# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2015, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/101 "2015-11-10T14:23:48Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > AA serves all of these purposes. And in case it’s not clear, I have no problems with this practice. If half the pop is male, we should want college campuses to reflect this. Even if standards for “merit” (gasp!) have to be adjusted for them. Who wants a society that has a huge undereducated, economically marginalized underclass? Not me. But now you have to tell me why you use merit for admission at all. If the goal is to educate the undereducated, economically marginalized underclass, we should allow anyone in that class to get into any college, right? > [@](#): > > The question, though, is why do so many young white males persist in thinking they–and they alone–do not benefit from diversity hiring/admissions? If it results in some of them not getting to go to the school at all because they were displaced by a “diversity” candidate who otherwise wouldn’t qualify, it doesn’t help them much, does it? I’m simplifying, of course, but that’s the point. College admission is competitive. It shouldn’t be surprising that someone cares more about their own admission based on the hard work they did to get the grades and all the rest, and then sees someone put ahead of them in line based on skin color or sex - after being told skin color and sex shouldn’t matter, and knowing that it would be illegal if skin color or sex were used in admissions if the victims were not white and male. You may be willing to explain why it’s worth it to them, but you shouldn’t be incredulous that they don’t just accept it with open arms. > [@](#): > > Might it even force them to reassess their assumptions of inferiority and the standards we use to measure merit? Yup, this too. No one really believes women are smarter than men, and yet we do see women kicking more ass in school. How do we explain this? Is it possible grades and test scores aren’t the end-all be-all they have been cracked up to be? Good argument for fixing grades and test scores. Not a good argument for simply bypassing them. > [@](#): > > Can white males continue to push for a “return to” meritocracy, when doing so might result in them being relegated to the bottom of the economic hierarchy? No doubt this is an interesting question. Yes. And you don’t get to answer it for them. > [@](#): > > The court cases we saw decades ago challenging AA on race, we very well might see directed at men. What will be the response then I wonder? Hmmm? What will it be? You have to wait and see before you smugly conclude that they’re all selfish hypocrites. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2015, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/102 "2015-11-10T14:24:21Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > The California law uses the term "incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.” > > Why are you arguing to have sex with incapacitated people? You left out the full text: > [@](#): > > SECTION 1. Section 67386 is added to the Education Code, to read: > 67386. (a) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following: > (1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent. > (2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, **it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances: > (A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused. > (B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.** > (3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence. > (4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances: > (A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious. > (B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity. > (C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition. So a few points: if a couple has drunk sex, the fact that the accused was drunk is not a defense. The fact that the accuser is drunk, on the other hand, may make it an offense. Drunk is a relative term. For example, people who are “black-out” drunk - meaning they don’t remember things, or don’t remember everything - may appear to be making conscious, voluntary choices, even if later they feel like they weren’t. It’s up to the accused to determine whether the other person is too drunk - even if he’s drunk himself. (Being drunk is not a defense.) Consent must be “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary” and “ongoing”. And the accused, not the accuser - has the burden of proof. Again, even if he was drunk himself. The fact that an accused _actually genuinely believed_ he had affirmative consent - is not a defense. Obviously, there are two lessons to be learned here: 1.) never touch a girl who’s been drinking; and 2.) if you do, make sure you lodge a complaint against her first. (You must avoid being the “accused,” at all costs.) ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2015, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/103 "2015-11-10T14:44:48Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I’m all for equality - although I will say that feminists have a pattern of taking credit for every bit of historical progress, despite the support of millions of men who also supported equality along the way. A man who acts to support equality is a feminist. (At that moment, at least.) ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2015, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/104 "2015-11-10T14:52:12Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Feminists up and down these endless OP’s have contradicted, corrected and tried to inform your paranoid rhetoric with facts and personal experience and opinion. Each reasonable and informed attempt has been rebuffed only to have you repeat the same tortured logic that supports your irrational efforts to paint all feminists as having the same agenda as a small number of extremists who say crazy shit in service of their own goals and who do nothing in service of gender equality - something that all reasonable posters here have certainly acknowledged, i.e men are not deficient, intercourse is not dehumanizing to women, domestic violence is inexcusable regardless of who perpetrates it, etc…etc… etc… > > But instead of acknowledging that most reasonable people agree that extremist feminist views are not the core tennet of feminism, you resolutely avoid responding to evidence that contradicts your hypothesis - something that, at best, makes you an ideologue. > > Assuming your purpose here is not to dabate but to witness your paranoid agenda, is it unreasonable to ask and get an answer from you as to what event(s) in your personal life has caused you to take up this cause to liberate humanity from the scurge of feminism? Reason being: If we can’t change your mind, at least we might be able to understand better where you’re coming from. I know you’ll assume this might open you to personal attack but you’re not exactly winning this argument anyway. So while you’re unlikely to persuade anyone who isn’t already in agreement with you, perhaps you’ll find some sympathy. Sorry, **QuickSilver** , if you think I’m going to talk about my personal life, given the personal nature of the attacks against me, you must be delusional. (Or you think I’m a moron.) I’m not going to expose myself or the people I care about to random hate-mongers on the internet. In any event, there are several problems with anecdotal arguments on the internet. One is that they’re unverifiable. Another is the problem with selective evidence. A third is confirmation bias. And a fourth is that no one person’s experiences are representative. I might know a dozen men who’ve been physically attacked by their wives or girlfriends, called the police and been arrested. But that would be just one data point, and not a particularly important one. Moreover, you’d have to way to know if what I said was true. I might know a dozen men who’ve been divorced by women who met someone new, and lost their homes, their savings, their children - and been forced to pay child support and alimony to their ex-wives and their new boyfriends. But that would only be one data point, and you’d have no way to know if it was true. I might know a dozen college men and boys who’ve been falsely accused of rape and had their lives destroyed as a result. But that would be one data point, and you’d have no way of knowing whether it was true. I might know a dozen men who’ve been jailed for failing to pay child support - even for kids that aren’t theirs - and lost their jobs, cars, and homes as a result - only to find their child support obligations had mounted while they were in custody. Again, you know the rest. In any event, the point is that any one person’s experiences aren’t relevant. My response to those who say, “I’m a feminist, and that’s not what I believe,” is tell me what you do believe. Because if you silently stand by - or worse yet, defend - the so-called radicals, you’re not part of the solution. You’re part of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2015, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/105 "2015-11-10T14:55:48Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > My response to those who say, “I’m a feminist, and that’s not what I believe,” is tell me what you do believe. Because if you silently stand by - or worse yet, defend - the so-called radicals, you’re not part of the solution. You’re part of the problem. We’ve done this – explaining what we believe, and criticizing and challenging extremist views – many times, but you seem much more interest in arguing with the extremists who aren’t here (and fantasy-extremists that you believe encompass feminism as a whole) than engaging with us. ---
**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:** [November 10, 2015, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/106 "2015-11-10T15:38:34Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > You left out the full text: > > So a few points: if a couple has drunk sex, the fact that the accused was drunk is not a defense. The fact that the accuser is drunk, on the other hand, may make it an offense. > > Drunk is a relative term. For example, people who are “black-out” drunk - meaning they don’t remember things, or don’t remember everything - may appear to be making conscious, voluntary choices, even if later they feel like they weren’t. > > It’s up to the accused to determine whether the other person is too drunk - even if he’s drunk himself. (Being drunk is not a defense.) > > Consent must be “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary” and “ongoing”. And the accused, not the accuser - has the burden of proof. Again, even if he was drunk himself. > > The fact that an accused _actually genuinely believed_ he had affirmative consent - is not a defense. For those curious, what a real lawyer would point out about this statute is that genuine belief in the existence of affirmative consent IS in fact a defense, unless it’s unreasonable or the RESULT of intoxication (“under either of the following circumstances” being a limitation on the general rule). Which is, you know, the opposite of the above. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2015, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/107 "2015-11-10T16:41:44Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > My response to those who say, “I’m a feminist, and that’s not what I believe,” is tell me what you do believe. We have. Over and over. You ignore it. > [@](#): > > Because if you silently stand by - or worse yet, defend - the so-called radicals, you’re not part of the solution. You’re part of the problem. You may not assume that just because someone hasn’t told you they disagree with something that they agree with it. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2015, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/108 "2015-11-10T18:21:49Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > My response to those who say, “I’m a feminist, and that’s not what I believe,” is tell me what you do believe. Because if you silently stand by - or worse yet, defend - the so-called radicals, you’re not part of the solution. You’re part of the problem. I think we’ve reached an endless loop in this subroutine. So once again, with feeling…: Feminists up and down these endless OP’s have contradicted, corrected and tried to inform your paranoid rhetoric with facts and personal experience and opinion. Each reasonable and informed attempt has been rebuffed only to have you repeat the same tortured logic that supports your irrational efforts to paint all feminists as having the same agenda as a small number of extremists who say crazy shit in service of their own goals and who do nothing in service of gender equality - something that all reasonable posters here have certainly acknowledged, i.e men are not deficient, intercourse is not dehumanizing to women, domestic violence is inexcusable regardless of who perpetrates it, etc…etc… etc… But instead of acknowledging that most reasonable people agree that extremist feminist views are not the core tennet of feminism, you resolutely avoid responding to evidence that contradicts your hypothesis - something that, at best, makes you an ideologue. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/109 "2015-11-11T11:16:22Z")
Here’s a fun one which popped up on [my FB](https://www.facebook.com/humansofnewyork/): [Humans of New York](http://i.imgur.com/iqdBqu6.png) ---
**Author:** ![KarlGrenze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dbc845/32.png) [@KarlGrenze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGrenze)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/110 "2015-11-11T11:27:02Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > My response to those who say, “I’m a feminist, and that’s not what I believe,” is tell me what you do believe. Because if you silently stand by - or worse yet, defend - the so-called radicals, you’re not part of the solution. You’re part of the problem. [We’ve done this before, don’t you remember?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=760530) ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/111 "2015-11-11T12:09:28Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Here’s a fun one which popped up on [my FB](https://www.facebook.com/humansofnewyork/): [Humans of New York](http://i.imgur.com/iqdBqu6.png) Sooooo feminism is to blame how exactly? > [@LinusK](#): > > In any event, there are several problems with anecdotal arguments on the internet. One is that they’re unverifiable. Another is the problem with selective evidence. A third is confirmation bias. And a fourth is that no one person’s experiences are representative. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/112 "2015-11-11T12:28:35Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Sooooo feminism is to blame how exactly? Nooooot in any particular way. Oooooobviously if the story is an accurate representation, then there’s something very wrong with the nature of these kind of cases in NY. But that’s already widely accepted, and I’m mostly responding to the common feminist reply to mras that they are wrong for seeking out men’s groups, and that they should use feminism. Feminism does not deal well with problems particular related to men, and I see no reason it should as it is a women’s activist group. It’s not feminism that is wrong, it is feminists who claim feminism is the answer to men’s problems. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/113 "2015-11-11T12:43:24Z")
Feminism isn’t a woman’s activist “group”; it’s an idea. A lot of my male ancestors would be very surprised to discover that they were women, but they did things such as send their daughters to school (or even to college) when It Was Not Done in their social class. You don’t need female plumbing to think it’s stupid to judge people primarily on that detail, or to realize that a good brain is a sad thing to waste. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/114 "2015-11-11T12:54:33Z")
> [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > In an earlier iteration of the “endless” OP, I did attempt to get someone, anyone, to provide some sort of fact-based rationale for the position that all those detestable, despicable feminists are “a small number” or a “fringe” or, indeed, somehow ‘extremists’ rather than the mainstream. > > Merely repeating something (like feminist lies about rape rates in colleges or the mythical wage gap) doesn’t make it true. Merely distancing oneself from the detestable and despicable rump of a movement does nothing to address the problems of that movement. Abandoning a discredited ideology (in favour of egalitarianism) would help - but only if you’re an egalitarian. Egalitarian feminists are very much a fringe minority within feminism - at least in my experience. > > I haven’t counted how many ‘reasonable’ feminists are posting here - “six or so”? Nah, I’m kidding, maybe it’s two dozen. That’s if we take their word for it, as individuals (if I wanted to protect the despicable, detestable majority of members of a movement, I’d certainly be saying “But _I’m_ reasonable”). But let’s take their word for it, and give them the benefit of the doubt as to their motivations for rebuffing criticism of a flawed ideology. So, we have twenty or so people saying something along the lines of “well I’m just in favour of women being treated equally” (I’ve only noticed one bright enough to say they were in favour of _people_ being treated equally even if they’re not women). Pit that against the overwhelming numbers of hate-fuelled nutjobs that even a cursory exploration of feminist activism reveals. It seems the fringe minority are the self-professed ‘reasonable’ feminists. > > Do you twitter? Check the hashtag #killallmen, and then look for one along the lines of #comeonsistersletsbereasonable… > > The core tenets of feminism can be discovered in the writings of wingnuts like Mary Daly, Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, Marilyn French _et al_. These are the rabble rousers who fuel the activists, these are the bigots who powered the movement, these are the sort of feminists who persecured Erin Pizzey for daring to speak the truth about domestic violence. Do you have anything other than bald assertion to show otherwise? Well said. As an analogy: I know that Republicanism is a “big tent,” but at some point, if you disagree with what the leaders of the party say, you need to take a look at yourself and decide if you\* really are\* a Republican. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/115 "2015-11-11T13:07:54Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Well said. As an analogy: I know that Republicanism is a “big tent,” but at some point, if you disagree with what the leaders of the party say, you need to take a look at yourself and decide if you\* really are\* a Republican. No, it isn’t “well said”. Any harbour in a storm, eh? Please cite where radical feminists are considered the effective ‘leaders of the feminist party’. Self-appointed loud mouthed shnooks, sure. But leaders? There is no “analogy” between feminism and any political party. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/116 "2015-11-11T13:09:30Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Feminism isn’t a woman’s activist “group”; it’s an idea. > > A lot of my male ancestors would be very surprised to discover that they were women, but they did things such as send their daughters to school (or even to college) when It Was Not Done in their social class. You don’t need female plumbing to think it’s stupid to judge people primarily on that detail, or to realize that a good brain is a sad thing to waste. Obviously, not a group where you have to be a woman; but a group which fight for the rights of women. Like for instance, an animal welfare movement is not an organisation of animals, but a movement which fight for the rights of animals. And in the same way it’d be silly to criticise animal rights activists for not scrapping that and instead just become feminists, since feminism isn’t about the rights of animals, in the same way it’s not about the rights of men. That’s not a criticism of feminism, but of feminists who claim that feminism is the answer to issues which lies outside the realm of feminism. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/117 "2015-11-11T13:18:42Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > That’s not a criticism of feminism, but of feminists who claim that feminism is the answer to issues which lies outside the realm of feminism. So you reject out of hand the notion that mainstream feminism would, for example, support the rights of shared custody of men with their children (after divorce)? ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/118 "2015-11-11T13:18:51Z")
Nobody is saying the men’s rights people should drop their association with men and start burning bras and going to Lilith Fest. But feminists are their natural allies. They are complementary movements. Two sides of the same coin. Our current set of gender roles hurts everyone. It is destructive all around, and we all have a stake in dismantling it and replacing it with something that enables everyone to have their maximum number of choices and their best opportunity to succeed. And this isn’t something that one side or the other can do on their own. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/119 "2015-11-11T13:29:50Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > I read the whole post. I just thought your opening “Sweety” was the encapsulation of the overwhelming condescension that permeated the entire post and so I went with that. There’s a comment on the giving of enough rope and the consequences thereof you may want to consider. And the best antidote to condescension is pretension? (I’m not sure you want to imply you were truly ‘overwhelmed’, for example, but it does have a lot of syllables) I do condescend, from time to time. More often than I try to undermine individuals whose ideas I disapprove of, as some posters are inclined to do\*\*\*\*\*, but less often than I treat everyone around with me with compassion and generosity regardless of the trivial things so many people seem obsessed by - gender, for example, or height or wealth or abs etc. I condescend to those who warrant it (regardless of gender, height, wealth or abs etc). I imagine you do the same (though it’s possible you flagellate yourself afterwards). On this occasion, I judged it warrented, and I see no reason to seek (or accept unsolicited) anyone’s elses judgement. Are feminists seeking to ban condescension now? I may have missed that memo - or seen it, idly observed “Fruitcakes!” and moved on. You should have made your point more clearly, perhaps. > [@Gyrate](#): > > A fictional television character can pull off “Sweety” in the appropriate context. You didn’t. There we are you see, you’ve leapt ungainly to an ugly conclusion. I assumed from your question, brief as it was (and devoid of some inflection that was no doubt in your head), that you hadn’t heard the word before. Helpfully, I suggested where you might have encountered it. But it seems you were questioning my right to use the word. Did I miss another memo from the fruitcakes? I am grateful for your feedback, random internet user. Regarding your poor experience of a JackofWords product, here at JackofWords the philosophy is ‘If it’s free, the customer knows where he can stuff his opinions’. Please accept this complimentary voucher, which could be redeemed for a rolling doughnut, probably. * * * > [@QuickSilver](#): > > Oh leave him his precious fantasies… He has so little else. You’re not in the Pit now, dear. > [@A\_isha](#): > > That’s not an explanation of how the wage gap is “mythical”, that’s merely an attempt to explain why the wage gap is _justified_. It’s mythical in the concept stated, that is, when artfully tied to the expression ‘women should earn the same pay for the same work’ - where we naturally agree with that, and find ourselves being sold ‘women overall should have an average wage matching men’s average’, which is not a ‘wage gap’. It’s a wealth gap - there are a lot of those, most of them far more pernicious and entrenched and damaging than that between all men, as a group, and all women, as a group. Of course, if _all_ men earned more than _any_ woman, that would certainly be reprehensible. But as groups, both have billionaires and both have the homeless. This flagship indicator of entrenched prejudice (or innate, blameless nature, or some mix of those and other factors), why is it so important? The ceaseless pursuit of wealth is open to anyone, and the result is poverty for others (and poverty doesnt care about your gender either) More importantly, what solution can you propose that doesn’t include everyone being told (equally!) what work to do and how to spend the wage? * * * And with those out of the way, here’s this again. Anyone? > [@Jack\_of\_Words](#): > > What would constitute ‘equality’ now? How do we reach it, and how do we reach agreement on it? ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2015, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801/120 "2015-11-11T13:31:49Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > So you reject out of hand the notion that mainstream feminism would, for example, support the rights of shared custody of men with their children (after divorce)? Nope. Some feminist might well do that. I’m saying that feminism is not the correct venue to forward issues particular to the male sex. Neither should it be. > [@even\_sven](#): > > Nobody is saying the men’s rights people should drop their association with men and start burning bras and going to Lilith Fest. But that’s precisely what feminist protesters did at a mra meeting in another video posted in the last thread on the subject. Drop mra and turn to feminism. Because men are apparely not allowed to chose their own group in which to come together and forward their issues. Feminism and mra are also about more that merely gender roles. For instance actual changes made to the battery and custody legislation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-feminism/736801.md?page=7)