# Possible to be a feminist without believing in rape culture/patriarchy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 13, 2012, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369 "2012-08-13T12:06:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/61 "2012-08-14T04:16:27Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The real historical patriarchy, or the feminist conspiracy theory version? Because historically, the people officially in charge may have been men, but _most_ men were quite thoroughly oppressed and treated as expendable resources. Most feminist scholarly works that focus on patriarchy these days recognize that men are also exploited. They even recognize that women aren’t a monolithic group and that there can be a big difference in how someone is treated based on race, class and religion. i.e. Those women who became politically active in the late 19th century were able to do so in part because they could exploit the labor of other women. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/62 "2012-08-14T04:18:03Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Have you thought about the implications of this statement? You’ve effectively limited the men and women who can be feminist to those who went to college and took a lot of gender or women’s studies courses. Before 2011 the terms rape culture were pretty much limited to the academic world. No doubt there were plenty of women, even college educated ones, who considered themselves feminist and had no idea about rape culture theory. I’m not sure it has that implication though. Those who are unaware of the term and concept are not disclaiming it, they are simply unaware of it. I think Rachel means those who are aware of the term/concept and deny it. As others have said, it’s still an attempt to disparage those who do not subscribe to one’s particular sloganish theories. It’s a lot like a Marxist saying you can’t be a class egalitarian unless you subscribe to the labor theory of value or a libertarian saying you can’t be a libertarian unless you go on about taxation being theft. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/63 "2012-08-14T04:53:56Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > I’m not sure it has that implication though. Those who are unaware of the term and concept are not disclaiming it, they are simply unaware of it. I think Rachel means those who are aware of the term/concept and deny it. So you can be a feminist if you have no idea that rape culture as a theory exist. But if you know about the theory and you disagree then you cannot be a feminist. That just doesn’t make sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/64 "2012-08-14T08:17:43Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > What do you mean by the term “sex object”? Sometimes, it’s used to mean that person A focuses on the sexual aspect of person B. Sometimes, it’s used to mean that person A denies that person B has any other aspect than the sexual one. Which do you mean? The latter, for purposes of this argument. > [@](#): > > Do you think it’s possible to, at a particular point, focus on the sexual aspect of a person without thinking that all that matters is the sexual aspect of that person? Do you think it’s possible to focus on a non-sexual aspect of a person without thinking that all that matters is that non-sexual aspect? Of course I think both are possible, but right now the debate is focusing on rape culture - a very limited set of circumstances within the entire possible range of human interactions. > [@](#): > > Note how Flyer never says that a woman “who goes around nearly naked in public” is a slut or should feel shame. No, but what **Flyer** _does_ say is that any woman who dresses revealingly is holding herself out as a sex object - in other words, inviting people who see her to focus solely on her sexual aspect. And since for the most part the people who see her dressed that way don’t know anything else about her, it’s tantamount to denying she has any other aspect than the sexual one. Hence catcalls, groping and touching without permission, and the like. It is wrong to assume that any woman who dresses revealingly is inviting people to view her as a sex object. It puts the onus of _not_ being treated as a sex object on the woman herself instead of the people actually treating her that way - more crudely put, ‘don’t dress like a slut if you don’t want to be treated like one’. While **Flyer** specifically did not say anything about feeling shame, the attitude I’ve just described is quite accurately termed “slut shaming”. > [@](#): > > If I introduce myself to a woman and chat with her without any touching, groping or crude comments, it is still attention. If, before I started talking to her, she didn’t feel like chatting (I didn’t know that because usually, the way you find out if someone wants to chat if by starting to chat with them and seeing how they respond), it is unwanted and unsollicited attention. Well, I’m not arguing that nobody should approach a woman they find attractive and try to strike up a conversation. If she doesn’t feel like chatting and lets you know that, you are bound to respect it, back off, and go find something else to do. It’s when you refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer that the attention becomes problematic. > [@Odesio](#): > > Also, name a single matriarchal society. Groups with matrilineal families don’t count. Why not? Matrilineal families are the essence of matriarchal societies; why should that criterion be eliminated? In the meantime, check out the [Mosuo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo#Lifestyle) of China as an example. > [@Rachellelogram](#): > > I’m not really sure how you can argue against the existence of the patriarchy throughout history. How does that work? Do you know about a bunch of queens and female ruling classes oppressing men that I never learned about? Eleanor Burke Leacock’s _[Myths of Male Dominance](http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Myths-of-Male-Dominance)_ provides a good amount of sociological evidence from among Native American tribes that patriarchy is not universal and is in fact a social construct. Not to say that there have not been patriarchal societies, but rather that women’s oppression is not inevitable, nor is patriarchy in itself a cause thereof. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/65 "2012-08-14T11:34:11Z")
> [@Rachellelogram](#): > > I believe it’s possible to be a feminist without ever publicly acknowledging rape culture. There are enough non-sexual areas to focus on that you could go an entire lifetime as a feminist without discussing it. I \*don’t \*think it’s possible to be a feminist while disclaiming the existence of rape culture, though. Disclaiming the existence of rape culture is \*so \*anti-feminist as to make you effectively a non-feminist if you \*don’t \*believe it. I’m not being judgmental, it’s just a fact. It’s not dissimilar from how you can’t keep kosher while eating cheeseburgers, or you can’t be a Christian if you don’t believe in Christ, or you can’t be in favor of gay-rights if you don’t believe in same-sex marriage. It’s a basic contradiction. > > ## You can \*say \*you’re a feminist while disclaiming rape culture if you like, just like anyone can \*say \*they’re kosher while eating a cheeseburger, &etc. But you’d be a hypocrite, because it’s a fundamental untruth (even if it’s an untruth based on ignorance, rather than malice). > > I’m not really sure how you can argue against the existence of the patriarchy throughout history. How does that work? Do you know about a bunch of queens and female ruling classes oppressing men that I never learned about? Historically, sure. But I don’t think of us as being ruled by a patriarchy _now_. There are a lot of issues with our society, sure, but I don’t see the point of blaming “the patriarchy.” It just seems to imply that men are still totally running the show, which I don’t feel is true. I agree that in places like the military, there is a culture of excusing/covering up rape. I just find it ludicrous when people point to examples of that in real life. Like this [pizza ad](http://www.xojane.com/issues/yikes-offensive-domino-pizza-ad-says-no-new-yes). [Or jokes about rape contributing](http://community.feministing.com/2012/07/12/three-points-about-rape-jokes-and-rape-culture/) to the larger societal problem of rape. Part of this, I’m sure, is that when you want to get tons of comments/hits, putting up a controversial blog post helps, but it gets to the point where you could look at a picture of a cabbage and decree it some symbol of patriarchal oppression. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/66 "2012-08-14T11:45:32Z")
And I really object to cutesy terms like “mansplaining” or “[gaslighting](http://thecurrentconscience.com/blog/2011/09/12/a-message-to-women-from-a-man-you-are-not-%E2%80%9Ccrazy%E2%80%9D/)” which pop up all the time lately: > [@](#): > > Gaslighting is a term, often used by mental health professionals (I am not one), to describe manipulative behavior used to confuse people into thinking their reactions are so far off base that they’re crazy. > > The term comes from the 1944 MGM film, Gaslight, starring Ingrid Bergman. Bergman’s husband in the film, played by Charles Boyer, wants to get his hands on her jewelry. He realizes he can accomplish this by having her certified as insane and hauled off to a mental institution. To pull of this task, he intentionally sets the gaslights in their home to flicker off and on, and every time Bergman’s character reacts to it, he tells her she’s just seeing things. In this setting, a gaslighter is someone who presents false information to alter the victim’s perception of him or herself. > [@](#): > > But gaslighting can be as simple as someone smiling and saying something like, “You’re so sensitive,” to somebody else. Such a comment may seem innocuous enough, but in that moment, the speaker is making a judgment about how someone else should feel. > > While dealing with gaslighting isn’t a universal truth for women, we all certainly know plenty of women who encounter it at work, home, or in personal relationships. > > And the act of gaslighting does not simply affect women who are not quite sure of themselves. Even vocal, confident, assertive women are vulnerable to gaslighting. > > Why? > > Because women bare the brunt of our neurosis. It is much easier for us to place our emotional burdens on the shoulders of our wives, our female friends, our girlfriends, our female employees, our female colleagues, than for us to impose them on the shoulders of men. > > It’s a whole lot easier to emotionally manipulate someone who has been conditioned by our society to accept it. We continue to burden women because they don’t refuse our burdens as easily. It’s the ultimate cowardice. Stuff like this [(or this)](http://jezebel.com/5923666/i-suck-how-guys-use-self+deprecation-against-you) goes to the crux of my problem with what feminism has become. I don’t believe that I’ve been “conditioned” into emotional abuse by society. I don’t believe that something that gaslighting is a uniquely gendered problem. If women don’t want to be manipulated, they don’t have to be. But I see it used all the time now, as if all men have the power to make any woman into a quivering self-doubting mess. It’s gotten to the point where I see a ton of posts on how [men referring to women as “crazy” is sexist/gendered/wrong](http://thegloss.com/sex-and-dating/women-crazy-334/) and a way of putting down women. It just seems like anything men do can be considered part of the patriarchy. Back when marital rape was legal, or in places where women are still chattel, yes, sure, let’s talk about patriarchy. But dating a manipulative guy who calls you crazy…I have a hard time as seeing that as a symptom of an oppressive society, sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/67 "2012-08-14T11:59:40Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > Why not? Matrilineal families are the essence of matriarchal societies; why should that criterion be eliminated? In the meantime, check out the [Mosuo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo#Lifestyle) of China as an example. Matrilineal does not equal matriarchy. At any rate, you own cite goes on “They have aspects of a matriarchal culture: women are often the head of the house, inheritance is through the female line, and women make business decisions. However, unlike a true matriarchy, political power tends to be in the hands of males.” ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/68 "2012-08-14T14:19:43Z")
Olent, You seem to think that if person A focuses on a particular aspect of person B without knowing anything else about person B, it is tantamount to person A denying that there are other aspect to person B. Is this accurate? I remember being checked out by a woman in the street. She focused on my looks without knowing anything about me. Can I conclude that she denied I had any other aspect than my looks? Does this apply to non-sexual aspects as well? If someone focuses on a particular non-sexual aspect of me (e.g.: my legal skills) without knowing anything else about me, is it tantamount to denying I have any other aspect than that one? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/69 "2012-08-14T14:34:03Z")
> [@](#): > > But gaslighting can be as simple as someone smiling and saying something like, “You’re so sensitive,” to somebody else. Such a comment may seem innocuous enough, but in that moment, the speaker is making a judgment about how someone else should feel. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I don’t believe that something that gaslighting is a uniquely gendered problem. Yeah, in the first paragraph of your quote, I assumed it was talking about how some feminists use overly broad generalizations about men to put them on the defensive. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/70 "2012-08-14T15:05:36Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Matrilineal does not equal matriarchy. Never said it did, only that a matriarchy had matrilineal families as an essential element. > [@](#): > > At any rate, you own cite goes on “They have aspects of a matriarchal culture: women are often the head of the house, inheritance is through the female line, and women make business decisions. However, unlike a true matriarchy, political power tends to be in the hands of males.” And yet the social status of Mosuo women is a lot more equitable in comparison to women even in societies like our own. Check out the section on “walking marriages” - Mosuo women have a lot more power over their relationships and their sex lives than a lot of American women. Mosuo men may have political power, but it’s pretty clear from their family structures and the way they handle intimate relationships that Mosuo women have tremendous social and moral power - and _that_ is more indicative of a matriarchy than political power alone. ---
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/71 "2012-08-14T17:21:56Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > That’s stupid. You’re saying it’s impossible to be a feminist unless you’re a believer in a single, flawed theory of what causes rape. It’s like saying you’re not opposed to car theft unless you blame _GTA_. Nobody said rape culture is the only cause of rape. Or even the primary cause. But to unilaterally state that we \*don’t \*live in a rape culture is anti-feminist. This, to me, is tautological. > [@typoink](#): > > This is the problem, in a nutshell. You’ve decided what the facts are, and are now saying that anybody with a different view of the data, a different approach to the phenomena, a different rhetoric of the problem, or _even make a mistake_ are categorically excluded. > > The moment you start shunning people because they approach the problem differently (but still with intellectual honesty and a determination to fit the reality), feminism ceases to be an intellectual discipline or philosophy and has simply become a club. If someone comes to a feminist message board having never heard of rape culture, that doesn’t make them anti-feminist. If someone comes to a feminist message board to say that rape culture is a bullshit lie, that’s anti-feminist. Do you understand where I’m coming from now? > [@Odesio](#): > > Have you thought about the implications of this statement? You’ve effectively limited the men and women who can be feminist to those who went to college and took a lot of gender or women’s studies courses. Before 2011 the terms rape culture were pretty much limited to the academic world. No doubt there were plenty of women, even college educated ones, who considered themselves feminist and had no idea about rape culture theory. Hopefully we’ve cleared up this misunderstanding now. Because that’s not what I said at all. > [@Odesio](#): > > So you can be a feminist if you have no idea that rape culture as a theory exist. But if you know about the theory and you disagree then you cannot be a feminist. That just doesn’t make sense to me. This is exactly what I’m saying. The existence of rape culture is truthfully not debatable, whether we’re arguing in the realm of feminism or the realm of plain old history. > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I agree that in places like the military, there is a culture of excusing/covering up rape. I just find it ludicrous when people point to examples of that in real life. Like this [pizza ad](http://www.xojane.com/issues/yikes-offensive-domino-pizza-ad-says-no-new-yes). [Or jokes about rape contributing](http://community.feministing.com/2012/07/12/three-points-about-rape-jokes-and-rape-culture/) to the larger societal problem of rape. Do you not think the military is real life? What about college frat houses? What about the fact that it’s culturally acceptable for armchair debaters to start _immediately_ blaming the victim (what was she wearing? why was she at a bar alone? etc)? If you have a problem with people going to extremes with what falls under the “blanket” of rape culture, that’s one thing (I can’t watch those videos from work, so I can’t specifically address them). But saying it \*doesn’t exist, \*at all? That minimizes the suffering of uncountable numbers of women who’ve been raped and blamed for it, or women who’ve been raped by a powerful man or group of men, then had it swept under the rug. Rape culture also makes it very difficult for _men_ to report sexual assault/rape (because they are likely to be either disbelieved or high-fived for having sex), so this is not strictly a feminist issue. I don’t think it’s possible to be a feminist \*or \*a secular humanist without believing that rape culture is real (again, given that one has been exposed to the definition in the first place). > [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Historically, sure. But I don’t think of us as being ruled by a patriarchy _now_. There are a lot of issues with our society, sure, but I don’t see the point of blaming “the patriarchy.” It just seems to imply that men are still totally running the show, which I don’t feel is true. Just because things have changed doesn’t mean they’re done changing. Do you think racism is over just because we passed the Civil Rights Act and ended the Jim Crow era? Women still make less money than men, which is a complicated issue, but is partially rooted in patriarchal discrimination. A woman has never been President. It’s okay for men to desire as much sex as possible, but a woman who does the same is a whore. So \*many \*men have issues with their partner’s sexual history that we’ve identified that problem as a Madonna/Whore complex, but there is no equivalent complex that women have about men (yes there are still jealous people of both genders, but that’s not the same thing in terms of degree). To say that we’re not still experiencing any fallout from historical patriarchy is to marginalize the experiences of the women who’ve been victimized by it. * * * All masturbatory pedantic bullshit aside, these are 2 really basic tenets of feminism. I think you know that, or else why start this thread? A self-proclaimed feminist (not necessarily you) who doesn’t believe patriarchy is still negatively affecting our society and says rape culture is a collective figment of the imagination is not an ally worth having. Call it a club, call it exclusionary, call it whatever the fuck you want. But please, don’t call yourself feminist \*if \*you believe those things. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/72 "2012-08-14T17:31:30Z")
Thank you for clarifying that, **Rachellelogram**. I will no longer describe myself or think of myself as being a “feminist” in any way, and will begin looking for another descriptor for my attitudes towards gender equality. I apologize to all True Feminists for any offence I made have comitted through my casual misuse of the term over the past forty years in my mistaken belief that it was a quasi-political label and not a body of philosophical teachings. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/73 "2012-08-14T17:52:44Z")
What exactly does it mean to see a woman wearing a bikini on the TV and “treat her like a sex object”? I’m not treating her any way. I’ve never met her. I’m just looking at her picture and thinking sexy thoughts. I agree that if I met this woman in real life and was rude to her because once I saw her wearing a bikini and now I think she’s nothing but a sexbot, that would be treating her like sex object. But what if I saw her in a bikini once and thought about how nice it would be to have sex with her, and then treated her like a human being? In other words, how does thinking about how I want to have sex with someone dehumanize them? If because I want to have sex with them I now believe they are obligated to have sex with me, yes, that’s dehumanizing. But if the mere existence of sexual desire inherently dehumanizes someone, then I guess we have to give up on the idea of humanity, because you’re not going to get rid of sexual desire no matter how much political re-education you give people. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/74 "2012-08-14T17:58:47Z")
Good post there Lemur! ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/75 "2012-08-14T18:03:42Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > And I really object to cutesy terms like “mansplaining” or “[gaslighting](http://thecurrentconscience.com/blog/2011/09/12/a-message-to-women-from-a-man-you-are-not-%E2%80%9Ccrazy%E2%80%9D/)” which pop up all the time lately: > > Stuff like this [(or this)](http://jezebel.com/5923666/i-suck-how-guys-use-self+deprecation-against-you) goes to the crux of my problem with what feminism has become. I don’t believe that I’ve been “conditioned” into emotional abuse by society. I don’t believe that something that gaslighting is a uniquely gendered problem. If women don’t want to be manipulated, they don’t have to be. But I see it used all the time now, as if all men have the power to make any woman into a quivering self-doubting mess. > > It’s gotten to the point where I see a ton of posts on how [men referring to women as “crazy” is sexist/gendered/wrong](http://thegloss.com/sex-and-dating/women-crazy-334/) and a way of putting down women. It just seems like anything men do can be considered part of the patriarchy. > > Back when marital rape was legal, or in places where women are still chattel, yes, sure, let’s talk about patriarchy. But dating a manipulative guy who calls you crazy…I have a hard time as seeing that as a symptom of an oppressive society, sorry. I can see this both ways. I mean, yes, objectively men interrupt women more. So I can see saying that men should really try not to interrupt women and it is culturally ingrained sexism. On the other hand, I’ve seen feminists make claims like how the term “mansplaining” is somehow okay because men are privileged and calling them that won’t make them unprivileged, while any term that denigrates women is bad and wrong because women aren’t the higher class. Or how calling a woman a “bitch” is terrible and sexist, but calling a man a “bastard” (which I’ve never heard towards women) or a “dick” isn’t in any way wrong. Yes, I really get it, I know that there is culturally ingrained sexism, I know certain expectations are conditioned into women. Women **are** culturally trained to be quieter, softer, more accepting. But I can’t really swallow the pill that this means it’s somehow okay to construct a double standard the other way “even though it doesn’t make up for it” or whatever. I’m not saying feminists should dedicate time to solving discrimination against men or whatever, I’m just saying that it’s not really a great idea to start using terms and language and standards that ultimately denigrate men for a reason that basically boils down to “but they started it!” ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/76 "2012-08-14T18:13:55Z")
None of the women I know and correspond with on a frequent basis who consider themselves Feminists would condone the use of insulting language by any party in a discussion towards any other party in the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/77 "2012-08-14T18:36:02Z")
> [@Rachellelogram](#): > > * * * > > All masturbatory pedantic bullshit aside, these are 2 really basic tenets of feminism. I think you know that, or else why start this thread? A self-proclaimed feminist (not necessarily you) who doesn’t believe patriarchy is still negatively affecting our society and says rape culture is a collective figment of the imagination is not an ally worth having. Call it a club, call it exclusionary, call it whatever the fuck you want. But please, don’t call yourself feminist \*if \*you believe those things. And right there is a perfect example of the extremist clap trap bull malarky the OP is complaining about. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/78 "2012-08-14T19:17:13Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > None of the women I know and correspond with on a frequent basis who consider themselves Feminists would condone the use of insulting language by any party in a discussion towards any other party in the discussion. Not any that I’m friends with, but I’ve gotten into Facebook status debates with some friends of friends and there’s certainly plenty of them that believe it. I’ve encountered it on quite a few feminist articles on [lawsonry.com](http://lawsonry.com) as well. So it’s out there, I’m not saying all feminists, most feminists, or whatever do it. It’s just the ones that **do** are prevalent enough that I notice them, and they’re quite annoying about it. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/79 "2012-08-14T19:40:06Z")
Four years of college, year and a summer of grad school… I met plenty of self-described feminist students and professors who were quite explicit that it was okay to be anti-male. I recall one professor in particular who, when I pointed out that the language/ideology she was using to refer to men was exactly the type she was objecting to when it was applied to women, responded “turnabout is fair play.” I’m not sure what the percentages are. I’m sure there are plenty of women who would self-identify as Feminists who are totally decent people who just want equality for all genders. I support them, and think they’d be much better served by being secular humanists as Feminism has had its more vocal proponents turn it into a caricature long ago. **Rachel** ’s posts here are a perfect object lesson of just why that is; subscribe to (incorrect) sociological claims or you’re not a True Feminist. It doesn’t matter if you support equality, oppose discrimination, etc… Accept fiction-based sociology or you’re persona non grata. ---
**Author:** ![typoink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@typoink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/typoink)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369/80 "2012-08-14T19:41:10Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > None of the women I know and correspond with on a frequent basis who consider themselves Feminists would condone the use of insulting language by any party in a discussion towards any other party in the discussion. Read more tumblr. There’s actually a common bit of rhetoric bandied about that boils down to, “it’s not my job to care how oppressors feel.” There’s a genuine view that insulting and dismissive views are fine as long as you’re group-aligned. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possible-to-be-a-feminist-without-believing-in-rape-culture-patriarchy/631369.md?page=5)