# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/141 "2015-07-19T12:42:25Z")
I’m not sure why it should be the job of feminists to see more women prosecuted or more men report domestic violence against them. Should more women be prosecuted - well, if they are committing crimes, yes. I don’t know much about it. I know that when a women does get prosecuted for a violent crime, you don’t get many feminists stating she SHOULDN’T be prosecuted or declaring her innocence without evidence. I didn’t hear a lot of my feminist friends even expressing an opinion on Jodi Arais, for example. Should men report domestic violence against them, yep. But it isn’t my job as a feminist to make out posters to that effect (hell, I don’t make posters about the mainstream feminist issues I care about). The issues feminists work on are the ones that they feel oppress women, you aren’t going to hear them, as a single voice, talk about the issues that oppress men (hell, we can’t talk as a single voice about anything). Women don’t have the oppression issue that black men have in this country, of the justice system being set up against them, so the justice system, as it pertains to criminal prosecution, is really not on the radar for most of them. As to men doing riskier jobs, yep. Currently women are trying very hard to make the elite corps in the Army and Marines - and they are finding it very difficult to pass the physical requirements to do so. Women have had the same problem with being fireman. If few women want to take on these roles, and the physical restrictions are such that very few of THOSE will pass, then you’ll get very few women in dangerous jobs. Some feminists would like to see standards lowered. I’d like a fireman who can carry my 230 husband out of a burning house. If the standards are part of a valid requirement, they need to be kept, but it is worthwhile to say “why do we have this requirement.” A ten mile run with a sixty pound pack sounds like something an Army ranger might need to do to do her job. Women have been working to get into male dominated roles for years, and have had significant barriers - not only physical barriers, but being a woman on a construction site can be very discouraging. I spent a good twenty years of my career in a male dominated world (a relatively safe one) and got raped at work by a coworker. ---
**Author:** ![JVDaly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@JVDaly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JVDaly)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/142 "2015-07-19T12:47:40Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Many in fact are. I’m not sure if you’re interested in hearing from feminists that disagree with your straw-man-fantasy-version of feminism (considering how often they’ve been referred to in this thread and been ignored by you), but they exist. Your characterization of feminism and feminists are, at best, accurate for no more than a fringe of feminism and feminists. Do you have any examples? I mean, I can easily find examples of the kind of cartoonishly unpleasant feminists that effortlessly live up to LinusK’s “straw man fantasy” in mainstream publications. Just say the word and I could probably dig up 50 in an hour. Could you show us some reasonable ones to counterbalance this? ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/143 "2015-07-19T12:54:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Many in fact are. I’m not sure if you’re interested in hearing from feminists that disagree with your straw-man-fantasy-version of feminism (considering how often they’ve been referred to in this thread and been ignored by you), but they exist. Your characterization of feminism and feminists are, at best, accurate for no more than a fringe of feminism and feminists. And is a patchwork of fringe feminists. You aren’t likely to find any one feminist who espouses all of them. But feminism does empower women (and men!) to think for themselves. We don’t all believe the same thing. I know pro-life feminists and stay at home mom feminists. The other thing is a persons individual feminism will likely evolve over time. I have a fifteen year old daughter who is a strident idealistic naive fifteen year old feminist - interested in the topics that concern her. That’s different that my “I’ve been a feminist since the 1980s” flavor of feminism - pragmatic, experienced, and interested in a different set of issues. No one has to tell me not to get drunk with a stranger, my experience has taught me its stupid even to work late because I know better than to be in a near empty office with a man (and do you think that may have caused issues in my career?). But her feminism reminds me of mine 25 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/144 "2015-07-19T13:03:54Z")
> [@JVDaly](#): > > Do you have any examples? I mean, I can easily find examples of the kind of cartoonishly unpleasant feminists that effortlessly live up to LinusK’s “straw man fantasy” in mainstream publications. Just say the word and I could probably dig up 50 in an hour. Could you show us some reasonable ones to counterbalance this? Sharyl Sandberg, Taylor Swift, Emma Watson ---
**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:** [July 19, 2015, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/145 "2015-07-19T13:07:21Z")
> [@JVDaly](#): > > Do you have any examples? I mean, I can easily find examples of the kind of cartoonishly unpleasant feminists that effortlessly live up to LinusK’s “straw man fantasy” in mainstream publications. Just say the word and I could probably dig up 50 in an hour. Could you show us some reasonable ones to counterbalance this? I don’t need examples of the nuts – I know there are nuts and nutty ideas. Here are some examples of feminists and feminism that I think are much more representative of feminists and feminism in the real world than the OP’s straw men: > **[5 Ways the Patriarchy Hurts Men Too](https://theradicalidea.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/5-ways-the-patriarchy-hurts-men-too/)** > > Guys, I promise, the next post won’t be a list like this. I know it’s becoming a pattern.  I swear, the next post will be in normal rambling paragraph form. But lists are nice, and they… > **[On Shoveling Snow And How Patriarchy Hurts Men Too](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/12/on-shoveling-snow-and-how-patriarchy-hurts-men.html)** > > An afternoon shoveling snow brought my mind to the ways patriarchy serves to harm men as well as women. > **[It's not feminism that hurts men](https://thefword.org.uk/2012/05/its_not_feminism_that_hurts_men/)** > > Jo T examines a recent article supporting claims that men are "the new second sex" and finds it to be a highly misleading piece that fails to consider the role of patriarchal structures in men's suffering and instead opts to blame feminism > **[8xbet – Nhà cái đặt cược đẳng cấp số 1 châu Á](https://feminspire.com)** > > Nhà cái 8xbet là một trong những địa chỉ cá cược trực tuyến lớn nhất hiện nay với các hình thức giải trí đa dạng. Với nhiều năm hoạt động trên thị trường, chúng tôi đã và đang trở thành địa chỉ đáng tin cậy của nhiều anh em bet thủ tại châu Á, cũng... ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/146 "2015-07-19T13:28:37Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Sharyl Sandberg, Taylor Swift, Emma Watson I’d also like to add Ozy of [Thing of Things](https://thingofthings.wordpress.com/), Cliff of [Pervocracy](http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/) to the rolls of vocally reasonable feminists. Hell, Ozy ran for a while a a blog called _No, Seriously, What About the Menz?_, which covered areas of gender equality which affect men and which weren’t getting a lot of air time in the broader feminist movement. And then there’s that famous Jezebel article on domestic abuse. To quote: > [@](#): > > According to a study of relationships that engage in nonreciprocal violence, a whopping 70% are perpetrated by women. So basically that means that girls are beating up their BFs and husbands and the dudes aren’t fighting back. With Amy Winehouse busting open a can of whupass on her husband last week, we decided to conduct an informal survey of the Jezebels to see who’s gotten violent with their men. After reviewing the answers, let’s just say that it’d be wise to never ever fuck with us. > > One Jezebel got into it with a dude while they were breaking up, while another Jez went nuts on her guy and began violently shoving him. One of your editors heard her boyfriend flirting on the phone with another girl, so she slapped the phone out of his hands and hit him in the face and neck… “partially open handed.” Another editor slapped a guy when “he told me he thought he had breast cancer.” (Okay, that one made us laugh really hard.) And lastly, one Jez punched a steady in the face and broke his glasses. He had discovered a sex story she was writing about another dude on her laptop, so he picked it up and threw it. And that’s when she socked him. He was, uh, totally asking for it. To claim that Jezebel and anyone who reads it are nuts would not be particularly wrong, in my opinion, but it’s also a very widely-read feminist publication. Again, I think you really do need to do the surveys and the legwork if you want to talk about who feminists are in a statistical sense. On the other hand…do we need to? Whether or not feminists are 5% nuts or 95% nuts has absolutely no bearing on whether any given feminist policy is a good idea or not. Can’t we just address the policies in isolation? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/147 "2015-07-19T14:59:49Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > What’s funny is that you are wrong about this. The idea that women play by different rules is, for lack of a better word, patriarchy. The idea that feminists are fighting for women to be able to punch men all the time is bizarre. Did you mean “you are _not_ wrong about this”? ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/148 "2015-07-19T16:18:57Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Did you mean “you are _not_ wrong about this”? No, he is wrong. “Women should be able to punch men without consequences” is not anywhere on any feminist’s agenda, nor is it a female-friendly stance. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/149 "2015-07-19T16:30:57Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s interesting to see how, at least from my reading, this thread has gone from “[straw-man-fictional-versions-of] feminism is bad” to “women aren’t as smart or capable as men” and “women can’t/don’t do hard or dirty work”. I don’t think anyone is arguing women aren’t as smart as men on average. Women’s intelligence (and I’d suspect many other traits) has a lower standard deviation though, so there are fewer very smart (and very low-IQ) women then there are very smart men. If you’re selecting a subset of very smart people, it’s almost inevitably going to have more men than women. Women are clearly less capable than men _at some tasks_ (anything requiring brute physical strength, for example), and more capable at others. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/150 "2015-07-19T16:41:57Z")
> [@ddsun](#): > > Honestly, I read the OP twice, and it’s a confusing mess to me. Sorry about that. People are very used to thinking of patriarchy in terms of “something that oppresses women”. So trying to describe the true nature of patriarchy is difficult. This is the elevator version: patriarchy is about putting women first: particularly women’s lives, but also their fears and concerns. The corollary is that men are disposable, particularly men without wives or children. Feminism has been successful, not in spite of patriarchy, but because of it. > [@](#): > > I basically get that you think that feminism is bad. Yes. > [@](#): > > That women are the weaker gender. No, not unless you mean physically. > [@](#): > > And, I think, that we want our cake and to eat it too, as the saying goes. Not how I’d put it, but sure. > [@](#): > > Saying that feminism is bad is like saying Christianity or Islam is bad. Those are religions. Feminism is a political movement. A fairer comparison would be to liberalism or conservatism. > [@](#): > > It’s a large, ever-changing, dynamic organism, made up of many groups, none of whom are exactly the same. The same could be said of Democrats or Republicans. It doesn’t insulate them from criticism. > [@](#): > > You’re tarring it for the actions of a minority or subsection. As, I believe, **Iyandii** indicated up thread, at its heart feminism is about equality. For all genders. One of the arguments I’m specifically making is that feminism is **not** about equality. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure why the relative strength of women enters into your argument. I would just say that if a woman wants to mine coal, she ought to be able to, if she can pass the physical tests needed. By the same token, if a man wants to be a, well, I struggle for an occupation a man can’t have, er , be a secretary, then I support that too. > > I think you wrapped with women want everything. They want to choose whether to work or not. How to address this part… Here’s the thing. My impulse is to tell you that any rational adult wants that choice. If I won the lottery tomorrow, providing it was sufficient size to see me to retirement, I would certainly hand in my resignation. I bet most adults would, men and women. But I don’t expect anyone to take care of me. And looking around me I really don’t see many single income families, except at the executive level of business. I think that single income families are trending downwards, at least in the US. This is kind of off-topic, but I’d argue that the decline of single-income families is the result of specific economic policies that are designed to benefit the rich, at the expense of people who have to work. I’d also argue that having a parent at home is generally a good thing for children, and _ **it would be awesome if half the time that parent was the father.** _ That’s not going to happen though. We like to think we’re consciously in control of ourselves and our decisions. The truth is most what goes on in our brains happens at a subconscious level. We’re not really in control of, for example, what attracts us. Women have spent the last several million years looking for the strongest, most successful, highest-ranking male they could find. They’re not going to suddenly start finding themselves attracted to house-husbands. Moreover, working so your husband could stay home and take care of the kids would be pretty fucking stupid. Consider this: suppose you did go out and work every single day, to support a man and your children. Then something happens. He changes his mind, finds someone else, whatever. The next thing you know, he has the house, the children, and half the stuff you’ve worked for. Meanwhile you’re seeing your children every other weekend, paying child support, and desperately clinging to your job so you don’t go to jail for getting behind on your child support. Knowing the possible consequences, you’d have to be pretty stupid to willing enter that deal, wouldn’t you? > [@](#): > > Overall, feminism has been such a positive force for change, and there’s still so much work to do that’s it hard for me to get worked up about whether people don’t like the recent societal focus sexual assault and rape, which I think was also pulled in to the OP. I’ve started teaching my 11 year old daughter (actually started years ago) about where it’s safe to walk, and not to go next to vans in parking lots, not to talk to men about puppies, and all of that great stuff we get to inoculate our daughters with. So as far as that little corner of the OP goes, get over it. I can only hope this increased discussion and focus helps make the world a safer place. > > To answer your question about what I think about your premise - not sure I understood it, but I consider myself a feminist. Apparently we disagree. I have a daughter too. One I’d take a bullet for, in a heartbeat. I teach her, for example, to be careful of cars. Cars kill roughly 40,000 people every year in the US. But I think you’re falling for media-induced hype about stranger-danger. In a quick google search, I wasn’t able to find a reliable figure for the actual number of children abducted by strangers. I was about to find [this](http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/stranger-child-abductions-actually-very-rare-130514.htm), however: > [@](#): > > While the term ‘missing child’ may conjure up visions of malevolent, trench-coated men luring children into their cars with candy or Pokémon cards, the reality is much different. The vast majority of ‘missing’ children are taken by family members, often when one divorced parent absconds with a child during legally sanctioned visitation. The child may not be where he morally or legally should be, but it is a far cry from being in a dangerous stranger’s clutches. This puts the term ‘missing’ in a whole new light, since at least one parent knew exactly where the child was. ‘Missing,’ then, is used as more of a legal word regarding the child’s status than a descriptive one designating the child’s whereabouts. > > Not only are most children abducted by a parent or caregiver, but — perhaps surprisingly — many abduction reports (thankfully) turn out to be hoaxes or false alarms… > > Only a tiny minority of kidnapped children are taken by strangers. Between 1990 and 1995 the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children handled only 515 stranger abductions, 3.1 percent of its caseload. A 2000 report by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs reported that more than 3/4 of kidnappings were committed by family members or acquaintances of the child. > > In fact, children are in far more danger of being abused, kidnapped or killed by their parents than any stranger on the street. University of Southern California sociology professor Barry Glassner wrote about missing children in his book The Culture of Fear: “In national surveys conducted in recent years 3 out of 4 parents say they fear that their child will be kidnapped by a stranger. They harbor this anxiety, no doubt, because they keep hearing frightening statistics and stories about perverts snatching children off the street. What the public doesn’t hear often or clearly enough is that the majority of missing children are runaways fleeing from physically or emotionally abusive parents.” > > Child abductions are a real threat, but the risk should be kept in perspective to avoid unnecessarily alarming parents and children. In his book Protecting the Gift, child-safety expert Gavin De Becker pointed out that **compared to a stranger kidnapping, “a child is vastly more likely to have a heart attack** , and child heart attacks are so rare that most parents (correctly) never even consider the risk.” There are a vast number of things that can be dangerous to children: swimming pools, bathtubs, spiders, lightening storms, heart attacks… but you have to put things in perspective. I would humble suggest that teaching your daughter to be mindlessly scared of all men, is perhaps, counter-productive. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/151 "2015-07-19T16:48:54Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > No, he is wrong. “Women should be able to punch men without consequences” is not anywhere on any feminist’s agenda, nor is it a female-friendly stance. Got it. I thought you were saying it’s funny that he’s right about one thing–that differential treatment is patriarchal. He just goes in a bizarre direction with this idea. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/152 "2015-07-19T16:53:13Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Women’s intelligence (and I’d suspect many other traits) has a lower standard deviation though, so there are fewer very smart (and very low-IQ) women then there are very smart men. If you’re selecting a subset of very smart people, it’s almost inevitably going to have more men than women. Do you have the studies handy to back that up? > [@](#): > > Women are clearly less capable than men _at some tasks_ (anything requiring brute physical strength, for example), and more capable at others. With the caveat, of course, that you’re talking about _averages_ and _aggregates_. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/153 "2015-07-19T17:13:54Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Breast cancer is the cancer that is most likely to cause you to lose a parent while you are young. > > Do you think it’s a conspiracy that a very common (12% of women), fairly deadly cancer that often hits adults in their prime is pretty scary for people? Well, I’d need a cite that says that breast cancer kills women when they’re “fairly young”. I actually don’t believe that’s true. There’s a lot of controversy about breast cancer, the actual benefits of mammography (some argue it causes more harm than good, for women under 40 or 50), and how, when and whether it should be treated. There’s some pretty good evidence that the harder you look, the more likely you’re going to find “cancerous” or “pre-cancerous” cells, that would never actually develop into cancer, if left alone, but which nevertheless lead to dangerous and debilitating treatments, which riskier than the cells themselves. Basically: it’s the aggressive cancers you need to worry about, not the non-aggressive ones. Most of us - perhaps all of us - have cancerous or pre-cancerous cells somewhere in our bodies. If you have a cancer that’s going to kill you (maybe) when you’re 110, it’s not a cancer you need to worry about. It’s certainly not a cancer you need to have parts of your body sliced off for, or to undergo chemotherapy. Anyway, the thread’s not really about that, and I’m not trying to derail my own thread. I do want to say though, out of the interest of clarity, that I’m anti-breast cancer. I’m pro-breast cancer research, and I don’t want any woman to die from breast cancer. The reason I brought it up was not because I’m pro-breast cancer, but simply as an example of the way that society pays special attention to dangers that especially effect women. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/154 "2015-07-19T17:24:13Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Do you have the studies handy to back that up? > > With the caveat, of course, that you’re talking about _averages_ and _aggregates_. Here’s one: Deary IJ, Irwing P, Der G, Bates, TC. 2007. “Brother–sister differences in the g factor in intelligence: Analysis of full, opposite-sex siblings from the NLSY1979”. Intelligence 35 (5): 451–6. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/155 "2015-07-19T17:28:00Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > patriarchy is about putting women first: particularly women’s lives, but also their fears and concerns. The corollary is that men are disposable, particularly men without wives or children. How do you arrive at this? How are you determining what is and is not an example of patriarchy, and how are you coming to this conclusion concerning what patriarchy is about? Pretty literally, I’m asking you, “what are you talking about?” I recognize the word your using, but I don’t know what you mean by it. If you are saying you mean the same thing feminists mean by it, then I’d need you to explain what you think _feminists_ mean by it at least. And if you _don’t_ intend to mean the same thing as they, then what _do_ you mean, and why is it okay to use this word in a different sense than the established one in a conversation like this? ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/156 "2015-07-19T17:38:04Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Sorry about that. People are very used to thinking of patriarchy in terms of “something that oppresses women”. So trying to describe the true nature of patriarchy is difficult. This is the elevator version: patriarchy is about putting women first: particularly women’s lives, but also their fears and concerns. The corollary is that men are disposable, particularly men without wives or children. Dude, we have lots of examples of what life without feminism looks like-- and it sucks. I lived for a bit in a patriarchal West African village. Girls got married off at 12 against their will. Unmarried women had no way to support themselves besides prostitution or begging. Women couldn’t leave the house unaccompanied. It sucked. Then I lived in China, where my students witnessed newborn girls being drowned. Or the U.S., where we couldn’t vote (!!!) until 1920. So please, keep telling me about how the patriarchy is just for our benefit. That we get murdered, have our sex organs cut off, imprisoned, denied suffrage, cut out of the economy, etc. because the patriarchy is just trying to give us a hug. Now let’s look at the countries that suck the least. What do they have in common? Especially compared to the countries that suck the most? Do you really not see a coronation? > [@](#): > > Moreover, working so your husband could stay home and take care of the kids would be pretty fucking stupid. > > Consider this: suppose you did go out and work every single day, to support a man and your children. > > Then something happens. He changes his mind, finds someone else, whatever. > > The next thing you know, he has the house, the children, and half the stuff you’ve worked for. Meanwhile you’re seeing your children every other weekend, paying child support, and desperately clinging to your job so you don’t go to jail for getting behind on your child support. > > Knowing the possible consequences, you’d have to be pretty stupid to willing enter that deal, wouldn’t you? It’s funny, because I’m about to do exactly that- enter a situation where my husband probably won’t work, and where he would likely get the children and at least half the house is a contested divorce. Of course there is some risk. But if God forbid I end up in a divorce, I know my daughter is in good hands and frankly child support would be the least of my worries, especially considering the time+expenses I put in to raising my kid now. The child support formula here doesn’t even pay for half of her day care-- it’s crazy. (Also-- joint custody is the norm in the vast majority of states. The scenario you describe is not likely to happen unless it’s voluntarily entered in to.) ---
**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:** [July 19, 2015, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/157 "2015-07-19T17:38:50Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I don’t think anyone is arguing women aren’t as smart as men on average. Women’s intelligence (and I’d suspect many other traits) has a lower standard deviation though, so there are fewer very smart (and very low-IQ) women then there are very smart men. If you’re selecting a subset of very smart people, it’s almost inevitably going to have more men than women. I’ve heard this before, but I’m not convinced that it tells us anything about any differences between the sexes (perhaps largely because I’m unconvinced that IQ tests are unbiased and objective measures of intelligence). ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/158 "2015-07-19T17:40:35Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > And there’s the rub. As a reasonable person, I can’t see feminism as anything but an essential, necessary moral compass to make this world as fair and equitable as possible. > > But how much progress can a movement which seeks to improve human nature ever be, when it still resorts to the worst aspects of human nature? Scapegoating, hereditary guilt, “we’re convinced that we are the good people, so they must be the bad people.” > > **So long as women are faced with murder and rape, or at least with thwarted lives** , any concerns such as the demonization of boys or the petty indignities that women are allowed to inflict on men, as well as the rare though severe false rape accusation, can be dismissed as the acceptable casualties in the war on injustice. > > Feminism has proved that human beings won’t put up with that kind of shit. I wanted to address the bolded part, because I want to explicitly point out to you that men are also faced with murder and rape and thwarted lives. [According to the FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain), for example, 77.4% of murder victims were men. Men are also raped (although reliable figures are hard to come by, for various reasons), and there are certainly vast numbers of men leading “thwarted lives”. _Most men lead lives of quiet desperation._ -Henry David Thoreau. If you want to ignore “worst aspects” of feminism as long as crime and thwarted lives exist, you’ll be ignoring them forever. Because crime and thwarted lives will always exist. In other words: there is no end-date. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/159 "2015-07-19T17:41:22Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > I don’t think anyone is arguing women aren’t as smart as men on average. Women’s intelligence (and I’d suspect many other traits) has a lower standard deviation though, so there are fewer very smart (and very low-IQ) women then there are very smart men. If you’re selecting a subset of very smart people, it’s almost inevitably going to have more men than women. > > Women are clearly less capable than men _at some tasks_ (anything requiring brute physical strength, for example), and more capable at others. This also means that there are many more low iq and socially dysfunctional men than women. No call for equality of outcomes in this area by feminists. Clearly, we need to put more women in jail. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390/160 "2015-07-19T17:43:58Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I wanted to address the bolded part, because I want to explicitly point out to you that men are also faced with murder and rape and thwarted lives. [According to the FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain), for example, 77.4% of murder victims were men. Men are also raped (although reliable figures are hard to come by, for various reasons), and there are certainly vast numbers of men leading “thwarted lives”. _Most men lead lives of quiet desperation._ -Henry David Thoreau. > > If you want to ignore “worst aspects” of feminism as long as crime and thwarted lives exist, you’ll be ignoring them forever. Because crime and thwarted lives will always exist. > > In other words: there is no end-date. Men are much more likely to be murdered than women, and much more likely to be killed or injured on the job. Again, no calls for equality on this front. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-feminism/725390.md?page=9)