# On Feminism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 28, 2015, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023 "2015-05-28T10:02:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/41 "2015-05-28T19:38:46Z")
[QUOTE=marshmallow] I’m inclined to think the conclusion that people who want to passive aggressively insist on “color blindness” or who are otherwise uncomfortable discussing the issue actually show more bias than those who do is approaching “water is wet” levels of obviousness. [/QUOTE] “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race,” says John Roberts, “is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” To me it’s a little like saying that the way to stop a fire is to stop setting fires, but to a lot of people it’s so obviously true that they can’t even engage beyond that idea. It’s really logically compelling, to a lot of people, to say that if what we want the end of, you know, certain race and gender related phenomena, like slavery and rape, then clearly the right answer is the end of all of them, like affirmative action and maternity leave. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/42 "2015-05-28T19:56:05Z")
Only the majority race can really be “blind” to race, I think. Me, I am aware every day and everywhere I go that I am more often than not the only nonwhite person there. Maybe there’ll be one black person. And almost 100% of the time I am the only Asian Indian. That doesn’t mean I have a problem working with white people, or that I only talk to the black woman, or whatever. But I just cannot be race blind. It is impossible for me since I am constantly the only member of my race in my circles. That, of course, doesn’t count the clueless white people who remind me of it even when I want to forget. “Where are you from?” “Michigan.” “No, where are you _really_ from?” ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/43 "2015-05-28T19:59:40Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > That, of course, doesn’t count the clueless white people who remind me of it even when I want to forget. “Where are you from?” “Michigan.” “No, where are you _really_ from?” Many of us have just never met anyone from Michigan. So exotic. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/44 "2015-05-28T20:00:10Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race,” says John Roberts, “is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” To me it’s a little like saying that the way to stop a fire is to stop setting fires, but to a lot of people it’s so obviously true that they can’t even engage beyond that idea. > > It’s really logically compelling, to a lot of people, to say that if what we want the end of, you know, certain race and gender related phenomena, like slavery and rape, then clearly the right answer is the end of all of them, like affirmative action and maternity leave. By that logic we should be giving everybody an equal amount of insulin injections every day. Why discriminate between people who have diabetes and people who don’t? Programs like affirmative action aren’t forms of racism. They’re means of addressing the racism that already existed. When there’s no more diabetes, we’ll stop needing insulin injections. When there’s no more racism, we’ll stop needing affirmative action. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2015, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/45 "2015-05-28T20:01:04Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > That, of course, doesn’t count the clueless white people who remind me of it even when I want to forget. “Where are you from?” “Michigan.” “No, where are you _really_ from?” The correct answer to which is to say, quietly but clearly, “I am from _beyond death itself_,” and then walk away. ---
**Author:** ![MorphinePoet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/morphinepoet/32/7315_2.png) [@MorphinePoet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MorphinePoet)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/46 "2015-05-28T20:03:14Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think the OP isn’t seeing how biased normal reality is. It’s true that women now have some forms of recognition than men don’t get. Does that mean there’s a bias against men? Of course not. The reality is there’s always been an overwhelming bias in favor of men. What’s happening now is we’re seeing some attempts to reverse that bias and establish gender equality. If you only focus on the leaps forward that women have recently made, you’re ignoring the huge head start that men have. Women have not caught up with men yet. Well, the problem here is with the generalization that treats all men equally. Just like feminists look at the persecution of women in developing countries, and the harassment and inequality they face on some aspects in developed countries, in order to justify their case, they should also look at how men live and are treated in developing and developed countries. Not all men are rich, white Anglo-Saxons. Men where I come from, and by that I mean the entire region, are subject to all kinds of persecution and criminal abuse, and so are women. But this isn’t included in the general rhetoric of feminism. And this is why I believe what should be promoted is human rights, including women’s, men’s, homosexuals’, atheists’, and other persecuted minorities or majorities. Men aren’t just your beer drinking, chicken wing eating, woman’s ass slapping, baseball cap wearing assholes sitting in front of the TV all day long while women labor, give birth and do the dishes. What the fucking fuck guys? Cherry picking the persecution of women out of messed up countries in order to justify the general cause of feminism IS sexist. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/47 "2015-05-28T20:06:46Z")
> [@MorphinePoet](#): > > Men aren’t just your beer drinking, chicken wing eating, woman’s ass slapping, baseball cap wearing assholes sitting in front of the TV all day long while women labor, give birth and do the dishes. What the fucking fuck guys? I don’t see anyone, even (especially?) feminists, making that claim. How does that support your argument? What, exactly, is your arguement? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/48 "2015-05-28T20:14:21Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > Only the majority race can really be “blind” to race, I think. And only if we’re only surrounded by other members of the majority group. I can assure you, there are no issues of race, class or gender between me and my white male lawyer peers. We see each other as individuals. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/49 "2015-05-28T20:21:33Z")
I don’t hear the term ‘feminism’ used that much lately. Too many people assigned it varying definitions, many of them not representing the cause most people understood it to be. Generally I hear this term from politicians, the women I know will talk about specific issues of concern not an ambiguously defined ideology. That seems to be the result of a free marketplace of ideas and that should remain the solution for those who still appear to use the term ‘feminism’ as a wedge. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2015, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/50 "2015-05-28T20:24:46Z")
> [@MorphinePoet](#): > > Well, the problem here is with the generalization that treats all men equally. No, it actually doesn’t. Recognizing that a particular group has traditionally held all the levers of power in a society is not the same thing as saying that all members of that group are equally powerful. > [@](#): > > Just like feminists look at the persecution of women in developing countries, and the harassment and inequality they face on some aspects in developed countries, in order to justify their case, they should also look at how men live and are treated in developing and developed countries. Not all men are rich, white Anglo-Saxons. Men where I come from, and by that I mean the entire region, are subject to all kinds of persecution and criminal abuse, and so are women. But this isn’t included in the general rhetoric of feminism. What, exactly, are you using as a source for the “general rhetoric of feminism?” Because I’ve yet to meet a feminist who didn’t also have strong opinions on inequalities based on race, class, religion, and sexual orientation. It’s also a central part of most feminist rhetoric that patriarchal power structures and institutionalized sexism are harmful to both women _and_ men. > [@](#): > > And this is why I believe what should be promoted is human rights, including women’s, men’s, homosexuals’, atheists’, and other persecuted minorities or majorities. Which is in no way incompatible with feminism, in theory or in practice. You seem aggrieved because some people prefer to focus their efforts on eliminating one type of social inequity, on the assumption that focusing on one type must necessarily require a lack of care or action on other types of social inequity. But this is not the case. There’s absolutely nothing untoward about specialization. A person who focuses their efforts on ending sexual discrimination is not by implication approving, or even ignoring, other forms of discrimination. No more than a doctor who specializes in treating cancer is implicitly supporting diabetes. > [@](#): > > Men aren’t just your beer drinking, chicken wing eating, woman’s ass slapping, baseball cap wearing assholes sitting in front of the TV all day long while women labor, give birth and do the dishes. What the fucking fuck guys? Who, exactly, is arguing otherwise? It’s certainly not the _vast_ majority of feminists. It seems to me that you need to spend some time learning how feminists _actually_ think and act, as opposed to how you _imagine_ they might think and act. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2015, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/51 "2015-05-28T20:27:57Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > Only the majority race can really be “blind” to race, I think. Me, I am aware every day and everywhere I go that I am more often than not the only nonwhite person there. Maybe there’ll be one black person. And almost 100% of the time I am the only Asian Indian. > > That doesn’t mean I have a problem working with white people, or that I only talk to the black woman, or whatever. But I just cannot be race blind. It is impossible for me since I am constantly the only member of my race in my circles. Agreed. Arguing for “blindness” is promoting ignoring differences rather than accepting them. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/52 "2015-05-28T20:37:29Z")
> [@MorphinePoet](#): > > Men where I come from, and by that I mean the entire region, are subject to all kinds of persecution and criminal abuse, and so are women. 1. Where might that be? 2. Is it equal treatment? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/53 "2015-05-28T21:52:52Z")
> [@MorphinePoet](#): > > I find it sexist of women to appreciate and praise successful women just because they’re women. I find it sexist when the host of an international business forum says “I am happy and proud to be the host to the first businesswomen forum.” > > In my opinion feminism has derailed when it started promoting femininity as an inherent quality. > > As a man, I do not feel threatened by women, their success or anything that has to do with them. I just find it extremely unprofessional for a woman to join a new company and be especially happy because the manager is a woman too. A lot of women immediately bond on account of their anatomy, not likemindedness or any other ideas or characteristics they may have in common, as human beings. Men may do the same, but it’s not as exclusionary and cult-like as it is with women. > > You may praise a woman’s success in a patriarchal, male-dominated society, but to dismiss the effort and focus on the vagina of it, is sexist. > > Thoughts? You haven’t addresses the main problem with feminism: it’s that nobody knows what it means. There’s 1st, 2nd, and 3rd waves; and the only thing anybody can agree on is its about “choices”, for women. But if that’s what it’s about, why only women? Why not everyone? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/54 "2015-05-28T23:26:32Z")
> [@MorphinePoet](#): > > This is perfect when it stops there, but it doesn’t. It spreads and gets branded and institutionalized. If you’re a successful woman who wants to help women grow, perfect, just have an organization dedicated to that. But if you’re a woman who wants to help women grow while you’re a manager in a company and you end up preferring women in new hires, that’s sexist. Do you have an example where a woman actually hired a woman over a man just because the person hired was a woman? I know a lot of cases where a man hired someone over a woman just because he preferred working with men. This sounds a lot like a straw man argument to me. (Particularly if you have not previously opposed the hiring of a man by a man based on their procreative equipment.) Feminism is a large movement with a lot of varying opinions among its members. Some of it is downright stupid and some of it is needlessly hostile–just as one will find in any large social or political movement. And, if one actually pays attention to the people speaking for the movement, one will find other voices displaying intelligence against stupidity and calmness against aggression. Attacking “feminism” for the opinions of one or two of its spokespersons without providing evidence that their views are universal is silly–sort of like condemning all Americans as neo-colonial aggressors based on the words of Cheney or Wolfowitz or all Christians as homophobes based on the words of Fred Phelps or Rick Santorum. If one addresses a specific woman on a specific issue on which she has actually spoken, fine. Any time the conversation includes "Feminism has derailed. . . " it is perfectly reasonable to dismiss the rest of the argument as being one launched against a straw man (or straw woman) that mostly exists in the speaker’s mind with no serious connection to the real world. > [@MorphinePoet](#): > > Again: If a woman walks into a meeting room to discuss cellphone batteries, and in the room are two people; a woman and a man that she hasn’t met before, and she ends up discussing the matter with the woman BECAUSE she is a woman, then that is straight-up sexism and gender bias served cold. Fine, you have my permission, (and, I am sure, the permission of most of the posters in this thread), to actually condemn that woman on the one in 2,000,000 occurrences where it has ever happened. (Of course, to be granted that permission, you need to demonstrate to us that you have attacked the man who did the reverse thing in the same way in the hundreds of encounters that you actually have witnessed.) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2015, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/55 "2015-05-28T23:35:06Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > You haven’t addresses the main problem with feminism: it’s that nobody knows what it means. There’s 1st, 2nd, and 3rd waves; and the only thing anybody can agree on is its about “choices”, for women. > > But if that’s what it’s about, why only women? Why not everyone? This seems odd, to me. There are a few man-hating women in the feminist movement, (fewer now than in the early 1970s), but the movement’s thrust has always included the idea that the structure of society hampers men as much as women and the intent of the movement was to provide more and better choices for everyone. The movement is called feminist because when it began, and, to a certain extent continuing today, nearly all power was held by men and the calls were for women to insist on the necessary changes rather than hoping that men might someday grant those changes without prodding. In such a large movement, one can find a variety of beliefs–some odd. However, most people supporting the movement were seeking more equality for everyone, not just for women. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/56 "2015-05-29T03:26:53Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Do you have an example where a woman actually hired a woman over a man just because the person hired was a woman? I know a lot of cases where a man hired someone over a woman just because he preferred working with men. . . . I have met conservatives who say, outright, “Women are not qualified to hold political office.” I’ve never met the exact counterpart of this…but I have met liberals who have said, “If I am given a choice between two identically-qualified candidates, and one is a woman, I will vote for her in preference to the man.” This is usually in response to the observed weighting of the House and Senate toward men. The two degrees of favoritism aren’t quite the same. Both are somewhat alarming, but the “tie-breaking” form of discrimination is slightly less odious, I think, than the “absolute exclusionary” form. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/57 "2015-05-29T03:52:25Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I have met conservatives who say, outright, “Women are not qualified to hold political office.” > > I’ve never met the exact counterpart of this…but I have met liberals who have said, “If I am given a choice between two identically-qualified candidates, and one is a woman, I will vote for her in preference to the man.” This is usually in response to the observed weighting of the House and Senate toward men. > > The two degrees of favoritism aren’t quite the same. Both are somewhat alarming, but the “tie-breaking” form of discrimination is slightly less odious, I think, than the “absolute exclusionary” form. If they’re “identically-qualified?” Hell yeah, I’ll take the woman. Or the ethnic minority. Or pretty much anyone but the Standard Issue White Guy. I’m not sure how that’s odious; I would like to see my governments more closely reflect the citizenry, and SIWGs are well over-represented. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/58 "2015-05-29T05:49:25Z")
> [@MorphinePoet](#): > > Well, the problem here is with the generalization that treats all men equally. Just like feminists look at the persecution of women in developing countries, and the harassment and inequality they face on some aspects in developed countries, in order to justify their case, they should also look at how men live and are treated in developing and developed countries. Not all men are rich, white Anglo-Saxons. Men where I come from, and by that I mean the entire region, are subject to all kinds of persecution and criminal abuse, and so are women. But this isn’t included in the general rhetoric of feminism. And this is why I believe what should be promoted is human rights, including women’s, men’s, homosexuals’, atheists’, and other persecuted minorities or majorities. > > Men aren’t just your beer drinking, chicken wing eating, woman’s ass slapping, baseball cap wearing assholes sitting in front of the TV all day long while women labor, give birth and do the dishes. What the fucking fuck guys? > > Cherry picking the persecution of women out of messed up countries in order to justify the general cause of feminism IS sexist. I’m not talking about other countries. I’m saying sexism (and all the other bad isms) still exists right here in the United States in 2015. And I’m saying that as a middle-aged straight white male Christian who’s lived on the redneck side of the tracks. I’ve drank the beer, eaten the wings, slapped the asses, worn the caps, and watched the TV. But I haven’t slept through my whole life. Anyone who’s got an ounce of awareness can take a look around and see that straight white male Christians still have the best deal in this country. Are things getting better? Definitely. Being female or non-white or gay or non-Christian is nowhere near as bad as it used to be. But it’s still not equal. So we still need feminism (and all the other good isms) in this country. It’s working but it hasn’t finished its work yet. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2015, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/59 "2015-05-29T16:58:07Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This seems odd, to me. There are a few man-hating women in the feminist movement, (fewer now than in the early 1970s), but the movement’s thrust has always included the idea that the structure of society hampers men as much as women and the intent of the movement was to provide more and better choices for everyone. > > The movement is called feminist because when it began, and, to a certain extent continuing today, nearly all power was held by men and the calls were for women to insist on the necessary changes rather than hoping that men might someday grant those changes without prodding. In such a large movement, one can find a variety of beliefs–some odd. However, most people supporting the movement were seeking more equality for everyone, not just for women. I was listening to NPR a while back, and they were doing an interview with a feminist academic (I think she’d just written a book). She was talking about a time during WWI when the US government was massing troops on the east coast, in preparation for shipping them to Europe. Apparently some of the men were visiting prostitutes. Anyway, to solve the problem, the government quarantined the houses where the prostitutes were. (The problem, I think, from the government’s POV, was they didn’t want the men getting venereal diseases, because then they wouldn’t be able to fight.) Anyway, her argument - and she was very passionate about it - was that they should have quarantined the men, rather than the women. This was an egregious example of sexism, to her. Never mind that the men would not have been able to leave the base at all, for any reason, whether or not they’d ever visited a prostitute. More importantly, she didn’t apparently recognize that there was any sexism in the fact that it was only men who had been drafted to go to the trenches, In the first place. (Or if she did, she didn’t mention it.) I realize she doesn’t speak for all feminists, and that in any movement you have a handful of nut-jobs. But I have to say, this is what I think of when I think of feminism. It’s not about equality: it’s about choices for women. (Staying home, if you want, or going to work if you want. Paying for a meal, if you want, or not paying for it. Dressing sexy in if you want, but not getting attention for it (unless that’s what you want.) Of course, we don’t have a draft now. But feminists don’t complain about not having to register with the selective service, or women’s better chances of getting custody after a divorce, or their smaller chances of getting arrested, or their better chances of a dismissal, if they are. Feminists don’t complain about men being told to “man up” - which basically means stop complaining - but they’d most certainly complain of there was an equivalent term which applied to women - which there’s not. ---
**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:** [May 29, 2015, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/60 "2015-05-29T17:27:45Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Of course, we don’t have a draft now. But feminists don’t complain about not having to register with the selective service, or women’s better chances of getting custody after a divorce, or their smaller chances of getting arrested, or their better chances of a dismissal, if they are. Feminists don’t complain about men being told to “man up” - which basically means stop complaining - but they’d most certainly complain of there was an equivalent term which applied to women - which there’s not. Yes, we do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023.md?page=4)