# Women Against Feminism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 27, 2015, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667 "2015-09-27T03:08:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/481 "2015-10-29T00:14:24Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > You really don’t seem able to tell the difference between a publication publishing an opinion piece by an unaffiliated individual, whose words express nobody’s views but their own, and publishing an editorial which officially endorses a particular opinion on the part of that publication. > > Similar opinion pieces contributed by individuals to the _Chronicle_’s “Commentary” section have expressed the individual opinions that guarantee games in football should be prohibited, that students should be directly subsidized for college tuition, that “on armed campuses we will see a dramatic rise in grade-point averages all around”, that “by profiting from Big Oil, the university endowment casts a very public vote for short-term, short-sighted profit”, and many other statements that lots of reasonable people can disagree with. Do you imagine that the magazine itself is officially endorsing or agreeing with all or any of those statements? > > Your beef is not actually with the _Chronicle_ but with the author of that individual opinion article. But I guess you think it makes you look more oppressed if you whine about how a big important academic publication is disparaging men, rather than the more accurate but less attention-grabbing version that an individual anthropology professor that most people have never heard of is disparaging men. My problem is that feminists will go to the ends of the earth to rationalize a claim that men are genetically deficient, rather than admit it’s sexist bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/482 "2015-10-29T00:28:37Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > No thanks. I like humanism. [I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) [do](https://www.secularhumanism.org/) [too](https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/). So, knowing that humanism has a separate meaning, unrelated to your _jihad_ to marginalize and destroy feminism, your interest in creating a new meaning for the word is frankly bizarre. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/483 "2015-10-29T00:31:55Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Many (most I’d think) men do actually want a steady long term relationship as well as family and children, so the question is if not marrying would change any of that, if the alternative is just living together without a marriage contract? The true alternative is ending sexism when you see it: including the idea that women are naturally better parents than men, that children don’t really need fathers, and the idea that women are entitled to alimony for divorcing. ---
**Author:** ![BrightSunshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b3f665/32.png) [@BrightSunshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightSunshine)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/484 "2015-10-29T01:23:33Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > The true alternative is ending sexism when you see it: including the idea that women are naturally better parents than men, that children don’t really need fathers, and the idea that women are entitled to alimony for divorcing. _Women_ are not entitled to alimony. The lower- or non-earning spouse is. Alimony is to compensate the spouse who spend time on unpaid work for the benefit of the family. Long term stay at home fathers would also get alimony upon divorce same as long term stay at home mothers. Feminists are precisely the ones who argue against women being better natural parents. We are vocal about paternity leaves, baby changing tables in men’s room, getting men involved in the second shift, etc. More than anything else, the low participation of men in household and childcare work makes professional gender equality difficult, and most feminists realize this. Somehow I don’t see a lot of antifeminists rallying men to do their kids’ laundry, do more drop off and pick up, pack their lunch, etc. ---
**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:** [October 29, 2015, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/485 "2015-10-29T01:53:01Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Too many men have been sold on the idea that being “nice” to women - buying them things, listening to the problems, being there for them - will eventually win them over. The problem is that attraction is not negotiable. No amount of being nice will make a woman attracted to you. > > The problem is that when those guys wake up, and realize being nice won’t get them anywhere. Then they feel like they’ve been lied to. And they’re right. Except that being nice does get them somewhere – it gets them to the point of doing the right thing and being a decent person, and being recognized by other decent people (men and women) as such. Unless, of course, they were only being nice because they thought it would get them sex. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/486 "2015-10-29T01:58:54Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > No, but they should be honest with themselves about why they’re doing it. If the guy then chooses not to continue the friendship, he shouldn’t get shit for it either, nor be called shallow. What do you mean, “friendship”? I definitely agree that nobody is in any way obligated to be friends with somebody they want to date if that person doesn’t want to date them. Nor is there anything “shallow” about saying _“What I want with you is dating rather than friendship, so if you won’t date me then I’m outta here”._ But if somebody strikes up a “friendship” with someone they’re interested in just as a cover for their romantic interest, and doesn’t actually **want** to be friends with them unless it’s eventually going to provide an opportunity to get into their pants—then yeah, I think “shallow” is a pretty valid description of such a strategy. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/487 "2015-10-29T02:07:10Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > My problem is that feminists will go to the ends of the earth to rationalize a claim that men are genetically deficient, rather than admit it’s sexist bullshit. Nonsense. Nobody in this thread is in any way endorsing the provocative suggestions made in Keller’s article that men are in any way genetically _inferior_. The biological fact that the Y chromosome is, genetically speaking, comparatively “deficient” in genes just means that the Y chromosome carries many fewer genes than the X chromosome. Nothing about that fact implies any actual inferiority in men as persons, and nobody here is claiming that it does, so you should stop being oversensitive about it. At the very least, you should stop falsely attributing that claim to “feminists” in general. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/488 "2015-10-29T02:11:36Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Except that being nice does get them somewhere – it gets them to the point of doing the right thing and being a decent person, and being recognized by other decent people (men and women) as such. Unless, of course, they were only being nice because they thought it would get them sex. I am not tying to start a debate or put down women… this is just an observation… it could be wrong… But, lots of women, until they gain a bit of maturity (mid or late 20s?) seem attracted to the bad boy/tough guy persona. I think this is the “nice guy” as losing dynamic thing that MRA talk about… ---
**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:** [October 29, 2015, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/489 "2015-10-29T02:17:56Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > I am not tying to start a debate or put down women… this is just an observation… it could be wrong… > > But, lots of women, until they gain a bit of maturity (mid or late 20s?) seem attracted to the bad boy/tough guy persona. > > I think this is the “nice guy” as losing dynamic thing that MRA talk about… This doesn’t change anything, whether true or not. If men are only acting nice because they think it will lead to sex, they’re not really being nice. Being nice means not manipulating someone or acting in a deceptive manner, among other things. No one is entitled to sex. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/490 "2015-10-29T02:23:29Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Too many men have been sold on the idea that being “nice” to women - buying them things, listening to the problems, being there for them - will eventually win them over. The problem is that attraction is not negotiable. No amount of being nice will make a woman attracted to you. Very true. Even more true is the fact that no amount of **pretending** to be nice will make anybody attracted to you. Attraction is what it is, the heart wants what it wants, etc. etc. etc. If there really are a lot of men laboring under the delusion that they can cause a woman to be attracted to them just by demonstrating “nice” behavior, then both feminism and antifeminism are doing them a great favor by explaining to them that that’s not how attraction actually works. Let’s hope they get the message. [QUOTE=LinusK] The problem is that when those guys wake up, and realize being nice won’t get them anywhere. Then they feel like they’ve been lied to. And they’re right. [/QUOTE] No, not really. Any more than women have been “lied to” when they’re constantly told that “beauty is only skin deep” or fed with hopeful Prince Charming narratives about dashing powerful guys falling for ordinary women (Jane Eyre, anybody?). Everybody absorbs a certain amount of cultural fairytale about average people somehow scoring partners who are way out of their league in terms of status and/or attractiveness. Most grownups eventually find out for themselves that romance generally doesn’t work that way. But most of them manage to avoid throwing tantrums about it all over the internet, or trying to blame other people because they’ve been “lied to”. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/491 "2015-10-29T05:50:24Z")
> [@gogobebe2](#): > > To demonstrate: if our society was controlled and run by “the patriarchy”, men (the “oppressors”) would not even have employed women. We would not have let women become educated. We would not have let women have any opinion of their own, and kept them in slavery, hidden from society. We would not have allowed “feminism” to exist, as it would conflict with our dogma. We would not allow women to vote. Sounds like a middle eastern dictatorship, but not any western society that I know of. That’s not a demonstration, it’s an assertion, and I’m not clear why anyone should take your assertion seriously. It seems to be predicated on the idea that, if a group isn’t being persecuted as much as humanly possible, then they aren’t bring persecuted at all. > [@](#): > > And I take into account the comments that “the patriarchy” is insidious. But Occam’s razor takes care of that. “among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected”. No one has pointed out any examples of “the patriarchy” existing, or it’s direct effects, or in fact, anything concrete at all. “the patriarchy” is to feminism what “God” is to religion. We believe it exists, yet we have absolutely no proof whatsoever, and point to “miracles” and literature to try to prove its existence. I’m an atheist when it comes to feminism. The Patriarchy doesn’t exist, except in the minds of the feminist religion devotees. Have you tried reading any part of this thread? Because there’s been tons of examples in here. It might help, though, if while reading the thread, you kept in mind what actual feminists mean when they talk about patriarchy, as opposed to what you want them to mean. ---
**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:** [October 29, 2015, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/492 "2015-10-29T15:33:01Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Too many men have been sold on the idea that being “nice” to women - buying them things, listening to the problems, being there for them - will eventually win them over. The problem is that attraction is not negotiable. No amount of being nice will make a woman attracted to you. > > The problem is that when those guys wake up, and realize being nice won’t get them anywhere. Then they feel like they’ve been lied to. And they’re right. B.S.! What intellectually infentile and emotionally broken men have you been hanging out with to enable you to reach this idiotic conclusion? I’m not denying such men exists. They do. Look no further than the MRA. However, most well adjusted adults are able to understand the dynamics of friendships and romantic relationships and how to deal with the fact that one party or the other is under no obligation to have sex with you because you’ve been kind and showered them with gifts. Those that do are essentially prostituting themselves and if that is the kind of relationship that men you are talking about expect then they deserve every bit of disappointment they get in the end. Aside: Dear og, this is tiresome dreck you keep posting… :smack: ---
**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:** [October 29, 2015, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/493 "2015-10-29T18:35:46Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > What do you mean, “friendship”? I definitely agree that nobody is in any way obligated to be friends with somebody they want to date if that person doesn’t want to date them. Nor is there anything “shallow” about saying _“What I want with you is dating rather than friendship, so if you won’t date me then I’m outta here”._ > > But if somebody strikes up a “friendship” with someone they’re interested in just as a cover for their romantic interest, and doesn’t actually **want** to be friends with them unless it’s eventually going to provide an opportunity to get into their pants—then yeah, I think “shallow” is a pretty valid description of such a strategy. I have a few problems with that narrative. 1. It’s too compartmentalized and premeditated. For that strategy to make any sense, you’d have to be consistent with it from the moment you met someone, lest they get to know what you’re really like. You’d have to know, from the start, that this is someone you want to have sex with, but don’t want to be friends with. Do you make those decisions right away when you meet someone? I don’t. I may tolerate them, I may like them, I may start falling for them, and it may change from one to another as I know them better. I find relationships, friendly or romantic, to be fluid and evolving, and not prone to an “I know exactly what I want from you and exactly how I’ll try to get it” approach. 2. As **clairobscur** said, if it was just about sex they wouldn’t be so focused on one person and so disappointed when it goes unrequited. And that’s not to say that they feel entitled to sex. We weren’t entitled to a new bicycle on Christmas morning when we were kids, but we could still be disappointed not to get it. 3. I don’t get the level of vitriol directed at these guys, even if the allegation were true. He was dishonest with someone to get what he wanted? People do that all the time, and yet the scorn here is worse than would be heaped on a used car salesman. A woman thought she was making a new friend, and then didn’t. Wise up and move on. If the guy spent six months pretending to be her friend then that is his crime, it is also his punishment; he wasted that time he could have used to find someone else. And there’s this: > [@](#): > > Any guy (anybody at all, actually) who is too dumb or naive to understand that when somebody says _“I just want to meet a nice [person]”_, what they really mean is _“I just want to meet a nice [person] THAT I’M ATTRACTED TO”_ is not mature enough to be dating. Couldn’t we turn that around; any woman who makes friends with a guy and isn’t prepared to find out that he has romantic feelings as well is too naive to be making friends? When he takes her at her word and feels misled, it’s his fault for not knowing how the game is played and what she really meant. When she feels misled for trusting him, it’s still his fault for being misleading. None of which is to say that the guy is blameless when a friendship ends this way. I just think there are other explanations. They let their emotions get too far ahead of the situation; they may be picturing a white picket fence and 2.6 children before they’ve even asked her out. The relationship flowchart has the arrows going to the wrong boxes. That can end badly. I just don’t automatically assume the most malicious and conniving explanation for their behavior. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/494 "2015-10-29T22:44:31Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > As a man, I find that simplistic and unfair. Why? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/495 "2015-10-29T22:47:53Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I’ve never said it was a _disorder_. It _is_ a deficiency, but a perfectly normal one. Ah. My mistake. Being male is a _deficiency._ ---
**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:** [October 29, 2015, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/496 "2015-10-29T22:50:01Z")
Apropos, I recall hearing some time ago that by age 25 a woman should be aware that her male friends want to \*\*\*\* her. The point being, that they want to \*\*\*\* her. Not oppress her. Unless you’re a feminist, of course, in which case all sex is oppression, right? (‘feminists’ who fell for the old ‘its just about equality’ line get a pass on this, but should wake up and find out what feminism is). ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/497 "2015-10-29T22:50:28Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I watched from start to finish. What is it that you think I should take away from this brief preview other than the fact that MRA’s exist and have an axe to grind? What you learn from it is up to you. I can’t learn things for you. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/498 "2015-10-29T22:54:49Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Why is sex always stressed in these arguments? It seems to me that the most likely reason why you would end up in the friendzone would be that you’re in love, not just seeking sex. If it was the later, presumably, you wouldn’t hang around the woman who rejected you, and rather would try to score with another one. If you cling on some delusionary hope that maybe someday…and torture yourself by staying around the woman you desire and doesn’t desire you, I strongly doubt that it’s just because you really really want to fuck this specific vagina. > > Sex is a powerful motivator, but feelings are much stronger, and it’s most typically love that prevents you from moving on and makes you ruin your life (not just with unrequitd love, but also because you love an asshole, or love a married guy whoisn’t going to divorce, etc…). That’s a good point. I’ve said it before, but the belief that there’s “one” out there for you is a Disney fairy-tale. Too many people believe finding the “one” will make their lives complete, when the reality is that they need to work on making themselves complete. ---
**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:** [October 29, 2015, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/499 "2015-10-29T22:55:37Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Ah. My mistake. Being male is a _deficiency._ Men are deficient in the boobs and vagina area. Women are deficient in the twig and berries area. Women are deficient in y chromosomes and men are deficient in that last x. So at least us men aren’t lonely in our deficiencies; women have them too. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667/500 "2015-10-29T22:57:09Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > They get a bad name because many of them are misogynist. In an earlier thread, I analyzed an MRA message board and found almost all the posts were simple misogyny, and only a handful were about the supposed issues. > > MRAs are not a set of concerned citizens with a misogyny problem. They are a set of misogynists who strategically use issues to deflect criticism. Everything you said is equally true of feminists. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-against-feminism/732667.md?page=26)