# 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:** 62
**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 14, 2015, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1221 "2015-08-14T01:48:49Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Historically, (though not anymore, of course) both a wife and a husband had a right to sexual relations with their spouse. Marital rape was impossible, because marrying someone was itself consent to having sex with them. That is, as I said, now a relic of the past. But is that relic really about rape - or is it about a former, but not current, expectation about marriage - specifically, that if you married someone, part of the deal is that you were agreeing to have sex with them - whether you were a male or a female? And yet another way in which patriarchal culture harmed both genders. But statistically, women were and are raped more often, and biologically, women are less equipped to resist unwanted advances (not that female rape isn’t possible – it is, and when it happens it’s just as bad as male rape), and culturally, men were considered to be in the superior and leadership position in marriages, and women were expected to obey. > [@](#): > > And then there’s [this book, which you can buy on Amazon](http://www.amazon.com/Photo-Sensible-Roosevelt-Whipping-post-wife-beaters/dp/B005Q1OJY6), if you like. It’s from 1883. The whipping post had been abolished in America, but Roosevelt proposed bringing it back - specifically for the purpose of punishing men who abused their wives. I want to emphasize that. The whipping post was for men, not for women. If so, this was a raindrop of opposition to wife-beating against an ocean of support and tolerance. Through most of history, and most places in the world, wife-beating was tolerated and sometimes even encouraged. In most places and in most times, abused wives had no recourse and no escape. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1222 "2015-08-14T01:50:14Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > “Patriarchy” is too simple an explanation for the problems of humanity. Good, we agree. I don’t think people are saying that. ---
**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 14, 2015, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1223 "2015-08-14T01:53:27Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > One of the principles of science is the possibility of falsifiability: in other words, the possibility that some experiment could be done or observation made, that would disprove the theory. If there is no such experiment that could be done, or observation that could be made, the theory is sometimes called pseudo-science. > > One reason pseudo-science is popular, is it so often appeals to emotions, rather than facts. For example, most people believe in heaven. Not because there’s any evidence of it, but because it would be so comfortable if it were true. > > With feminism, at least in this thread, the tactic seems to be that of attacking the messenger: If we can just keep people from talking about it, we can go back to believing what makes us comfortable. Pretty much all of the evidence, including most of the evidence you’ve presented, in this thread, has supported the notion that women have been treated poorly by society and abused more so then men through most of history. At most your evidence has suggested that at times wife-beating has occasionally been opposed, and that women may be responsible for a significant chunk (but still a minority) of domestic abuse even if they are injured and killed far more often in such abuse, and similar. Women had fewer property rights, fewer political rights, little protection against abuse and rape, were culturally considered inferior and encouraged/mandated to be subservient to men, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1224 "2015-08-14T02:02:47Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Is an 400% difference in the likelihood of getting custody evidence of sexism? [Absolutely](http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/charting02/executive.htm): > [@census.gov](#): > > Daily Time With Children. Children generally spend more time with their mothers than their fathers on any given day, possibly reflecting higher levels of employment among fathers than mothers. In two-parent families, this time difference is not terribly large: children ages 12 and under spend on average 2 hours and 21 minutes a day with their mothers, compared to 1 hour and 46 minutes with their fathers. > … > Men and women differ on whether one parent can bring up a child as well as two parents together. In 1994, 42 percent of women agreed that one parent can bring up a child just as effectively as two parents together, compared to just 26 percent of men. > … > In 1996, almost one in five children ages birth to five (18 percent) had their fathers as their primary caregivers while their mothers were working, attending school, or looking for work. Now, the stat I was looking for is one I couldn’t find. Namely, in what percentage of 2-parent families is the father the primary caregiver. But the stats I did find show: -Dads end up working outside the home more, with women being in the home more. That indicates sexist attitudes about division of labor in families. -Dads are less likely to believe that one parent can bring up a child as well as two parents. A judge might be less likely to grant custody to the person who thinks that a single parent can’t do the job as well. -Not many dads married to working moms take care of their kids. I’ll hazard a guess that more moms married to working dads take care of their kids. If moms spend more time with kids, are more often primary caregivers, and are more confident in their ability to single-parent-it-up, it’d be sexist for judges to grant custody equally to moms and dads. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1225 "2015-08-14T02:25:15Z")
[I thought this story was interesting.](http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html?cx_navSource=related-side-cx&cx_tag=default) It’s from the New York Magazine - something called “The Cut.” I won’t quote the whole thing, but please read it if you find it interesting. [Again, the whole piece is here.](http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html?cx_navSource=related-side-cx&cx_tag=default) > [@](#): > > What Open Marriage Taught One Man About Feminism > > As I write this, my children are asleep in their room, Loretta Lynn is on the stereo, and my wife is out on a date with a man named Paulo. It’s her second date this week; her fourth this month so far. If it goes like the others, she’ll come home in the middle of the night, crawl into bed beside me, and tell me all about how she and Paulo had sex. I won’t explode with anger or seethe with resentment. I’ll tell her it’s a hot story and I’m glad she had fun. It’s hot because she’s excited, and I’m glad because I’m a feminist. > > Before my wife started sleeping with other men, I certainly considered myself a feminist, but I really only understood it in the abstract. When I quit working to stay at home with the kids, I began to understand it on a whole new level. I am an economically dependent househusband coping with the withering drudgery of child-rearing… > > When people ask how it started, I say this: … > …after much soul-searching about why the idea of my wife having sex with other men bothered me I came to a few conclusions: Monogamy meant I controlled her sexual expression, and, not to get all women’s-studies major about it, patriarchal oppression essentially boils down to a man’s fear that a woman with sexual agency is a woman he can’t control… > > The point is that it should be women who choose, not men — even the men they’re married to. For my wife, the choice between honoring our vows and fulfilling her desires was a false choice, another trap… > > When my wife told me she wanted to open our marriage and take other lovers, she wasn’t rejecting me, she was embracing herself. When I understood that, I finally became a feminist. There’s also a follow-up piece, if you care to read it, which you can find here: > [@](#): > > [MALE FEMINISTS | So, You’re a Male Feminist in an Open Marriage … ?](http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/youre-a-male-feminist-in-an-open-marriage.html) ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1226 "2015-08-14T02:31:06Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Another top notch quality post that really gives everybody a lot of stuff to think about. The :rolleyes: was a particular hard hitting point. No prize though! You’re a white male, you got your prize when you was born into moral privilege and social dominance. > > ahh yes, back to THE BORG theory. I guess that makes all homeless men all that more of a bunch of deadbeat losers when they had it so easy to begin with. But do you have a way to quantify those difficulty settings of this game? Or are you mainly just spewing unverifiable unfalsifiable nonsense? > > btw. you forgot cis. Yes. Because all those homeless white guys begging for change? They’re at the top of the social pyramid. Because being born a white male is like being born with a Gold Card that never runs out of cash and you never have to repay. (I wonder where the fuck I lost mine?) ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1227 "2015-08-14T02:35:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No, it doesn’t mean they had it easy – just easier then if they were black, or female, or gay (or trans). Growing up with an alcoholic deadbeat dad and a drug addict mother means it’s tough no matter your race/gender/orientation. But it’s still easier to succeed from such a start if you’re a straight white male than if you’re not. All those challenges are hard enough on their own, but even harder if you pile on institutional and personal racism, sexism, and homophobia. Because having an abusive father, a neglectful mother, a mental illness, and having the shit kicked out of you over and over doesn’t affect you as much, if you’re white, right? ---
**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 14, 2015, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1228 "2015-08-14T02:47:52Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Because having an abusive father, a neglectful mother, a mental illness, and having the shit kicked out of you over and over doesn’t affect you as much, if you’re white, right? Did you read my post? That stuff is incredibly tough to get past, and even tougher if you’re black, or gay, or female. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1229 "2015-08-14T03:20:11Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > \ > > One time Zeus and Hera had an argument on who got the most out of sex, men or women. So they asked some dude who due to an accident with some snakes had been turned into a woman. Having lived both as a man and a woman, he/she reported woman had many times the enjoyment. There was a story (Nora Vincent) some time back about a feminist who as part of an experiment decided to live 18 months as a man. To experience the male privilege supposedly, although her subsequent conclusion was that women were much more privileged. I think she even needed some extensive therapy afterwards, to deal with the trauma of having been a man. \ This originally comes from Reddit, via Tumblr. Having said that, it seems authentic to me. As usual, I’m not quoting the whole thing, [but you can read it here, if you want](http://fishyfeesh.tumblr.com/post/98171451405/a-reddit-user-who-verified-their-identity-as-a). The original is [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2gxxl0/ive_lived_my_life_as_both_male_and_female_and/), from the Subreddit, “Men’s Rights”. > [@](#): > > A reddit user who verified their identity as a transgender told her story about what it was like to live life both as a man and a woman. What s/he experienced will definitely shock you ( unless you’re a non-brainwashed man ). > > From Reddit: > “You can call me D. I’m a 22, almost 23 year old transgender male living in the US. I lived the first 17 years of my life as female, and have spent the last five presenting as male, and I have seen exactly what is different when it comes to how men and women are treated. I have always felt like a guy. Even when I was little. My parents had no problem with me being a ‘tomboy’, or acting mannish – fishing, karate, lifting weights, kicking the shit out of other kids in competitive contact sports like football, baseball, whatever. This wasn’t something that anyone saw as ‘strange’ – which I now see as a huge double standard… So many things that I was told to be proud of as a woman, now are a source of shame and teasing. Women can like and do whatever they like, but as a man, you are so god damn limited in what is ‘acceptable’… When I identified as female, I was somehow awesome for being on the taller end of femme, but now? Now I’ve been called a “manlet” for being a hair under average male height – because apparently men get to be treated like shit for something that they can’t control. I’ve also noticed that, while dating women, a lot of them won’t even go NEAR you if you’re under 6 feet tall. Which is bullshit. As I’m bisexual it didn’t really matter too much to me, but I did notice something anectodally interesting – gay men and bisexual men don’t generally give a flying flip if you’re short or tall as long as there is chemistry between you. But of course, men are the judgemental ones, right guies? > …As a woman, I was free to be as shitty as I wanted, in personality, as well – in my (very stupid) younger man-hating years, no one was mad, and people even ENCOURAGED me to be a man hater! Now, as a man, I am apparently not even allowed to voice my opinion on women’s rights. Doesn’t matter that I still have breasts, a vagina, and two X chromosomes – nope. Because I pass as male, I have suddenly lost my ability to understand the plight of poor womenfolk. There are SO many double standards between males and females, I could go on for the entire 15000 character limit, but I’ll leave it here and stop rambling.” ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1230 "2015-08-14T05:12:29Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Yes. Because all those homeless white guys begging for change? They’re at the top of the social pyramid. Because being born a white male is like being born with a Gold Card that never runs out of cash and you never have to repay. (I wonder where the fuck I lost mine?) > [@LinusK](#): > > Because having an abusive father, a neglectful mother, a mental illness, and having the shit kicked out of you over and over doesn’t affect you as much, if you’re white, right? **LinusK** , do you know what a variable is? Race is _only one of a set_ of variables that comprises an individual. Other variables can include: wealth, health, education level, gender, appearance, personality traits, family support, etc. What **iiandyiiii** has been saying here is that,\* all other things (variables) being equal\*, being white confers an advantage. Does a wealthy white man have more privilege than a poor white man? Yes. Because of the advantage of another variable (wealth). See how that works? Your depiction of the homeless or mentally ill white guy adds other variables besides race, so of course, calculating an individual’s overall advantage is not that simple. Let’s say you have two people with exactly the same type and stage of cancer. Not an enviable situation for either one of them, but what if one was wealthy and one was poor? Just the addition of one variable makes the comparison more complex. Now add even more variables… No one is saying that _simply being white_ is a magical, get out of jail free, set for life attribute. It’s not. One other thing to keep in mind: When someone is told to “check your privilege” (and I’m not a fan of it, because it can be seen as hostile), it is a reminder to consider the things that you take for granted because of a particular attribute. For example, if you are white, you might take for granted that: systemic racism doesn’t apply to you or your children, you can rent an apartment or buy a house wherever you want to live in your price range, you will never be patronized by hearing “You’re a credit to your race”, you will not be followed around a store because the color of your skin makes you suspicious, etc. And there is much, much, more; some might seem trivial to you, but there is a cumulative effect. It also means someone who isn’t white needs to be in a higher range of other variables (e.g., education, experience, appearance) in order to overcome the disadvantage of being non-white, and play on a level field. I don’t know why you (and **Rune** ) have a hard time understanding or accepting this. If you still don’t acknowledge this as accurate, please explain your reasoning, instead of just mocking it or ignoring it. ---
**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 14, 2015, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1231 "2015-08-14T07:37:58Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > This originally comes from Reddit, via Tumblr. Having said that, it seems authentic to me. As usual, I’m not quoting the whole thing, [but you can read it here, if you want](http://fishyfeesh.tumblr.com/post/98171451405/a-reddit-user-who-verified-their-identity-as-a). The original is [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2gxxl0/ive_lived_my_life_as_both_male_and_female_and/), from the Subreddit, “Men’s Rights”. Huh. You found a trans guy on Reddit. Coincidentally, I just found a trans guy in my bed. I showed him what your guy wrote. He said he was “an adorable kitten,” and to “get back to him when he’s a grown up.” I love the dude, but he can be a little bit ageist. That said, he does have a point. My guy, I mean, not yours. Your guy says he lived for seventeen years as a woman, and five years as a man. But that’s not really true. He’s lived for five years as a man, and seventeen years as a girl. And by girl, I mean a minor child. He’s comparing the treatment he gets as a (putative) adult, to the treatment he got when he was a kid. Surprise: turns out being a grown up is hard. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1232 "2015-08-14T09:46:30Z")
> [@camille](#): > > It also means someone who isn’t white needs to be in a higher range of other variables (e.g., education, experience, appearance) in order to overcome the disadvantage of being non-white, and play on a level field. > > I don’t know why you (and **Rune** ) have a hard time understanding or accepting this. Race has nothing to do with feminism and it’s kinda a dickish move to try to piggyback women on the backs of blacks (although I read that due to new definitions of racism to do with systematic or some such nonsense, that black people cannot be racists towards whites, this has inspired some women to likewise claim that women cannot be sexist towards men) Anyway, women are not disadvantaged or underprivileged in modern Western society. That is what is up for discussion. Of course there have been times during history and there are places today, in third world shitholes with shitty cultures and shitty religions, where being female sucks. But those places are not here. Women also have issues which are particular to their sex, but so do men, and those of women certainly do not dwarf those of men. I do not “accept” that we live in a Patriarchy where women are systematically being politically/morally and socially controlled and dominated by men because it’s simply false, and nothing you, or anyone else, have done have come anywhere near to presenting scientific proof otherwise. And when feminists do dig up statistics to back some of their silly theories (rape culture – come on!), the statistics tend to be false. Incidentally, your usage of the word “accept” reminds me a bit of the Mattress Girl, and her anti-science beliefs (\*[“If we use proof in rape cases, we fall into the patters of rape deniers … When a person claims that their theory is science, they disqualify other types of knowledge.”](http://i.imgur.com/q5C6bS2.png)[(i]) This whole movement of which 3rd gen. feminism is a part, seems to increasingly disdain basic scientific principles. Gender or women’s studies are based on such absurd (ideological driven) theories that they can only exists in echo chambers and safe places full of trigger warning where they can go unchallenged – like if a thing is felt strongly enough by some person, then it’s wrong and disrespectful (harassment) to disagree. For some reason anger seems to be the new proof – being really angry is something to be proud of and proclaim loudly to the world. Or whatever, a tangent. The whole of 3rd gen. feminism and their various dogmas (The Patriarchy, Rape Culture, Privilege, Victimology) reminds me increasingly of the “science” of [Creationism](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a2/81/2d/a2812de492066705aa843057116bde74.jpg) and other belief or ideology driven pseudo-sciences. What does it matter if one accepts? A creationists would want you to accept and believe. A Darwinist couldn’t care less about your acceptance. Either it’s true or it’s false, that’s all there is to it. 3rd gen. feminism just happen to fall in the false basket on so many counts. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1233 "2015-08-14T12:01:21Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Race has nothing to do with feminism and it’s kinda a dickish move to try to piggyback women on the backs of blacks This non-White guy doesn’t think it’s dickish at all. Solidarity in oppression and all that. Intersectionality, too. But please, do whitesplain for us what we should feel offended about, _Bwana_. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1234 "2015-08-14T12:16:47Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > This non-White guy doesn’t think it’s dickish at all. Solidarity in oppression and all that. Intersectionality, too. > > But please, do whitesplain for us what we should feel offended about, _Bwana_. Do blackspain why I should give a damn about that you’re non-white and what you feel offended about and how including a discussion on racism is likely to do a discussion on feminism any good. Like the subject isn’t nearly big enough without including race, ethnicity, religion, heightism, homosexuality, the fat acceptance movement, and the price of beans in China. And add Intersectionality to the list of dogmas of dubious scientific value. Incidentally I’m reminded of the black guy was shot in the US a little while back by a white cop. He was running away because falling back on child support would land him back in jail. There’s intersectionality for you. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1235 "2015-08-14T12:32:17Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > This non-White guy doesn’t think it’s dickish at all. Solidarity in oppression and all that. Intersectionality, too. > > But please, do whitesplain for us what we should feel offended about, _Bwana_. And you got the response you might expect from a guy named “Rune.” ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1236 "2015-08-14T12:42:21Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > And you got the response you might expect from a guy named “Rune.” So is going after names actually the debating level you want to debase yourself to? Pathetic. FYI, Rune is one of the more common names in Scandinavia. The female variant is Runa. ([Put name in textbox titled: Fornavn](http://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/emner/navne/HvorMange)) It has a tribal meaning where I’m from, but I can’t tell you because it’s a secret. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1237 "2015-08-14T12:46:39Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Anyway, women are not disadvantaged or underprivileged in modern Western society. I don’t think that is the case, but start with defining the places you consider modern Western society. I’d still argue that there is a disadvantaged, although obviously not as bad as it was in previous generations and in some parts of the world the disadvantage is less than in others. > [@](#): > > Of course there have been times during history and there are places today, in third world shitholes with shitty cultures and shitty religions, where being female sucks. But those places are not here. I would say over most of the recorded history. And you seem to have a white/black separation, when in reality there are areas of greyness between “modern Western society” and “third world shitholes with shitty cultures and shitty religions”. What cultures, and what religions? Also, I would say most women (and men, humanity in general) live in areas that are not “modern Western society”. Are they not worthy to be included in this discussion? What is “here”? “Here” means different places to different people, as evidenced by **Jack of Words** ’s own words. I would think that “here” is this world, because I know of no other world, and I would like it to be fair overall for men and women. > [@](#): > > Women also have issues which are particular to their sex, but so do men, and those of women certainly do not dwarf those of men. What issues are those? And perhaps that is the point, that the issues should not be issues, or should not be particular to women (but also to men), and that perhaps they should not be treated separately. I can grant there are differences between both, but let us examine first what are the issues you talk about. > [@](#): > > I do not “accept” that we live in a Patriarchy where women are systematically being politically/morally and socially controlled and dominated by men because it’s simply false, and nothing you, or anyone else, have done have come anywhere near to presenting scientific proof otherwise. And when feminists do dig up statistics to back some of their silly theories (rape culture – come on!), the statistics tend to be false. I do accept that we live in a patriarchy because I have first hand experience in some of the things discussed here (although to a much lesser degree than other women). I also hear the incidents told by my mom, aunts, grandmother, female friends, cousins, etc., and I realize that while my situation is better, it is still not comparable. Is it as bad as it was centuries ago? No, I don’t think so, I think most places have greatly improved, to the benefit of all. Are they still things/places/people that are resisting the change? YES, there are, and that is what we have to deal with. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1238 "2015-08-14T12:48:02Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > So is going after names actually the debating level you want to debase yourself to? Pathetic. Going after names was the debating style of someone else in this thread earlier on. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1239 "2015-08-14T12:56:04Z")
Speaking from my position of Jewish Privelage, I hereby proclaim the relationship between race and feminism Complicated. Of course, people want to make it not complicated. They want to have a nice proper ordering, where each axis gives you a fixed number of Oppression Points and having the most oppression points wins. Intersectionality as a theory is great; it should blow that theory away. And indeed, when we actually look at stats, we see that certain axes of oppression tend to fall on certain people, and that this isn’t well-ordered; it’s great to be Jewish in most of New York, Florida, and California, and less-great in rural Mississippi, it’s great (statistically-speaking) to be a woman who’s committed a violent crime and is about to interact with the justice system and a lot less great if you’re trying to get hired as a quant on Wall Street, and so on. Intersectionality, in this view, says that if you line up a few axes which hit on a particular category of risk, then regardless of whether or not these axes integrate out to privileged in the main, will end up concentrating their effects on you. The obvious go-to example is violence, blackness, and maleness. Being black increases your risk of being a victim of violence, being male increases your risk of being a victim of violence, and so being black and male is worse, in the violence axis, than being black and female. This is also like 90% of my problems with the incarnation of, for lack of a better term, tumblr-wave-feminism. People tend to take ideas which are basically true, like “It’s easy to overlook problems when they’re not happening to you or anybody you know.” or “Life factors can add up in unintuitive ways.” or “People tend to judge their status and life outcomes relatively, so having an unfair advantage removed feels like losing something you were entitled to.”, and then with very few exceptions fail to apply them to their own movement and groups. And a lot of feminists don’t! A lot of feminists do recognize that there is a time to check their female privilege and let men talk about certain issues, that their relative disadvantage in many areas does not mean that they are disadvantaged in other areas, and that you can hold the mirror of feminist critique to mainstream feminism as a whole and see a whole lot of areas for potential improvement. But there are a whole lot of very vocal feminists who don’t do these things. By their own dogmas and by the foundational assumptions of feminism as a whole, they are being bad feminists, but they are feminists nontheless. All of this is specific to the modern Western world and America specifically, of course; as **Karl** points out. Of course, the relative amount of ink spilt by self-identified feminists to discuss the plight of women in American colleges vs. women in Saudi Arabia is another issue, but the near/far dichotomy is nowhere unique to feminism. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/1240 "2015-08-14T13:04:36Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Do blackspain Can’t. There’s no explaining to those who won’t listen… > [@](#): > > why I should give a damn about that you’re non-white and what you feel offended about and how including a discussion on racism is likely to do a discussion on feminism any good. Don’t expect you to give a damn. Your hostility to the idea that oppression might make common bedfellows is obvious. Doesn’t matter, wasn’t trying to change your mind, I was pointing out the ridiculousness of _you_ telling **camille** what’s dickish, when you’re not a member of the group that should take offense at the comparison, to the thread in general. It may _look_ like I was addressing you, I really, really wasn’t. Mostly, I was telling **camille** to ignore your bullshit and letting her know you don’t actually speak for anyone. > [@](#): > > Like the subject isn’t nearly big enough without including race, ethnicity, religion, heightism, homosexuality, the fat acceptance movement, and the price of beans in China. Yeah, we can only deal with one issue at a time. There’s no relation whatsoever to the way women are oppressed, and the way POCs are oppressed, and the way gays are oppressed. They have no reason to band together, and they can’t claim any fellowship, never mind common enemies. Yup. Because **Rune** said so. One oppression at a time, please! And hey, male gays, you have no common cause with Lesbians, never mind Transgenders or any other queers. Obviously. It’s all too big for **Rune** to handle in one sitting. > [@](#): > > And add Intersectionality to the list of dogmas of dubious scientific value. Who said anything about science? We aren’t robots. Well, _I’m_ not, at any rate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=61) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=63)