# On Feminism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2015, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801 "2015-11-06T14:04:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/561 "2015-12-13T06:35:23Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > I forget where we were. You were accusing unknown people of misbehavior without any proof. No. I was saying that whether feminists’ words match their actions is part and parcel of a debate called “on feminism”. It’s at least as relevant as your claim that LinusK’s actions don’t match his words. I don’t have proof one way or the other. I doubt such proof could be found; no one person speaks for all feminists, no one person’s actions can be said to represent all feminists. We’re left with a few peripheral data points we can measure, like representation in STEM fields or achievement in school; therein lies the debate. There are interesting statistics and examples on both sides; I’m interested in looking for more. However, I don’t see proof on either side. it seems popular in this thread to simply assert the egalitarian goals of feminists, or to say that their actions are nobody’s business. That strikes me as a bit of a cop out. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/562 "2015-12-13T11:03:31Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > No, but it’s been a point of contention in this thread that feminists care about issues affecting men and boys as much as they do those for women and girls. Linus may feel (and I think his most recent post supports this) that feminists didn’t cause the problems he listed, but that they also don’t fight as hard to correct them as they have to boost the performance of girls in school. But that “feeling” completely ignores the abundant evidence that feminists **do** care about the negative effects of gender stereotyping and other forms of sexism upon men and boys. To take just one example, here’s the well-known blogger and author Crystal Smith of the blog “The Achilles Effect: Boys, Masculinity and Gender Stereotypes”, on [boy-specific problems in education](http://www.achilleseffect.com/2011/06/thoughts-on-pam-allyns-best-books-for-boys/): > [@](#): > > In Part One of her book, Ms. Allyn outlines why she chose to focus on boys. The fact that boys are falling behind girls in literacy and school achievement is not news, but Ms. Allyn offers a brief and relevant discussion on why this is happening. She uses a few key statistics without overwhelming the reader with numbers. She also talks about the shift in today’s schools toward “assessment and standardization in educational policy,” which leaves little room for creativity in delivering the curriculum and may be causing some kids to tune out at school. > > The numbers about boys’ achievement in literacy do not lie, and there are many people pointing the finger at the education system. Some even go so far as stating that the school environment has been feminized […] > > I am no expert on the education system, but the inclusion of this kind of statement about schools concerns me because it disregards the role of socialization on boys’ attitudes. Yes, boys are misjudged and considered problems more often than girls, but the failure to acknowledge socialization in a discussion about boys and school seems to me to be an incredible oversight. The Toronto Star published a letter I wrote about this in 2009, in which I said: > > > [@](#): > > > > “Virtually from birth, we impose on boys a very narrow definition of masculinity – one that teaches them to value noise and action over quiet and focused attention. The boisterous, sometimes aggressive behaviour that some boys exhibit is not reined in when it is inappropriate; rather, it is excused with that hoary old phrase “boys will be boys”. Boys are encouraged to play with noisy machines and superhero toys more often than they are asked to sit down to a quiet activity. Pop culture feeds them a steady diet of male characters that are action-oriented and hyper-masculine. > > > > We allow these influences to permeate their consciousness. We often reinforce them through the language we use and the activities we choose for them. And then we expect them to sit quietly in a classroom and listen.” > > Socialization into traditional masculine roles teaches many boys that it is “uncool” to follow rules or ask for help. I think Ms. Allyn’s arguments about the reasons boys are falling behind would have been stronger had she addressed socialization as a contributing factor to boys’ sometimes negative attitudes toward school. (The Globe & Mail covered this subject in an article last year.) [Here’s the article](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/failing-boys/part-4-red-flagged-as-problem-pupils-are-boys-misunderstood/article1764665/) she mentions, written by a feminist female journalist and citing the research of a feminist female psychologist: > [@](#): > > This is the all too-common tale of the boisterous, restless boy “red-flagged” as the problem pupil that nobody wants in their class. Viewed as too difficult to teach and too disruptive to control, the less help this boy gets - especially in language skills and reading - the worse he does. […] > > Nature is certainly a player in these stories - boys tend to be more active than girls, and mature later - but studies have found relatively small overall brain differences between girls and boys. The bigger player may be environment - the nurture side of a boy’s life, where parents and teachers have a major influence to either help him reach his full potential, or box him into a role that holds him back. > > To boost math scores among girls, the youngster had to get the message that their hardwired brains weren’t holding them back. “Now we are doing the opposite to boys: Boys are immature, boys can’t sit still, boys can’t read and write. That can’t help them,” says Lise Eliot, a neuroscientist studying gender difference. So in large part, the solution for boys may be changing that message. While antifeminists like **LinusK** sit around whining that “feminists only care about girls” because their awareness of feminist thought is limited to outrage-_du-jour_ soundbites, it’s overwhelmingly feminists who are doing the actual research on disadvantages suffered by boys, who are raising public awareness about the problems boys face, who are counseling and supporting the parents of boys with educational difficulties, and who are proposing strategies for improving the educational success of boys. Which, when you think about it, makes a lot of sense. For one thing, many, many feminists are mothers of sons, and they generally care just as much about the ways sexism harms their sons as about the ways it harms their daughters. Antifeminists, by contrast, have a pretty shit track record on actually doing anything to alleviate the problems experienced by men and boys. What they mostly seem to care about is using those problems as a grievance in order to whine about how men and boys are disadvantaged so it must be feminism’s fault. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/563 "2015-12-13T13:49:15Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But that “feeling” completely ignores the abundant evidence that feminists **do** care about the negative effects of gender stereotyping and other forms of sexism upon men and boys. To take just one example, here’s the well-known blogger and author Crystal Smith of the blog “The Achilles Effect: Boys, Masculinity and Gender Stereotypes”, on [boy-specific problems in education](http://www.achilleseffect.com/2011/06/thoughts-on-pam-allyns-best-books-for-boys/): Excellent link, just the sort of thing I’m looking for. Thanks. I’d still like to see this sort of concern become more widespread, and lead to improved results. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/564 "2015-12-13T14:25:34Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > LinusK, are you familiar with this study? > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by Are Feminists Manhaters? Feminists and Non-feminists’ attitudes toward men > > The present study examined self-identified feminists’ and nonfeminists’ attitudes toward men. An ethnically > > diverse sample (N = 488) of college students responded to statements from the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory > > (AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999). Contrary to popular beliefs, feminists reported lower levels of hostility toward men than > > did nonfeminists. > > It appears not much research has been done on this topic. > > As for the claim that feminists on this board don’t speak out against anti-male attitudes, I literally just did that in a thread on microaggressions yesterday. > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by the relevant bit > > …I am feeling increasingly alienated by this culture… and I couldn’t put my finger on it until an internet commenter made it clear. He was a gay man who had been a long-time social justice activist and he saw the recent actions on campus as misguided, namely because social justice these days has become an intellectualized experience for many people, to the point where we’ve confused lecturing at people with real social activism. And in my experience, lecturing only alienates people who really cannot get it on an empathetic level. > > > > …as a woman, I am genuinely unhappy with a lot of the mainstream feminist narrative because it seems so fundamentally alienating to men. That just seems like bad strategy. I’ve heard all the arguments in favor, the statements that men cannot truly be feminists because they lack the experience of being a woman, and I think it’s bullshit. We need allies, and I don’t think you can yell people into understanding you. > > > > The SJW crowd would call this ‘‘tone policing’’ and I get the criticism, but on the other hand, I’m a woman, I know sexism is a thing, and I still think we’re getting it wrong. Those articles about how women are justified in their mistrust of men really piss me off. I would hope that we all understand the concept of confirmation bias and also that, as feminists, we’re well aware most sexual assaults aren’t committed by strangers. Can’t rationality step in at a certain point and trump personal experience? It just seems intellectually lazy to me, and not at all productive. > > > > A recent example is an article I saw that said something along the lines of ‘‘3 Ways ‘For Her Pleasure’ Sex can actually be misogynistic.’’ For fuck’s sake. > > I half-heartedly googled looking for articles posted by feminists that critiqued (what seems to me is) the dominant feminist paradigm in media that attacks male allies. I didn’t find any… I found the opposite, articles that piss me off about why male allies aren’t good enough. There is a very loud and vocal contigent of feminists I often do not agree with. They are nothing like the feminists I know in real life. It’s almost as if loud extremists get the most attention in this society. > > I think that you are deeply emotionally invested in your very narrow view of what feminism is, and it’s probably a waste of time to try to change your mind. But as for me, I often find myself conflicted, intrigued, and challenged by the diversity of thought among feminists. (I could say the same for being a liberal, or virtually any other thing I identify with.) The world is a complicated place, and these are complex issues. I suggest, for the overall betterment of society, yourself, and the long-suffering members of this board, that you try to take a more intellectually curious and nuanced view of the world you live in. I’m confused by your comments. On the one hand, you say you’re _"genuinely unhappy with a lot of the mainstream feminist narrative because it seems so fundamentally alienating to men;_ on the other, you accuse me of being “_emotionally invested_” and of having a “_very narrow view of what feminism is_.” If feminism is fundamentally alienating to men, is it surprising men would be alienated by it? I have no way of knowing, of course, how many of my comments about feminism you’ve read, or how many of comments about me you’ve read. It was my intellectual curiosity that drew me to the subject of feminism (of which you claim I have none). There were a couple of things I was interested in. One was a [Munk Debate](http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/gender-in-the-21st-century), “ **Be it resolved men are obsolete…** ” The debate was among four feminists. Hanna Rosin (_“Women are not just catching up anymore; they are becoming the standard by which success is measured;”_) and Maureen Dowd _“So now that women don’t need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around? And the answer is, ‘You know we need you in the way we need ice cream — you’ll be more ornamental.’ ”_ argued that men are obsolete. The “debate” was shocking, on two levels. The first was it’s callousness: is _any_ human being obsolete? The second was it’s cluelessness. It was as if they’d never seen the people who build the office towers these privileged women work in; had never seen the men who build their luxurious homes; never seen the people who fix their plumbing, or pick up their trash, or make sure the electrical grid works. The combination of callousness, elitism, and cluelessness was appalling. The second thing I was interested in was a video called [10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A). I had clicked “play” expecting to see some truly awful things. I didn’t get what I expected. Instead, despite 10 hours of filming in what appeared to be some of the sketchier neighborhoods of New York, I got less than 2 minutes of harassment - some of which wasn’t even harassment: it was just men saying “hello”. Despite posting in good faith, the responses to the thread were hostile, personal attacks. I should have realized then that questioning the catechisms of feminism was taboo on SDMB. But I reasoned instead that I’d posted in the wrong forum. In “Great Debates” things would be different. Only, they weren’t. The same hateful group of sycophants followed me here, and proceeded to post the same pathetic insults. It was as if they were not interested in discussing anything, but only in attempting to shut me up, by hurting my feelings. This kind of tactic is used, in my experience, by people who are deeply emotionally invested in a paradigm, and aren’t able to discuss it intellectually. In fact - with perhaps one or two exceptions - if there has been a response, by a feminist, to anything I’ve said, that hasn’t been either purely a personal attack, or at least contained one, I can’t recall it. Your post is an example. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/565 "2015-12-13T16:32:18Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > There were a couple of things I was interested in. One was a [Munk Debate](http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/gender-in-the-21st-century), “ **Be it resolved men are obsolete…** ” The debate was among four feminists. Oh my God! \*\*Four \*\*feminists said this thing!? Shocking! Well, since it was a debate I presume two were opposed. \*\*Two \*\*feminists said this thing!? A shocking condemnation of the entire feminist movement if two people say a thing. Just so I know who to hate, which of these two people was elected leader of the feminist movement? Oh, hey, you forgot to mention that the majority of the audience sided with the “Con” position both before and after the debate. It probably slipped your mind to mention that. You probably just forgot. Not deceptive at all for you to not mention that. You probably just forgot. > [@](#): > > The second thing I was interested in was a video called 10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman. I had clicked “play” expecting to see some truly awful things. I didn’t get what I expected. Instead, despite 10 hours of filming in what appeared to be some of the sketchier neighborhoods of New York, I got less than 2 minutes of harassment - some of which wasn’t even harassment: it was just men saying “hello”. > [@](#): > > Despite posting in good faith, the responses to the thread were hostile, personal attacks. I should have realized then that questioning the catechisms of feminism was taboo on SDMB. But I reasoned instead that I’d posted in the wrong forum. In “Great Debates” things would be different. Only, they weren’t. The same hateful group of sycophants followed me here, and proceeded to post the same pathetic insults. > > It was as if they were not interested in discussing anything, but only in attempting to shut me up, by hurting my feelings. This kind of tactic is used, in my experience, by people who are deeply emotionally invested in a paradigm, and aren’t able to discuss it intellectually. The second thing I was interested in was the responses to your posts on feminism. I had read them expecting to see some truly awful things. I didn’t get what I expected. Instead, despite hundreds of posts in what appeared to be some of the sketchier neighborhoods of the Straight Dope, I got less than 2 sentences of harassment - some of which wasn’t even harassment: it was just posters saying “hello” ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/566 "2015-12-13T17:10:37Z")
Just so that everyone knows who the anti-feminists are, consider this: Men’s rights activist Peter Andrew Nolan called mass murderer Anders Breivik “a hero.” Breivik, who murdered 77 people in 2011, wrote a manifesto declaring that fathers had become “disposable,” that women use their “erotic capital” to “manipulate” men, and that “[the media turns men into a 'touchy-feely subspecies who bows to the radical feminist agenda.](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/warren-farrell-mens-rights-movement-feminism-misogyny-trolls)'” Consider the two extremes of the movements: on the feminist side you have two feminists who debated in favor of the proposition that “the age-old power structures associated with “maleness,” [are] permanently in decline.” (But didn’t manage to convince a majority of the audience). And on the anti-feminist side you have anti-feminist Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people and then gets called a hero by the MRA movement. Clearly the feminists are more extreme. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/567 "2015-12-13T17:52:10Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Oh, hey, you forgot to mention that the majority of the audience sided with the “Con” position both before and after the debate. It probably slipped your mind to mention that. You probably just forgot. Not deceptive at all for you to not mention that. You probably just forgot. Did you forget to mention that the PRO side increased nearly three times (from 16% to 44%) and was declared the winner of the debate? That 44% of any group would call men obsolete isn’t exactly reassuring. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/568 "2015-12-13T17:56:11Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Did you forget to mention that the PRO side increased nearly three times (from 16% to 44%) and was declared the winner of the debate? > > That 44% of any group would call men obsolete isn’t exactly reassuring. Maybe you should educate yourself before you comment. First, the group voting weren’t feminists. Second, read [this link](http://thefederalist.com/2013/11/21/munk-debates-moran-witty-rosin-cold-dowd-ornamental-paglia-wise/), where they say Before the doors opened, the organizers polled the audience and found an 84/16 split in favor of men’s continued relevance. At the end of the debate, the audience voted 56/44 for the same. By Munk standards, Rosin and Dowd won for changing the most minds. I suspect the swing was mostly due to Rosin changing the resolution, but also due to a little silent joke. The organizers gave out yes or no stickers. I saw more than a few young men standing next to their girlfriends wearing “I voted yes” stickers. A few smirked when I caught their eye and indicated the sticker. So the vote doesn’t indicate what you think it indicates. In the future please do the minimum due diligence before commenting, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/569 "2015-12-13T18:07:14Z")
ETA: ninjaed by **EE**. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/570 "2015-12-13T18:09:13Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > There were a couple of things I was interested in. One was a [Munk Debate](http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/gender-in-the-21st-century), “ **Be it resolved men are obsolete…** ” The debate was among four feminists. Hanna Rosin (_“Women are not just catching up anymore; they are becoming the standard by which success is measured;”_) and Maureen Dowd _“So now that women don’t need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around? And the answer is, ‘You know we need you in the way we need ice cream — you’ll be more ornamental.’ ”_ argued that men are obsolete. > > The “debate” was shocking, on two levels. The first was it’s callousness: is _any_ human being obsolete? > > The second was it’s cluelessness. It was as if they’d never seen the people who build the office towers these privileged women work in; had never seen the men who build their luxurious homes; never seen the people who fix their plumbing, or pick up their trash, or make sure the electrical grid works. The combination of callousness, elitism, and cluelessness was appalling. You were interested in this debate, but apparently not interested enough to watch it. If you had watched it, I suspect you would have noticed that your specific criticisms were addressed. For example, you say “It was as if they’d never seen the people who build the office towers these privileged women work in; had never seen the men who build their luxurious homes; never seen the people who fix their plumbing, or pick up their trash, or make sure the electrical grid works.” Which seems like a valid criticism, unless you’d actually watched the debate. See, if you would have actually watched the debate you would have heard Pagilia say: Indeed, men are absolutely indispensable right now, invisible as it might seem to most feminists, who seem blind to the infrastructure that makes their own work lives possible. It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work of building roads, pouring concrete, laying bricks, tarring roofs, hanging electric wires, excavating natural gas and sewage lines, cutting and clearing trees, and bulldozing the landscape for housing developments… The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic in which women have found a productive role. But women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due. So your specific criticism was addressed, in the debate that you cited, and you didn’t bother to mention it? Strange. Maybe you just missed it? Well, you also missed the feminists discussing ways to improve outcomes for men, which I believe was also a criticism of yours. For example: I’ve been calling for twenty years for a revalorization of the trades in modern education. I feel that there is a very banal, compulsory college track these days, starting in primary schools, funnelling smart students along to a university curriculum that is extremely vapid, and that what is needed is something much more like what is going on in Germany, which is a cooperation between primary schools and industry, and a real vocational technical training. I think that the upper middle class has to get over its social snobbery about manual labour I guess that’s something else you missed when you were watching the debate that you claim you were interested in. Maybe in the future if you’re going to provide a cite, and claim that you’ve watched it, you should do us all a favor and \*actually \*read/watch it, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/571 "2015-12-13T18:16:55Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Maybe you should educate yourself before you comment. First, the group voting weren’t feminists. I never said they were feminists. I said “any group”. In this case, it’s the group attending the debate. And in fact, I was curious on exactly this point before I wrote my post. In the press release announcing the debate I found this: > [@](#): > > The Munk Debates are open to the public. The Debate on the End of Men will take place in Toronto at Roy Thomson Hall on Friday, November 15, at 7:00 pm EST. Tickets go on sale to Munk Debate Premium Members at 10:00 AM on Tuesday, September24. Remaining tickets will go on sale to the public at 12:00 NOON on Thursday, September 26. For information on purchasing tickets, or premium membership, please visit [www.munkdebates.com](http://www.munkdebates.com). Seating is limited. So I knew it was open to the public, and didn’t say anything to indicate otherwise. I consider my due diligence to be met. > [@](#): > > So the vote doesn’t indicate what you think it indicates. I think it indicates that 44% of the audience of the debate said that men are obsolete. I find that somewhat troubling. What do you think the 44% indicates? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/572 "2015-12-13T18:21:17Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > I never said they were feminists. I said “any group”. In this case, it’s the group attending the debate. > > And in fact, I was curious on exactly this point before I wrote my post. In the press release announcing the debate I found this:So I knew it was open to the public, and didn’t say anything to indicate otherwise. I consider my due diligence to be met. > > I think it indicates that 44% of the audience of the debate said that men are obsolete. I find that somewhat troubling. > > What do you think the 44% indicates? I already told you what I think it indicates, and I provided a link to someone who was there telling you what happened during the voting. I also posed above that the debaters changed the topic of the debate during the course of the debate. This is the second time I’ve told you these things, and I’d prefer not to have to tell you a third time. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/573 "2015-12-13T18:28:47Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > The “debate” was shocking, on two levels. For fun, I thought I’d post some more quotes from that shocking debate, that \*\*LinusK \*\*clearly \*actually \*watched: When half of us fall, the other half staggers. If working-class men are struggling, the first people it will impact are working-class women. It’s easy to forget this but we are the same species. Woman are not from Venus and men are not from Mars. Shocking! Think about it. Do women gain anything from men becoming obsolete? If we are the only ones triumphing in work and education, and the economy and politics and business, but yet we still retain our old kingdoms of homemaking and child-raising, do we win? No. Divisive! If it were up to me, we would just put all the damn factories back in all the places where the men have lost their jobs. Cruel! it’s very important, as I said in my opening speech, that we should stop talking about problems of men and problems of women, and start talking about problems of humanity. Oblivious! I can see why \*\*LinusK \*\*was so shocked by the things he heard when he “watched” this debate that he was so interested in. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/574 "2015-12-13T18:51:24Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > I already told you what I think it indicates, and I provided a link to someone who was there telling you what happened during the voting. I also posed above that the debaters changed the topic of the debate during the course of the debate. You didn’t say what they changed the topic to: (from your link) > [@](#): > > That is probably why no one objected when Rosin changed the premise in the middle of the discussion. It wasn’t really a question of whether men were obsolete—of course they weren’t, Rosin conceded about midway in the discussion. By default, the question became “Are they in decline because the rules favor women?” an obvious and hardly debatable notion. And your description of the voting left out this part: > [@](#): > > But the dates with the “I voted yes” stickers made me wonder, did the young men find the whole thing so insulting, that they declared themselves obsolete in protest? And a few other interesting tidbits: > [@](#): > > The end of men played out right on the stage. Female intellectuals alternately use, exclude and ignore men while half-heartedly debating whether the rules are tilted to favor women. Then they complain men don’t show up and imply it is because they are too lazy or haplessly ill-suited for the task at hand. The huffy do-women-have-to-do-everything-themselves sanctimony is just the cherry on top of this ornamental end-of-men sundae. > [@](#): > > Women had to discuss the end of men not because men are too lazy or complacent, but because men aren’t allowed such candor. > [@](#): > > She has the advantage of age and the perspective that comes with it. The omens are bad, Paglia observed. No one is listening to men. We are using them, mocking them. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/575 "2015-12-13T19:03:13Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > You didn’t say what they changed the topic to: I shouldn’t have had to. You have a link to the actual debate. If you want to discuss it, go watch it. > [@](#): > > And your description of the voting left out this part I left out roughly 99% of the debate, which is why if you want to discuss it you should go watch it. To be honest I don’t think the debate was particularly interesting. The only really interesting part was that \*\*LinusK \*\*gave it as an example of how bad feminists were, even though he clearly hadn’t actually watched it. It’s obvious he got his description of the event from other people, who also told him what to think about it. I noticed the same thing in his description of the walking in New York video. Nothing I’ve been able to track down as word-for-word plagiarism in his description yet, but similar language and opinions as extreme MRA websites. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/576 "2015-12-13T19:14:37Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > I’d still like to see this sort of concern become more widespread, and lead to improved results. You and me both. Unfortunately, the antifeminist movement as a whole seems to have decided to exploit the issue of boys’ educational difficulties as a tool to bash feminism with. (Apparently based on the lazy and self-serving rationale that if women/girls are outperforming men/boys at **anything** , it **must** be because those horrible man-hating feminists are unfairly discriminating against the men/boys.) As I’ve said before, the traditional educational system that many boys are now being seen to have trouble with goes back hundreds if not thousands of years before feminism. It wasn’t until feminism significantly equalized opportunities and support for girls in education that anybody besides a handful of alternative-education “hippie” types started noticing that the traditional education system and traditional socialization of boys conflict in some respects. I sometimes think that there may have been a missed opportunity back in the 19th century, when there was [a widespread crisis in American rural education due to “difficult” or “wild” older boys wrecking schools for fun.](https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=ivmjg4smuh0C&pg=PA188) The educational system seems to have addressed that problem with tighter discipline and more hierarchically organized schools, as well as tougher crackdowns on truancy. (In fact, this seems to be one of the major reasons that elementary and secondary education in the twentieth century became so heavily skewed towards female teachers: there was no longer any practical need specifically to seek out male teachers who could physically control and discipline violent adolescent boys on a regular basis, and female teachers were cheaper.) I wonder what would have happened if 19th- and early 20th century education reformers had seriously analyzed the problems of boys and traditional classroom education from the ground up, rather than just addressing the symptoms of the discipline problem. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2015, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/577 "2015-12-13T20:36:49Z")
**LinusK** (and others who agree with him), here’s my question: I agree that you have found some number of quotations from self-identified feminists which are troubling. Some are hateful, some are divisive, some are anti-male. But my experience as a man living in a liberal part of the country (silicon valley), interacting with liberal women (such as my mother, my wife, my sister) who identify as feminists in no way leads me to believe that the type of extreme rhetoric you have been pointing out is at all representative of the way they actually live their day to day lives. I feel like this observation is in accord with observations and claims posted by many people in this thread, many of them women who identify as feminists. So my mental model of feminism is that of the tens of millions of women in the US who identify as feminists, the vast vast VAST majority just live normal lives, raise kids, have husbands, have jobs. They believe that women should have the right to be CEOs and presidents. They do their best to make sure that if their daughters play with dolls instead of playing sports, it’s because that’s what the daughter actually wants to do. They oppose sexual harassment in the workplace. They do NOT pay much attention at all to the writings of random women who are associate professors at liberal arts colleges and make outrageous statements about men being obsolete, or all sex being rape, or what have you. They _certainly_ do not think that such women speak for them or define feminism. OK, so that’s what I think is true. I did say that I had a question for you, and it is twofold: (1) Do you think my position is accurate? Why or why not? How might we test my position? (2) Imagine for a second a world in which my view is accurate. In that world, is it fair or accurate or meaningful to level the types of criticism you’ve been leveling in this thread at feminism as a whole? ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/578 "2015-12-14T01:52:27Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > I shouldn’t have had to. You have a link to the actual debate. If you want to discuss it, go watch it. > I left out roughly 99% of the debate, which is why if you want to discuss it you should go watch it. Just a few posts before this you took LinusK to task for exactly the same thing. “It probably slipped your mind to mention that. You probably just forgot. Not deceptive at all for you to not mention that. You probably just forgot.” But when you leave something out, and I call your attention to it, suddenly it’s my fault for not following the link. No, that doesn’t fly around here. > [@Kimstu](#): > > You and me both. Unfortunately, the antifeminist movement as a whole seems to have decided to exploit the issue of boys’ educational difficulties as a tool to bash feminism with. (Apparently based on the lazy and self-serving rationale that if women/girls are outperforming men/boys at **anything** , it **must** be because those horrible man-hating feminists are unfairly discriminating against the men/boys.) I think you’re leaping to a conclusion there; that pointing out the disparity necessarily carries with it all the other attitudes you describe. It’s one thing to blame feminists for maliciously causing boys to fall behind, and quite another to wonder if they just haven’t fought to raise boys’ achievement with the same passion and vigor that they did for girls. Posters here have complained, and rightly so, when folks like LinusK have quoted the most extreme feminists to tar the whole movement. That should go both ways; criticism of feminists shouldn’t be tarred with the views of its worst extremists, either. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > **LinusK** (and others who agree with him), here’s my question: I don’t agree with him, and I’ve tried to point out when I didn’t, but I’ll take a crack at it. > [@](#): > > I agree that you have found some number of quotations from self-identified feminists which are troubling. Some are hateful, some are divisive, some are anti-male. > > But my experience as a man living in a liberal part of the country (silicon valley), interacting with liberal women (such as my mother, my wife, my sister) who identify as feminists in no way leads me to believe that the type of extreme rhetoric you have been pointing out is at all representative of the way they actually live their day to day lives. I feel like this observation is in accord with observations and claims posted by many people in this thread, many of them women who identify as feminists. > > So my mental model of feminism is that of the tens of millions of women in the US who identify as feminists, the vast vast VAST majority just live normal lives, raise kids, have husbands, have jobs. They believe that women should have the right to be CEOs and presidents. They do their best to make sure that if their daughters play with dolls instead of playing sports, it’s because that’s what the daughter actually wants to do. They oppose sexual harassment in the workplace. They do NOT pay much attention at all to the writings of random women who are associate professors at liberal arts colleges and make outrageous statements about men being obsolete, or all sex being rape, or what have you. They _certainly_ do not think that such women speak for them or define feminism. > OK, so that’s what I think is true. I did say that I had a question for you, and it is twofold: > > (1) Do you think my position is accurate? Why or why not? How might we test my position? I think your position is entirely accurate and very well said. I’ve known self-identified feminists who are wonderful people, fair-minded, and great parents who care deeply about the well being of their daughters and sons. And I’ll even go a step further and say that feminism as a whole has led to great advances and opened up opportunities for people who would have never had them before. Those are good things. > [@](#): > > (2) Imagine for a second a world in which my view is accurate. In that world, is it fair or accurate or meaningful to level the types of criticism you’ve been leveling in this thread at feminism as a whole? I think my criticism is fair, but please be clear about what my criticism actually is. I think feminism, for all the good it has done, has a few blind spots. Things like portrayals of men in the media, single-gender institutions, educational achievement and expectations, that, while not entirely overlooked, just don’t generate the same calls for action that they did when they happened to girls. And I’m not even saying it’s deliberate; some of these things are subtle and hard to notice. But sometimes those subtle things can be important, or reveal things that we might not otherwise think about. They’re just blind spots. Heck, you’re all free to disagree with me about them, but it shouldn’t be this hard, or controversial, to point them out. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/579 "2015-12-14T02:13:23Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Just a few posts before this you took LinusK to task for exactly the same thing. “It probably slipped your mind to mention that. You probably just forgot. Not deceptive at all for you to not mention that. You probably just forgot.” But when you leave something out, and I call your attention to it, suddenly it’s my fault for not following the link. > > No, that doesn’t fly around here. You’ve completely misstated what took place, and I don’t appreciate it. \*\*LinusK \*\*posted the link in support of his argument. It was his cite, and his responsibility to summarize it accurately. I reviewed the cite, noticed that \*\*LinusK \*\*had mischaracterized it, and simply demonstrated that he hadn’t actually watched the debate at all, despite claiming to be “interested” in it. When I used the phrase “It looks like you forgot…” I was simply pointing out that he hadn’t actually watched the debate at all, and I was calling attention to his behavior. Let me be clear; it wasn’t my link, wasn’t my argument, wasn’t my responsibility to summarize the debate for you. So, one more time: if you want to know what was said at the debate, you need to go watch it. I have no responsibility to summarize it for you. Since I didn’t find the debate particularly interesting, and have no particular desire to discuss it with you, once you’ve watched the debate, you’ll have to find someone else to discuss it with. But let me say this for hopefully the final time; I have no responsibility to explain everything that happened in that debate to you. If you care, you can go watch it. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/580 "2015-12-14T02:40:57Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > \*\*LinusK \*\*posted the link in support of his argument. It was his cite, and his responsibility to summarize it accurately. I reviewed the cite, noticed that \*\*LinusK \*\*had mischaracterized it, and simply demonstrated that he hadn’t actually watched the debate at all, despite claiming to be “interested” in it. You posted [this link](http://thefederalist.com/2013/11/21/munk-debates-moran-witty-rosin-cold-dowd-ornamental-paglia-wise/) in support of your argument. It was your cite, and your responsibility to summarize it accurately. I reviewed the cite, noticed that you had mischaracterized it, and simply demonstrated that you had left out significant portions of the analysis. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801.md?page=30)