why, in a world so beautifully tailored for the whim and wish of the woman, campaigns for women’s suffrage were necessary. And no, I won’t put scare quotes around necessary. It was fucking necessary. > [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Yep. He moved the goalposts just about immediately, a couple of posters kicked the ball right through his goalposts notwithstanding that he was moving them, and he’s been arguing about whether or not the football was underinflated for a couple million posts. > [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > You’re right, I didn’t then point out which country I _was_ talking about, although a lot of posters seem to have missed that it _wasn’t_ america. None of them asked either, did you? It certainly would have helped if I’d been less UK-centric, I can’t deny that, but to be spending time collating posts to make such a tiny point about a poster and not the topic establishes again that the pro-feminists aren’t interested in discussing the actual topic _and_ that your expressed desire, long ago, that this thread should end was… let’s say “at best ambiguous”. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > Based on those first few posts, I don’t have any doubt that he was deliberately trying to be as ambiguous as he could about what precisely he was referencing. Providing clear cites, making sure cultural and country references are clear once you see that someone is not sure what the frame is, reiterating points clearly, etc. > > I went back through the posts in case I and other posters had missed the relevant details that would have made things clear, but those details are simply not there. “I’m not American” is not a sufficient notice that nothing else refers to America. Too many non-Americans have too much to say about America to make such an assumption. > > We’re left with someone who had a weak point about an irrelevant topic that he refused to clarify and disambiguate. And because it’s the dope, we spend hundreds of posts on it. Whee! 😃 > [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > I was personally unaware, before this thread, that the US also had suffragettes. My favorite point, of course, is where he admits that he didn’t even know the US had suffragettes. Which is pretty shocking given the breadth and depth of his conversation and knowledge to that point. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/930 "2015-08-07T21:39:54Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Because the only feminists I notice are out there pulling fire alarms to stifle disgreement, or marching with catchy slogans about toxic masculinity. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > I don’t think you can post in response to someone you don’t notice, and you’ve been responding to plenty of feminists. > [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Still not making [del]any sense[/del] any _posts_ that make any sense. Did you know there were US feminists? Maybe that’s what’s confusing you. I just love this new notion that maybe the people in this thread who claim to be feminists aren’t _really_ feminists. We’re all no doubt a gang of non-feminists who ride around the internet on bicycles (like fish! ha!) and fake being feminists in order to… okay, this is the confusing part. But I’m sure it’s devious. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/931 "2015-08-07T21:47:19Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Evidence for what? I didn’t make all those claims that suit an ideology but can’t be backed up with evidence. I linked to a shedload of evidence for various things I’ve said. No, you’ve linked to a bunch of cherry-picked anecdotes. Are there some feminist who support ludicrous or discriminatory ideas? Yes, and no one has denied that. But you’ve provided zero evidence that those sorts represent the majority of feminists. ---
**Author:** ![Emiliana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@Emiliana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emiliana)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/932 "2015-08-07T21:48:07Z")
```auto ``` > [@hildea](#): > > In vain I have struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. I must wade into this thread. > > LinusK, you’ve mentioned several times your hypothesis that human beings are inherently prone to see men as less valuable and more expendable than women. Tomndebb debunked that claim with a single word back on [page 6](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18534280&postcount=256), but you didn’t notice, so I’ll expand. > > The single word was “infanticide”. When people can’t or won’t raise all their children, the ones they kill will be those they consider least valuable. The victims of infanticide are _by definition_ expendable. If your hypothesis was correct, we’d expect more boys than girls to be victims of infanticide. But what we see is the opposite: When there’s a sex difference in infanticide, it’s almost always in disfavour of girls. And we’re not talking about obscure customs among tiny populations: In both China and India, there’s a measurable lack of women due to sex-selective infanticide and abortion. > > So, either we have no inherent tendency to see males as less valuable than females, or if we have such a bias, it’s so weak that it can be overridden by culture. > > I trust you’ll reexamine the evidence that lead you to your hypothesis, and decide if you were mistaken about the existence of this bias, or if you believe it’s a cultural trait instead of a biological one – and if so which cultures you think are affected. Just wanted to make sure this didn’t get lost amidst all the discussion about the Titanic. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/933 "2015-08-07T21:57:29Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > No, you’ve linked to a bunch of cherry-picked anecdotes. Are there some feminist who support ludicrous or discriminatory ideas? Yes, and no one has denied that. But you’ve provided zero evidence that those sorts represent the majority of feminists. Pay attention. I’ve made no such claim. On the other hand, I did just collect several claims that they represented the fringe of loony extremists. But nobody who has made that claim has offered any evidence. D-. Must try harder. ---
**Author:** ![Emiliana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@Emiliana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emiliana)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/934 "2015-08-07T22:00:17Z")
You seem really angry, Jack. Would it help if a couple of us gals simpered in your general direction? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/935 "2015-08-07T22:03:07Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > There is such an incredible disconnect here that I’m honestly baffled. How is what iiandyiiii said a “personal remark”? The intent is to misrepresent attacks on posts as if they were attacks on the person so that his own attacks on persons can be misrepresented as attacks on posts. It is his schtick. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/936 "2015-08-07T22:06:38Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The intent is to misrepresent attacks on posts as if they were attacks on the person so that his own attacks on persons can be misrepresented as attacks on posts. It is his schtick. Well, that’s… something. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/937 "2015-08-07T22:08:25Z")
> [@Emiliana](#): > > ```auto > > ``` > > Just wanted to make sure this didn’t get lost amidst all the discussion about the Titanic. Fairly certain you just personally attacked him. Shame on you. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/938 "2015-08-07T22:09:12Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > . . . but to be spending time collating posts to make such a tiny point about a poster and not the topic establishes again that the pro-feminists aren’t interested in discussing the actual topic . . . Says the poster who has spent far more effort discussing posters than the topic. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/939 "2015-08-07T22:13:14Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > Pay attention. I’ve made no such claim. You haven’t? Huh. Could have sworn you were saying just that, in pretty much every post you’ve made to this thread. Can you remind me why you don’t identify as a feminist again? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2015, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/940 "2015-08-07T22:14:27Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Says the poster who has spent far more effort discussing posters than the topic. And it’s rather amusing given that it took about five minutes AND revealed that he was talking about a different country than everyone else. How is that not time well spent? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=46) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=48)