# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/81 "2015-05-30T01:59:14Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > YMMV, but in the old days, the idea was that one of the reasons for the war was to protect the women. (Or at least, that was part of the propaganda. Of course, propaganda is called propaganda for a reason: the US, for example, hasn’t been invaded since 1812.) From some old war posters: (“[Fight for her](http://mentalfloss.com/article/51405/14-wonderful-vintage-canadian-propaganda-posters)!”) [Here’s](http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/to-arms-a-gallery-of-war-recruitment-posters) another. And [another](https://www.pinterest.com/chulen27/wwii-posters/). Drafting them defeats the purpose, if you’re fighting to keep women safe. Actually, the “Fight for Her” poster shows a picture of Whistler’s Mother, a painting of an elderly woman in a rocking chair, presumably intended to remind enlistees of their beloved old mums and grannies who wouldn’t be in the draftable age range anyway. In the other posters that I think you’re referring to, most of the adult female characters being menaced by evil enemies are actually symbolic representations of abstract qualities rather than real women: e.g., the bare-breasted Liberty in the grip of the German gorilla (!), or “Prosperity” in a Minerva helmet being throttled by the ape-demon of “Socialism”. As a matter of fact, your links show far more examples of ads to **recruit** women into the auxiliary military services than they show protect-our-wimmins themes used to recruit men. Of course, that’s not the same thing as recruiting women for actual combat, but it’s not as though women serving in the Army Nurse Corps (or even handling explosives in munitions factories at home) weren’t exposed to genuine danger. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/82 "2015-05-30T07:21:04Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > That is a good start. > So, you know that the nut jobs are out there and should not be considered representative of a movement, yet you specifically use them as the archtypes, (or, more likely, stereotypes), when you think of the movement. > > I do not see your point. This is not Great Anecdote Exchanges. Your actions are logically inconsistent with your recognition of the facts and yet you appear to be more comfortable holding your prejudices than facing and correcting their bases. (I realize that most of us have some emotional responses to phenomena about which we recognize that those responses are in conflict with facts. However, it seems odd to hold forth those emotional responses as a legitimate argument in opposition to the facts.) > > If your reaction to an extreme example of a philosophy is to immediately categorize that extreme example as the type species/_Species typica_ of that philosophy, you are the one who is in error, not the larger number of persons who do not hold that extreme view. You seem to have gained a lot of knowledge about me, surprisingly quickly. But what I’m curious about is you: specifically whether you, yourself, think the woman on NPR is a nut-job? (Her name, FWIW, appears to be Barbara Meal Hobson, a professor at the University of Chicago, and the author of “Uneasy Virtue”.) How about Mary Daly? > [@](#): > > [If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly) You know, probably, that she believed [women should rule over men](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly), and that [she excluded men from her classes at Boston University](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly). Was _she_ a nut job? Andrea Dworkin? > [@](#): > > [Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice.](http://quotes.dictionary.com/Marriage_as_an_institution_developed_from_rape_as) > > * * * > > [Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of contempt for women](http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/03/books/male-and-female-men-and-women.html). Barbara Jordan? > [@](#): > > [I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it](http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/26/enough-with-the-male-bashing.html). Robin Morgan? > [@](#): > > [I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.](http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/26/enough-with-the-male-bashing.html) Catharine MacKinnon? > [@](#): > > [Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Catharine_MacKinnon). > > * * * > > [Perhaps the wrong of rape has proven so difficult to articulate because the unquestionable starting point has been that rape is definable as distinct from intercourse, when for women it is difficult to distinguish them under conditions of male dominance.](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Catharine_MacKinnon) Caitlin Moran? > [@](#): > > [Do you have a vagina? Do you want to be in control of it? If the answer to both those questions is ‘yes’, then congratulations - you’re a feminist!](https://urbantimes.co/2014/02/16-killer-quotes-from-caitlin-moran-to-bring-out-your-inner-hunger-for-equality/) > > * * * > > [I realised that it’s technically impossible for a woman to argue against feminism.](https://urbantimes.co/2014/02/16-killer-quotes-from-caitlin-moran-to-bring-out-your-inner-hunger-for-equality/) Beyonce? > [@](#): > > [Beyonce] says that she embraces the erotic, especially since becoming a mother, and wants to show the world that her sexiness won’t be curtailed because she is a “respectable” wife and parent. Interestingly, it was her infamous “pole dance” during the VMA show that has caused consternation among some feminists, but Beyoncé found inspiration for her strip-tease song and video, “Partition,” while watching an actual strip tease show at Crazy Horse in Paris—a birthday present for her then-fiancé Jay Z—and fantasized seeing herself in the company of these women, which indicates a certain solidarity with adult entertainers, a willingness to celebrate what is feminine and sexual, and even an admission that she herself was turned on by the spectacle of sexy women. Such displays are intended for the male gaze, but Beyoncé claims that gaze for herself. ([from Ms. Magazine](http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/09/03/too-sexy-to-be-the-perfect-feminist/)) I’m wondering if you recognize any of these as the type species/Species typica of feminism, if any. If it’s none, could you please tell me what feminism is? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/83 "2015-05-30T07:32:46Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Actually, the “Fight for Her” poster shows a picture of Whistler’s Mother, a painting of an elderly woman in a rocking chair, presumably intended to remind enlistees of their beloved old mums and grannies who wouldn’t be in the draftable age range anyway. > > In the other posters that I think you’re referring to, most of the adult female characters being menaced by evil enemies are actually symbolic representations of abstract qualities rather than real women: e.g., the bare-breasted Liberty in the grip of the German gorilla (!), or “Prosperity” in a Minerva helmet being throttled by the ape-demon of “Socialism”. > > As a matter of fact, your links show far more examples of ads to **recruit** women into the auxiliary military services than they show protect-our-wimmins themes used to recruit men. Of course, that’s not the same thing as recruiting women for actual combat, but it’s not as though women serving in the Army Nurse Corps (or even handling explosives in munitions factories at home) weren’t exposed to genuine danger. You’re right: there are more posters exhorting women to help with the war effort than there are telling men to fight to protect women. Perhaps I was overstating my point. ---
**Author:** ![Chauve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5daacb/32.png) [@Chauve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chauve)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/84 "2015-05-30T08:19:50Z")
Just a general comment. You kinda have to differentiate US feminism by its generations. For example, First Wave feminism fought for women’s rights, abortion on demand, the sexual revolution, etc. None of these things necessarily required a sacrifice on the part of men; they were more a question of legal status. Second and Third Wave feminism, OTOH, are more of a zero-sum game (IMO). Third Wave feminism is the brand currently big in US colleges, and it basically puts the onus on men to give up rights, freedoms, etc. in order to make the world safer and friendlier for women. It includes doctrines such a women’s right–after consenting to sex–to decide at some later date that she was raped if she decides there was a lack of good faith on the man’s part, etc. I think when the average non-feminist thinks positively of feminism, he’s thinking about first-wave feminism. By comparison, Third Wave Feminism can be kind of a scary thing. It’s kind of a new politically correct puritanism, especially about sexual matters and mores. (Again, IMO.) Even some First Wave Feminists deplore Third Wave Feminism. For example, Camille Paglia is a world-famous feminist and lesbian, and she fought in the 1960s and 70s for women’s rights, abortion on demand, and the sexual revolution. She currently has a 12-year-old son. She looks at what the world will be for her son, and she is critical of the political correctness of modern feminism. For example in this essay, Camille Paglia says: > [@](#): > > "[…] A peevish, grudging rancor against men has been one of the most unpalatable and unjust features of second- and third-wave feminism. Men’s faults, failings and foibles have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment. Ideologue professors at our leading universities indoctrinate impressionable undergraduates with carelessly fact-free theories alleging that gender is an arbitrary, oppressive fiction with no basis in biology. > **[It’s a Man’s World, and It Always Will Be | TIME.com](https://ideas.time.com/2013/12/16/its-a-mans-world-and-it-always-will-be/)** > > The modern economy is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role — but women were not its author Another article describes Ms. Paglia’s views of modern academia and its views of feminism: > [@](#): > > By her lights, things only get worse in higher education. “This PC gender politics thing—the way gender is being taught in the universities—in a very anti-male way, it’s all about neutralization of maleness.” The result: Upper-middle-class men who are “intimidated” and “can’t say anything. . . . They understand the agenda.” In other words: They avoid goring certain sacred cows by “never telling the truth to women” about sex, and by keeping “raunchy” thoughts and sexual fantasies to themselves and their laptops. [http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579240022857012920](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579240022857012920) Naturally, people will respond to this post and say, “Well Camille Paglia is just one commentator. I can find a dozen others who will disagree with her.” Mainly I’m just pointing out that one has to differentiate between the various “waves” of feminism. The current brand, hot in US academia, is Third Wave Feminism. And it’s pretty touchy, potent stuff. Not your grandfather’s feminism. Critics of feminism mostly focus on Third Wave feminism, and indeed there’s much that’s legitimately debatable about it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/85 "2015-05-30T10:46:23Z")
> [@Chauve](#): > > Mainly I’m just pointing out that one has to differentiate between the various “waves” of feminism. The current brand, hot in US academia, is Third Wave Feminism. And it’s pretty touchy, potent stuff. Not your grandfather’s feminism. Critics of feminism mostly focus on Third Wave feminism, and indeed there’s much that’s legitimately debatable about it. The criticism I hear against “current” feminism is identical to the criticism I heard against feminism in the 1960s. You are still acting as though feminism is a monolithic bloc marching in lock step. It is not. There are still as many different varieties of feminism as there ever were, (probably more). Yeah, some universities have gone overboard on the “consent” thing, (possibly as it becomes more obvious that earlier efforts were doing little to reduce the number of rapes and date rapes on campus), but even those efforts are not some universal proclamation that defines feminism. There are other voices: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/20/feminists-want-us-to-define-these-ugly-sexual-encounters-as-rape-dont-let-them/](http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/20/feminists-want-us-to-define-these-ugly-sexual-encounters-as-rape-dont-let-them/) ---
**Author:** ![Chauve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5daacb/32.png) [@Chauve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chauve)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/86 "2015-05-30T11:15:15Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The criticism I hear against “current” feminism is identical to the criticism I heard against feminism in the 1960s. You are still acting as though feminism is a monolithic bloc marching in lock step. It is not. There are still as many different varieties of feminism as there ever were, (probably more). > Yeah, some universities have gone overboard on the “consent” thing, (possibly as it becomes more obvious that earlier efforts were doing little to reduce the number of rapes and date rapes on campus), but even those efforts are not some universal proclamation that defines feminism. There are other voices: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/20/feminists-want-us-to-define-these-ugly-sexual-encounters-as-rape-dont-let-them/](http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/20/feminists-want-us-to-define-these-ugly-sexual-encounters-as-rape-dont-let-them/) I love the article you linked! I would just disagree with you on the following: “Feminists” is a concept as meaningful as “Republicans” or “Democrats” or “Socialists” or any other label. None of them are “a monolithic bloc marching in lock step.” But they are still a “thing.” Look at the first word in the title of the article you linked. Presumably the author knows whom she is talking about. And in the articles that I linked, Camille Paglia is clear in defining whom she is talking about. She herself is a feminist and a leading figure in academia; those are her colleagues she’s discussing. I agree that each feminist wave has had its backlash in its time. But the backlash is defined by the wave. In this case, the common complaint is that third-wave feminism is “infantilizing” women by turning them into eternal victims of the world and more specifically men. The author of your article raises this very argument. A lot of the dissident voices are clearly liberated women who have become so disgusted with the excesses of third-wave feminism that they decline the title of feminist and bash the feminists themselves. A fun example: Below, the first link is a feminist video. (It’s NSFW; the feminists use some shock tactics in the name of a good cause.) The second is a dissident female satirizing that same video. She trashes feminists even though she clearly is liberated in any sense of the word. Feminist video (NSFW): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqHYzYn3WZw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqHYzYn3WZw) Satire of that same video by liberated woman: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgNV3FbottE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgNV3FbottE) So yeah. I see your point but feel that it’s a nitpick in order to keep your side from being pinned down. But the dissident voices are clear on whom they’re talking about. There are lots of dissident voices, and many of them are backlash against the excesses of third-wave feminism. And in a sense the backlash proves the existence of the wave itself, monolithic or not. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/87 "2015-05-30T12:28:30Z")
It seems to me that everyone tends to form little “mafias” based on common interests and experiences, particularly when those common interests and experiences make them feel like outsiders. Human nature. For a non-gender-non-race-based example, imagine, say, a small cadre of Scots in a London business office. Or a small group of Southerners in the office of some company in New York. Mightn’t they tend to bond, and to look out for one another, based on a shared sense of being “outsiders”? I think it is just basic human nature, and it is no different for women. So it shouldn’t be surprising that women who may feel themselves disadvantaged in a business setting might tend to form their own little “mafias.” Now that doesn’t mean these mafias can’t wind up being exclusionary and discriminatory in their own rights. What if my hypothetical group of Scots tends to prefer fellow Scots in hiring over better-qualified Londoners? ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/88 "2015-05-30T14:17:41Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Many of us have just never met anyone from Michigan. So exotic. I have. Once you get to know them, you’ll find that they’re really just ordinary people. (Most of them.) ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/89 "2015-05-30T16:33:30Z")
> [@Chauve](#): > > Feminist video (NSFW): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqHYzYn3WZw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqHYzYn3WZw) > Satire of that same video by liberated woman: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgNV3FbottE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgNV3FbottE) Wow. I never thought I’d agree about _anything_ with someone who’s a fan of Ayn Rand. Fucking scary. ---
**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 30, 2015, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/90 "2015-05-30T16:45:53Z")
There are two possible explanations for that scariness, you know. ---
**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 30, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/91 "2015-05-30T16:59:43Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > You seem to have gained a lot of knowledge about me, surprisingly quickly. But what I’m curious about is you: specifically whether you, yourself, think the woman on NPR is a nut-job? (Her name, FWIW, appears to be Barbara Meal Hobson, a professor at the University of Chicago, and the author of “Uneasy Virtue”.) I’m not the one you asked about this, but why don’t we take a look at what this nutjob actually has to say, rather than your paraphrase of it, and maybe we’ll learn something about feminist nutjobs at large? > [@](#): > > During World War I, any woman walking unescorted near a military base ran the risk of being labeled a “suspected prostitute.” At the very least this meant a humiliating night in a detention center and examination by a health official, who was in many instances a male doctor. But for thousands of women it resulted in a prison term or long-term commitment in a juvenile reformatory. For some it even meant permanent custodial care in a home for the feebleminded. Federal legislation, which mandated the quarantine and isolation of civilian venereal disease carriers, represented one of the most blatant examples of sex discrimination in the history of American justice. The basic assumption of all federal, state and local legislation concerning venereal disease control was that the infection was spread from women to men. The policy of quarantine, although gender-neutral on the surface, was directed at the women who traded, sold or gave away their sexual services. A diseased prostitute did not provide law enforcers with a list of civilian customers who would be forced to undergo examinations. For the soldier who contracted venereal disease, there were serious consequences if he did not report to a health station, but no penalties at all if he checked into an army clinic within twenty-four hours of contact. Crazy _insane_, right?! What is she even trying to communicate?! ---
**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 30, 2015, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/92 "2015-05-30T18:18:43Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > I’m not the one you asked about this, but why don’t we take a look at what this nutjob actually has to say, rather than your paraphrase of it, and maybe we’ll learn something about feminist nutjobs at large? > > Crazy _insane_, right?! What is she even trying to communicate?! Obviously a feminazi. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/93 "2015-05-30T19:47:29Z")
> [@Chauve](#): > > Naturally, people will respond to this post and say, “Well Camille Paglia is just one commentator. I can find a dozen others who will disagree with her.” Paglia is fun and I like reading her, but you should know she’s a persona non grata in modern feminism, often rejected as an anti-feminist. Nowadays she’s mostly seen as an icon for MRAs. One of her most famous quotes: > [@](#): > > If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts. ---
**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 30, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/94 "2015-05-30T19:56:43Z")
I wouldn’t. I hate grass. But I love bark! MORE BARK HUTS! ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/95 "2015-05-30T20:33:45Z")
My main problem with modern feminism is that it seeks to deny the inherent biological differences between men and women. It is a quest for a holy grail that stands against the realities of life (and the neuroscientific evidence that the male and female brain simply operate differently). Beyond that, the simple hypocrisy that if you hold the door for a woman, she will either… 1. Praise you for being a gentleman 2. Lambast you for reinforcing oppressive, sexist societal traditions… And I, as a man, cannot know which behavior is to be recognized as “proper.” ---
**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 30, 2015, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/96 "2015-05-30T20:38:28Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Beyond that, the simple hypocrisy that if you hold the door for a woman, she will either… > > 1. Praise you for being a gentleman > 2. Lambast you for reinforcing oppressive, sexist societal traditions… > > And I, as a man, cannot know which behavior is to be recognized as “proper.” How is that “hypocrisy”? ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/97 "2015-05-30T20:51:48Z")
Just the notion that feminism “speaks for women” and yet most (in my experience) women don’t actually believe in that contrived nonsense. Modern feminism seems to speak for an increasingly marginal group of undersexed women who project their petty insecurities onto men. My Facebook feed is full of twenty-somethings who share videos and blog posts on the Great Oppression of women in modern society. To which I discourteously respond: “Oh, you’re single you say? Color me shocked madam…” ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/98 "2015-05-30T20:52:23Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > There are two possible explanations for that scariness, you know. Well, no. I haven’t given it a lot of thought, but my explanation is that despite being extremely liberal on some issues, I’m not a “perfect” liberal, and feminism is one of the issues where I don’t walk in lockstep with other liberals. I suppose the other possibility is that I’m wrong about feminism. I’ve certainly been wrong about things before, so it’s a possibility. But I think it’s unlikely. Feminism - whatever it is - seems to involve too much man-hating, too much hypocrisy, too little consistency, and it seems too puritanical. And the attempt to redefine rape is ridiculous, nonsensical, (Really? Are you’re going to lock up a woman for having sex with a drunk man? I don’t think so.) and self-defeating. It also, as someone else said, infantilizes women. Grown-ups take responsibility for their decisions, even if they regret them later. ---
**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 30, 2015, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/99 "2015-05-30T21:07:26Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I suppose the other possibility is that I’m wrong about feminism. I’ve certainly been wrong about things before, so it’s a possibility. > > But I think it’s unlikely. Feminism - whatever it is - seems to involve too much man-hating, too much hypocrisy, too little consistency, and it seems too puritanical. And the attempt to redefine rape is ridiculous, nonsensical, (Really? Are you’re going to lock up a woman for having sex with a drunk man? I don’t think so.) and self-defeating. It also, as someone else said, infantilizes women. Grown-ups take responsibility for their decisions, even if they regret them later. You haven’t been right about any of your assertions. You have, in fact, been laughably, demonstrably wrong. But you think it’s “unlikely” that you are wrong about feminism. Well, I’m convinced! Somehow, despite being wrong in everything you are saying, I’m sure you’re right about your conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023/100 "2015-05-30T21:14:41Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > I’m not the one you asked about this, but why don’t we take a look at what this nutjob actually has to say, rather than your paraphrase of it, and maybe we’ll learn something about feminist nutjobs at large? > > Crazy _insane_, right?! What is she even trying to communicate?! I was writing about the interview, not about everything she’s ever said. I realize the ten minute interview (or whatever it was) does not comprise everything she’s said in her life. Tomndebb said she (or it) was an “extreme example as the type species/Species typica of [feminism].” In any event, that’s one vote for the NPR woman not being a nut job. Any more votes? I’m curious about what you think about Daly, Dworkin, Jordan, and the others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/721023.md?page=6)