The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Feminism is and has achieved equality. 3rd wave feminism is oppressive.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,398 times Debate No: 76970
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (62)
Votes (0)




I have been looking over this argument in depth recently/ a long time. I honestly cannot for the life of me understand how there are men and woman out there who still believe in the necessity of Modern Feminism?

Actually it is starting to come to my attention that a lot of men and woman are seeing it as a controlling tool and a movement of aggression, lies, misinformation and manipulation.

Every time I have heard a feminist argue for feminism I have heard the words male privilege, wage gaps, misogyny (hatred of woman), slut shaming and general dislike against woman.

And the only time I have heard these terms is from feminists male or female... but no one else see's it going on.... to which I wonder is the rest of the world blind to what modern feminists see or are modern feminists conspiracy theorists.

My beautiful wife is a ceo, I have numerous female friends in elite careers, I am obviously from an established Western civilized world. But here there and every where on the Internet I see these Third wave feminists and I wonder... how? And every time I talk to a feminist I get facts about how woman were treated in the past which makes me feel like I am reading the script to Mad Men.... I never get an actual depiction of it, or a large sample...

So please someone tell me, if men were so bad to woman, why would we even pass a bill to allow woman to do what they finally asked to be able to do? Did they ask before and were denied, not to anyones knowledge! Further to that can someone please tell me how in the Western world is feminism still necessary, and why is it not called Egalitarianism - and why are so so many woman these days sick of Feminists?

If you don't know your history, and not just you history based on the class you took about social bla bla I am talking actual history, please move on.


To say that feminism has achieved equality is nonsense.
First, let's clarify what we mean by 'feminist'.
'Feminism' is a broad, umbrella title that covers a lot of different types of feminism, each with differing goals and each with different ways to achieve them. It's like saying someone's a Christian. There's lots of types of Christianity, each with different beliefs and different ways of practising their beliefs.

Second, let's clarify what third wave feminism (TWF) actually is:
In short, TWF is mainly to do with challenging gender norms (e.g. why do we associate pink with girls and blue with boys. Feminine appearance vs masculine appearance, etc.), calling for reproductive rights, and celebrating sexuality as a means of female empowerment. Also, of course, TWF challenges norms of language (e.g. why is it the accepted way to use 'he' as a general pronoun, when 'he' is clearly male?) TWF has different views and different beliefs, but, generally, these are the main topics.

Thirdly, I dare say some TWFs are oppressive - the extremist types. There are also extremist Christians, extremist Muslims, etc. Are you going to say that all Christians or all Muslims are extremist because of a few you see on TV? No. That's silly. Similarly, you wouldn't call all TWF extremists just because of one or two.

You haven't actually given any reason or examples why you think people view TWF as a "controlling tool and a movement of aggression, lies, misinformation and manipulation". You just stated it. Asserting something isn't an argument. Nor does it make it true. Please provide reasons beyond anecdotal evidence.

You may only have heard the words "male privilege, wage gaps, misogyny, slut shaming" etc. from feminists because they are the ones who notice it or want to bring it to our attention. You're proving their point if you ignore it. They mention it so that it is brought to our attention so we can do something about it. Pretending such problems don't exist doesn't mean they'll go away. Feminists bring them up so they can be challenged. And they're right. There IS a certain type of privilege for men over women. Employers are more likely to employ a white male over a black female. Or even more simple, every day examples - men are allowed to show more skin. Men aren't stigmatised if they go around topless. Women are. In 2013, women made 22% less than men in almost every occupation (source: ). Wage gaps are real. 'Slut shaming' is a problem that harkens back to male privilege. There's a double standard. A guy can have sex with lots of girls and be called a 'lad' or a 'champion', having 'conquered' the female body. If a girl does it, she's a 'slut' or a 'tramp'.

Such issues are real problems. That's why you hear feminists talking about them. (Though are they feminists and they talk about them, or are they feminists *because* they talk about them?)

These are things that TWF clearly wants to get rid of - the male privilege, the double standard between sexes, the pay gaps. They also want to challenge more than that. It's also a matter of girl privilege and boy privilege. Girls can play with pink dolls when they're younger. If a boy does it, he's told he should play with the blue army toys. A boy would be told off for playing with girl toys or dressing in 'girl' clothes, such as dresses or skirts. These things are gendered. TWF tries to challenge this. They believe that everyone should be free to play with whatever toys or wear whatever colour without the stigma attached. (OF COURSE, blue/pink or boys toys/girls toys are just a small example of the issue, but that's the most obvious, easiest example to illustrate it with.)

And... Women have asked to be able to do what they want before. And men have stopped them doing it.
There was a suffragette movement in the UK for a number of years before the government conceded and gave women over 30 the right to vote. Women in Ireland have argued for the right to contraceptives for years before being given it in 1980. Women are STILL arguing for abortion rights.
So to say "Did they ask before and were denied, not to anyones knowledge!" is false. Women have asked and they HAVE been denied. Many times.

And "if men were so bad to woman, why would we even pass a bill to allow woman to do what they finally asked to be able to do?" - There are many answers to this question, the main two being:
1) Not all men hate women. That's pretty clear. Extreme feminists might, but then we're discounting them because it's clear they're crazed. We're talking about the more moderate types of TWF.
2) I'll assume you mean the right to vote? Because otherwise you're not making any sense. Women have asked for many different things and they haven't got it all. But they have the right to vote in many Western countries. They got the vote in the UK after a while and after wearing the UK government down. The suffragettes were quite active during World War One. This put more pressure on the UK government to get a deal done because they were taking their attention away from the war. David Lloyd-George's house was set alight, for example. The Representation of the People's Act 1918 was passed after the suffragettes became quite aggressive. It was a calming measure. (People also say it was to thank the women for the work they did during the war. That might be part of it, but the aggression from the suffragettes certainly helped.)

It isn't called 'egalitarianism' because they have different origins. Feminism initially meant to advocate women's rights. Since then, it has changed massively. Now-a-days, they roughly are the same. Feminism, however, has different emphasises - things particularly to do with gender and sexuality, etc. But they aim for, relatively, the same goals.
Debate Round No. 1


To start with, your definition of Feminism is incorrect which makes me wonder who I am debating with.

Feminism is; "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."
There is no definition for Feminism outside of the scope of, directly relating to gaining rights for woman or to gain grounds for woman in some regard.

Starting off your debate with thats total nonsense is not an argument. In fact my argument makes sense, it just does not seem to make sense to you personally.. why? I will further analyze your understanding of my argument, trying, as I might not to get sucked in to your satellite arguments and propositions - such as Christianity, which bears no relevance to a group fighting for more rights as apposed to a group that has dominated humanity for over 2000 years.

You suppose that third wave feminism is more inclined to challenge gender norms, reproductive rights, celebrating sexuality as a means of female empowerment. language as in "he" (are you kidding me?) and so on. That is your definition of Third Wave Feminism - great so that draws us back to the argument I already put to you which is why is it necessary in a world where feminism has reached its goals in equality in Western civilized worlds?

Moving forward; "some TWFs are oppressive - the extreme types", to which you refer me once again to religion, and denounce the prospect of religions being judged based on extremist activities... however, if you take a quick glance around the world you can see that the Catholic Church has been severely discredited due to sexual abuse within the church, and Muslims are pretty much seen as terrorists due to the actions of "a few extremists". But I wont let that hurt your argument I will continue on and maybe I will get some facts out of this debate.

However, you are looking for references to why I believe the modern movement of Feminists is more about control and manipulation rather than about progress towards equality.

1) Anita Sarkeesian - manipulated 150,000 from the public in order to start a video campaign against the gaming industry - she received the money and is yet to follow through- however, deems it necessary to condemn the gaming industry for following a simple supply and demand model for their business.

2) Further to this, the wage gap of woman receiving 77% to a mans dollar is based on a fallacy, by using ratios and the average wage of females compared to the average wage of males, without servicing any further research into, yet it is one of the main focuses.

"In 2013, women made 22% less than men in almost every occupation (source: )."

This is a well spelled out version of how the "Wage Gap" truly exists without emotional bullying of the facts.

3) Further more, any argument put forward that asks for facts within feminism is immediately hostile, in almost every public interaction.

4) The introduction of the professional victim, makes it impossible for men to even say anything at all without being accused of being hushed by a male who is blinded by his own sexist perception of the world. Saying that woman can NEVER be oppressive because they are oppressed..?!

This is separate to the debate, it is just my opinion - I believe the concept of gender neutrality is based on the idea that some men are insensitive to woman, and the concept of the boys club makes woman feel rejected. This is because boys aren't willing to be more sensitive (name calling, bullying, being violent etc). In my honest opinion, gender neutrality should be named people who take pleasure in being sensitive and people who take pleasure in being positive. Because I know a lot of woman who are tough and more masculine than a lot of the men who believe in gender neutrality. Its psychological, some people like to talk about how they feel, like feminists and some people don't care about feelings because they just want to enjoy the moment - people who enjoy the moment will pick on people who are busy reflecting on how they feel - because in the moment people see that behavior as totally selfish, so they will call them sissy's or girls or gay etc... which is inappropriate, however it is the only description that has been made available to them over the last few millenniums. If you're out riding dirt bikes and have to stop because someone feels something, its pretty damn boring. Its generally why insensitive people stay away from sensitive people.

Moving forward, the idea of gender neutrality, totally strips away any man liking that he is a man/tough. I would love to know why this is OK, and I would love to know why saying "he" or "she" is offensive... I am starting to believe that some TWFs really don't like being woman because shows a lot of woman that love being woman and men being men.

You say I have only heard these things from feminists, because they are the ones who bring it up, and ignoring it wont make it go away. So, should I be looking for Bigfoot, the lauchness monster and aliens? Because conspiracy guys brought that to my attention? Really is that the argument you want to go with? Without proof that stands up, we are supposed to just take it, because TWFs are upset over something we have seen no evidence of?

There has not been any real privilege for men over woman since the development of feminism and that is what I am debating. So far I have seen no proof of these privileges in this debate, furthermore legislation wont allow ANY oppression without 50,000 lawyers jumping for gold.

Men showing skin and not being stigmatized? Have you seen all the celebrities who are nude lately? I don't think many men wanted to stop that behavior, I think they generally loved.. and love naked woman, for 1 reason. Guys pick on chicks the a same as they do with other men, if you cant handle it "leave the group". I for one give girls I know a hard time for sleeping around, but I do the same with guys - its called ribbing, and its a choice about who you associate with.

The double standard I think is about sensitivity, and guys have less to be sensitive about and I think that is where TWF is coming from, making men feel and empathize with sensitivity. But when men hang around men they will try to find a common ground to be friends like who they had sex with, who they want to have sex with, who they beat at (whatever). It takes a specific type of person to discuss what toys children should play with to make them "feel" a certain way.

"Women have asked to be able to do what they want before. And men have stopped them doing it."
I would like to see evidence of this, and why it took thousands of years for woman to finally push it over the line in 1960s, the pill was invented thats why, not having kids changed the dynamic and allowed woman to be free of having kids and to pursue further ambitions.... male ambitions and the destruction of male influence. Using "facts from the last 40 years wasn't really what I was looking for when I said "did they ask before?"

And "if men were so bad to woman, why would we even pass a bill to allow woman to do what they finally asked to be able to do?"
I wasn't talking only about voting, I was speaking of an overall allowance for womans rights. But I have to ask, what is it that TWFs believe woman haven't gotten? Is it because they have rights now and now, TWF's just think they should be given everything and by everything I mean the world?

Egalitarianism is not feminism, they are not the same things. But this still doesn't explain why feminists still exist, and why everyone isn't fighting for equal opportunity


Your dictionary definition of "feminism" is a limited definition. There are different ideas within feminism (different ideas of what "equality" means and different ideas of what "women" mean). Feminism can't be defined so simply.
You misunderstand my point about Christianity. It was to illustrate my point. A title like "feminism" or "Christianity" can be an umbrella title for different views. No one would say "All Christians believe the Eucharist IS the body and blood of Christ" because each denomination has different beliefs and practices. Similarly, not all feminists believe the same things.
Why are we now talking about the Western world? That wasn't in the question. Even when limiting it to the Western world, feminism hasn't achieved its aims. It may have achieved a FEW aims, but not all.
So you think all Catholics are paedophiles and all Muslims are terrorists because of a few? That's clearly wrong. Similarly, not all TWFs are oppressive. A few might be, but the majority are not. (I have given you facts. You chose to ignore them.)
You're aware that your buzzfeed article actually argues that the wage gap IS a problem? Did you even read it? It also highlights how black and Hispanic women get an even worse deal. Black women earn 64%, Hispanic/Latina women earn 54% of that of a man.
Download this and look at page two in particular:

Regarding your YouTube videos: Again, these are one person. Generalisation is a fallacy. You wouldn't say all Americans are black because Barack Obama is black.
Besides, the first video's been taken out of context. She tried to argue against a group of Christians being anti-gay at a gay pride march. Your videos don't actually support your point.
That's not what gender neutrality is. Gender neutrality is the idea that policies, language and other social institutions should avoid distinguishing roles because of someone's sex or gender. ( ). It's got nothing to do with insensitivity.
Why should a woman HAVE to stay at home/man be the worker? If you're against gender neutrality, that's what you're arguing.
It's about not having to abide by certain gendered stereotypes. I'm male but I shouldn't HAVE to be attracted to females. I shouldn't HAVE to pay for the meal if I go out with my wife. Gender neutrality says no gender should have to act in any certain, specified, gendered way. Everyone should be free to be able to act how they like. No one should have any pre-determined rules for how to act. Same-sex marriage is an example of gender neutrality. Marriage shouldn't limit husbands and wives according to gender.
If I acted feminine people would tell me to "man up". If a woman acted manly people would call her a "dyke". Under gender neutrality men can be sensitive and feminine while women can be insensitive and masculine. At the same time, a woman can be feminine/a man can be masculine. It"s your choice to be who you want to be. TWF doesn't consign anyone to any gender norms. It DOESN'T say men HAVE to be feminine/women HAVE to be masculine.
Your link to tumblr merely shows how people understand little about feminism or how much feminism has achieved. In fact, some of them may agree with TWF and not know it.
The point is that feminism HASN'T achieved everything it wants to achieve.
Saying "he" or "she" isn't offensive. It IS wrong to use the masculine "he" as a way of referring to gender neutral things. E.G.: "The population of the US consume a lot of BBQ. On average, he prefers Texas BBQ to Carolina BBQ." The use of "he" here is wrong; it should rather be "they". The use of gendered pronouns for non-gendered things is another thing TWF challenges.
There IS evidence to support feminist claims, unlike the Loch Ness Monster. There IS a pay gap. See the above links. Look at your own links. Gendered pay gaps exist.
("Feminism" was coined around the 1830s by Charles Fourier. So the development of feminism under the name of feminism has been since then.)
There's been plenty of real privileges men have received over women. One e.g: The Representation of the People's Act 1918 allowed men over 21 and women over 30 to vote. That's a 9 year male privilege. The pay gap is another. Husbands were legally allowed to rape their wives until 1991 in the UK. That's a male privilege. Women couldn't serve on submarines in the US until 2010. That's a long time that men have had a privilege over women. Between 1994 and 2013 women in the US military couldn't see combat. Again, another male privilege. Women can only get an abortion in Ireland under VERY strict rules. These aren't distant history, either.
These are lots of real examples that prove that men have had a real privilege over women. If that is what you're debating about, this may as well be the end of the debate.
These are only Western countries. How about countries where women can't legally drive/are abused and sent death threats for driving? (see Sara Bahai). Or FGM? Arranged marriages? Breast ironing? Acid throwing in South Asia? Kofi Annan (previous Secretary General of the UN) said 1 out of 3 women in the world have been "beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused". These are areas where feminism CLEARLY hasn't achieved its aims. It's trying to.
TWF is about removing the double standard. It's about being free to make choices without being socially stigmatised for it.
At the moment, you seem to be ignoring facts. What facts do you want if not from the last 40 years? TWF is a modern thing. It's not interchangeable with feminism generally.
YOUR question asks about Third Wave Feminism. You wrote it. Stick to it.
Women weren't suddenly oppressed after they got the pill. They have been oppressed throughout history.
Until mid 1800s, it was UK law that a woman who owned land had to surrender it to her husband if she got married. These are problems that have blighted women across the history. Women couldn't hold public office until fairly recently in the UK meaning that at no point in the past 1000 years could women hold public office. Women couldn't be priests 1000 years ago and they're still not allowed to be priests in many denominations.
I've told you some areas that TWF are asking for, like reproductive rights - e.g. the right to have an abortion. Plenty of places don't have that right (e.g. most African countries). I've given you lots of examples that TWF still has a long way to go. TWF is not only focusing on women and their liberation. TWF is trying to get liberation for all.
For example, TWF wants to liberate feminine men who feel ashamed of being feminine. Society tells men they must be masculine. Rather, TWF wants a feminine man to feel comfortable being feminine. Similarly, TWF wants men to be comfortable being masculine if they CHOOSE to be so. Same for LGBT. TWF wants people to be true to themselves and not have to conform to societal norms, such as gender norms and gender stereotypes. It's about autonomy for individuals, which at the moment society doesn't give us.
Society doesn't allow us to be who we truly are because society perpetuates a stereotype of the ideal man or woman. Men MUST be a "tough guy", must be masculine. Women MUST be feminine, wear make-up and shave their legs. Why? Because society says so.
Just because there's no legislation telling women to shave their legs doesn't mean women aren't free not to. Just because there's no law telling me to do something, doesn't mean I'm free to do it. Society has its own norms and regulations. Sometimes people have internalised such norms to the point that they regulate themselves (for further discussion, read Sandra Bartky's "Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power").
Feminism - particularly TWF - has not achieved all its aims. THAT'S why feminism still exists. There are different problems that different feminist movements focus on.
Debate Round No. 2


First of all, I love how I changed my icon to the devil and you changed yours to an angel. I might change it again to a liberal arts female with thick black glasses on.

Second, I don't care about how people feel about me - and if you are trying to use what liberal arts people use a lot of, which is visual and emotional cues to con people into feeling you are right, I wont debate with someone like that.

I care about what is true, and not bending society to benefit some agenda that "I" have on the back of twisting perceptions and facts and ruining the fabric of what is real just because it benefits an select group of peoples ideologies.

Thirdly, the wage gap is used by feminists to support their argument of patriarchy but they EXCLUDE the fact that WOMAN are the REASON why the wage gap exists. If you take a look at the basis people are paid different amounts is BECAUSE of education, experience, professions, time off work and an inability to negotiate salaries.

I cannot fill up an entire discussion with proof of feminist intolerance youtube links this is a DEBATE not a cinimatic experience, as THAT is NOT what I am DEBATING. I am debating WHY FEMINISM STILL EXISTS!?

Woman DON'T HAVE TO stay home with the kids.
Gender stereotypes DON'T EXIST! Woman and Men like to be seen AS WOMAN AND MEN if you don't cross dressers have been around for YEARS, WHO CARES, ITS STILL NOT A FEMINIST TOPIC
Who paid for dinner is wildly outdated


If a woman or man does anything PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINIONS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THOUGHT POLICE, if you act like a female people will think whatever the hell they WANT!
My link to tumbler shows 1,000s of woman who are AGAINST modern feminism
I AM only discussing Western Culture and I DO MENTION IT IN MY STARTING ARGUMENT
You said SOCIETY doesnt judge based on a few extremists, why are you making it about my perception of religion when you brought it up and aimed it at society as a WHOLE to which I RETORTED!




"There's been plenty of real privileges men have received over women. One e.g: The Representation of the People's Act 1918 allowed men over 21 and women over 30 to vote. That's a 9 year male privilege. The pay gap is another. Husbands were legally allowed to rape their wives until 1991 in the UK. That's a male privilege. Women couldn't serve on submarines in the US until 2010. That's a long time that men have had a privilege over women. Between 1994 and 2013 women in the US military couldn't see combat. Again, another male privilege. Women can only get an abortion in Ireland under VERY strict rules. These aren't distant history, either."

This is literally the only thing that pertains to Feminism at all in your argument, but I am so irate at how skewed you are perceiving this debate and drawl of nonsense you are talking about I don't even want to address it. Come and debate with something that correlates to the debate please!


"Feminism has achieved equality. Third wave feminism is oppressive."
That's what we're meant to be discussing, remember? Nothing else. Let's debate what we're meant to debate, not some incoherent, off-topic stuff you're spitting at me. We can discuss issues only pertaining to the West if you REALLY want to.
Please let's have a rational, open minded debate about this. At the moment you're being very closed minded. Please try to open your mind.

This topic has two areas that we can talk about.
Area 1: HAS feminism achieved equality?
Area 2: IS TWF oppressive?

Area 1:
Feminist movements in the past have achieved SOME equality. I've given you examples of this in the previous round.
However, previous feminist movements have NOT achieved many other areas of equality. For example, only 29% of the UK elected House of Commons are women. Only 18% of Congress are women in the US. That isn't equal. Given the split in the country is roughly 50/50, this is clearly not equal. Feminists aren't saying that women should rule the world. Feminists want women to be equally represented.
Ireland had full same-sex marriage before the US. Ireland is a modern country in the modern world; not a backwards one. Inability to get an abortion is a big issue for Irish women.
Paid maternity leave in the US is another inequality that feminists clearly haven't achieved. Why should it be the mother who looks after the child at the detriment of her job? Because the sexist culture in the US says that mothers look after the children, fathers make the money. It deprives a mother from being able to make as much money as a man and harms their chances of promotion. This isn't equal.
In France, both mothers and fathers get paid parental leave to look after their child. That's more equal. But this doesn't mean feminism has achieved equality. There are many more countries that don't have anything like France.
Women might not HAVE to look after the kids, but they often do because there's no alternative.
The pay gap exists. You may point to a few well paid women but that doesn't mean all women earn the same. The links above are evidence of that. Even in jobs that are dominated by women, men get paid more. Please download the PDF: This compares full-time male/female workers. Please READ IT.
More evidence for the blatant inequality between men/women:
"Women are far more economically independent and socially autonomous, representing 42% of the UK workforce and 55% of university graduates. YET women are still less likely than men to be associated with leadership positions in the UK: they account for 22% of MPs and peers, 20% of university professors, 6.1% of FTSE 100 executive positions, and 3% of board chairpersons. This stark inequality is consistently reflected in pay gaps, despite the introduction of the Equal Pay Act in 1975. Income inequality has risen faster in the UK than any other OCED country and today women earn on average "140,000 less than men over their working careers."
These are just areas that have been legislated on. There are many areas that can't be legislated on, such as gendered stereotypes. To say that gendered stereotypes don't exist is false. They exist. Gendered stereotypes limits equality because people assume women should do one thing and men another.
"Simply, gender stereotypes are generalizations about the roles of each gender. Gender roles are generally neither positive nor negative; they are simply inaccurate generalizations of the male and female attributes. Since each person has individual desires, thoughts, and feelings, regardless of their gender, these stereotypes are incredibly simplistic and do not at all describe the attributes of every person of each gender." You can find a list of the most common gender stereotypes. To say they don't exist is wrong. They do exist.
Here's a list of 15 reasons why we still need feminism focusing on the US. Please read it: 2 parts I want to draw extra attention to are:
Talking about maths and science, there's an unconscious bias against women, probably because they're seen as "male" subjects. "When tests and applications are made anonymous, women score higher than they did if the reviewer knew their gender."
And this:
Transgender women still lack many legal rights and face biases in society. "In many places, someone can still be fired for merely being transgender."
Feminism clearly hasn't achieved equality. It's achieved a bit, but still has a long way to go. I've given lots of modern day examples why feminism is still needed and how they haven't reached equality.
Let's move to the next area.

Area 2:
"Third wave feminism is oppressive."
Firstly, your understanding of TWF (& feminism generally) is false. It is wrong. You clearly don't know what TWF is. My comments in the last round were mainly to do with TWF. If you think they were irrelevant, you clearly don't understand TWF. The ideas behind feminism CAN change as different people emphasise different ideas.
Let me try and inform you.
Here's what has to say about TWF:
"Bottom line, the goal is homogenous: Feminism aims for gender equality within a currently patriarchal society."
TWF is about allowing us to be comfortable being who we are, with our own individual desires and interests. A woman can be feminine, but she shouldn't have to be. She can also be masculine. It is the woman's personal choice. TWF tries to get women (and men) to see that it's their own choice how to act. TWF tries to get people to understand that no one is bound by gendered stereotypes that limit how they can act.
Feminism isn't outdated. TWF focuses on different ideas within feminism - problems in the real world. We don't use a different "-ism" for it because it's still feminism. It still has the same core beliefs - that women (and thereby men, too) should be equal with one another. It holds the beliefs that both sexes and all genders should be equal.
Simone de Beauvoir said: "A woman is not born, she is made." It is societal influences that feed into a female's mind that tells her to be feminine and conform to the gender stereotype that fits a "woman". While I'm not sure that you'll understand this, I hope you try to understand that societal influences effect how a person behaves. These influences make a person think that "As a woman, I should be at home looking after the kids" or think "As a man, I should be the one earning money". Just because there's no law saying women must be the stay-at-home parent, society deems it so.
EXAMPLE: the US doesn't have a law that someone must leave a tip. However, if you don't leave a tip in a restaurant, you will be socially stigmatised. SIMILARLY, if a woman doesn't act like a woman, she will be stigmatised.
TWF wants to try and break down social norms and gender stereotypes to allow people to act and behave how they like. They want freedom. Not oppression.
You haven't given ANY examples of how TWF is oppressive. You gave one woman who tried to defend gay rights activists. That's not oppressive, that's liberating for the gay rights activists. The other example was of a woman who banned cisgender men. The woman wasn't a TWF. You seem to think that any female person is a TWF. They are not. A person can be female without having to be a feminist.
Please give relevant, rational responses. The previous rounds you did not. Please do so now.
Debate Round No. 3


deltaYdeltaX forfeited this round.


Existentia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


deltaYdeltaX forfeited this round.


Existentia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
62 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Existentia 1 year ago
That's ridiculous.
By the way:
Singular is 'woman'.
Plural is 'women'.
Try and learn the difference.
Posted by Existentia 1 year ago
Episteme wasn't being "obnoxious". Episteme used pretty simple language because you couldn't understand it any other way, it seems. I used the terminology in the main debate and tried to present complex ideas, but you completely misunderstood them - showing that you really couldn't understand what I was trying to say. Episteme tried to break it down for you to understand - to try and help you because you were clearly struggling to comprehend my arguments.

This doesn't give you any right to start hurling insults at anyone. You should be able to accept that you didn't understand something and take the help offered. If you could understand it, you should have said so politely and not get emotional and angry. You're victimising yourself.

So what if you feel as though Episteme didn't understand how (apparently) intelligent you are? You haven't given us any reason to think you were particularly intelligent by the way you argued in the main debate. You are now hurling ridiculous levels of abuse at strangers over the internet. You're insulting others because it makes you feel superior. This actually makes all the insults you've thrown at Episteme apply more to yourself than to anyone else.
Posted by deltaYdeltaX 1 year ago
And I call you a little s*** to make it aware to you that you have absolutly no bearing on my life and that the way you talk to strangers is so disrespectful that you actually might believe yourself to be a big deal, and you are nothing to me I dont know you so who the f*** do you think you are to address me in that tone and further more what makes you think I would ever consider taking into account anything you would have to say to me in way of information - you little s*** with a big ego!
Posted by deltaYdeltaX 1 year ago
I am aware of what I said are you aware that I copied and pasted all of these things from your address to me?

"Oh, let"s explain to you what an "umbrella term" is,
Also, before three comes two, right? So there"s also a second wave.
Do you understand that?
Remember that words can change over time?
We"ve also found that the term "Feminism" is an umbrella term
Do you understand what "uphold" means? It means
Wow, more different types of feminist! So cool, right?
Oh! Connotations, what does that mean?
Are you with me so far?
Okay, we"ve come so far! Be proud of yourself!
Do you follow?
Are you with me so far?
Okay, you don"t seem to understand the term "gender stereotype", so let"s go over it in detail like I tried to do for everything else
Externalising" is such a big word for you! Well done!
Do you understand what an example is
(Explicit means that they know they are biased and sometimes even show their bias, whereas implicit bias means that they don"t know they are biased and show that they are biased without knowing that they are

That is why I feel entitled to call you self adulating, condescending and a preening self righteous little s****. The way you addressed me WAS EXTREMELY UNPLEASANT "OBNOXIOUS". But you want to force me to actually decipher through all of your attitude to pick out and argument, why don't stores sell candy wrapped in razor blades, BECAUSE NOBODY WOULD BUY IT!
Posted by Episteme 1 year ago
So, apparently, I am a self adulating, condescending, preening self righteous little s**t and an obnoxious little punk. How are these not an ad hominem attacks? What exactly did I write below that makes you feel entitled to call me those terms? You feeling that you are entitled to call me these things shows that feminism still has a place in society. That feeling of entitlement stems from a society that says it"s okay to spout ad hominem attacks towards others. This is what feminism aims to change.

Now, as an exercise, I think you should reread what you have written to me and Existentia and tell me if these same words were told to you whether you could at all potentially feel hurt even in a small way. I am not saying you can"t defend yourself, but the best way to defend oneself in a debate is to have better facts and better arguments.
Posted by Episteme 1 year ago
This is what you said: "Oh, let"s explain to you what an "umbrella term" is,
Also, before three comes two, right? So there"s also a second wave.
Do you understand that?
Remember that words can change over time?
We"ve also found that the term "Feminism" is an umbrella term
Do you understand what "uphold" means? It means
Wow, more different types of feminist! So cool, right?
Oh! Connotations, what does that mean?
Are you with me so far?
Okay, we"ve come so far! Be proud of yourself!
Do you follow?
Are you with me so far?
Okay, you don"t seem to understand the term "gender stereotype", so let"s go over it in detail like I tried to do for everything else
Externalising" is such a big word for you! Well done!
Do you understand what an example is
(Explicit means that they know they are biased and sometimes even show their bias, whereas implicit bias means that they don"t know they are biased and show that they are biased without knowing that they are

You are probably the most self adulating, condescending preening self righteous little s**t I have ever had the displeasure of trying to understand. And I have not even started on the flaws in you argument. You are why feminism is absolutely F***ed.

Do you actually think I would take a lecture from an obnoxious little punk like you?"

I bet you are the queen of your gender studies group aren't you? I just had to take a look at you're profile a 22 year old female! What a god damn surprise queen of the friggen universe and every body is to stupid to know how great it is to be a woman. Eat a tampon kid. F***g hipsters!"
Posted by Episteme 1 year ago
I have reread the terms you have found hurtful. I see now how some of the comments may be considered irritating. If I heard some from others, I know I would be irritated about it. I am sorry you feel this way about them and I never intended to insult your intelligence. I am not being aggressive and I don't intend to bully you or hurt you in any way. I have not insulted you, your beliefs, your lifestyle or your achievements. I have not called you names nor have I explicitly insulted your intelligence. However, the comments you have made clearly show why feminism is still necessary today. You still have not looked at my specific arguments and discussed those. You merely provided the quotes you deemed to be hurtful towards you. I apologise. Below are the quotes that you found to be insulting. In speech people say, "Do you understand that?", 'Are you with me so far?", 'Do you follow?". These specific questions were not insults to your intelligence and weren"t intended to be so. As for others, I was paraphrasing and explaining many of the terms used because you didn"t appear to understand it in the original arguments. You took Existentia"s example/illustration regarding Christianity as something to do with the debate rather than as an example. You dismissed many of Existentia"s other arguments as well and didn"t show how or why they were wrong specifically. At the same time, the use of overly simplistic language was intended to be in good humour and I would not have written the commentary the way I did if I had known you would react this way towards it. I apologize if it was in bad taste and that you were clearly hurt by it based upon your reaction.
Posted by deltaYdeltaX 1 year ago
completely irrational. I would have loved to get into this, but your white knighting is detrimental to your own cause, regardless of how well you are addressing the topic this late in the debate.

If you want to make it all about me, and my issues, without taking into account that your friend was way out of line in talking to me like that. You feminists can keep to yourselves, I haven't got time for cattle, I prefer discussing things with people who know what is right and what is wrong based on what is right and what is wrong, not what my group demands of me.
Posted by deltaYdeltaX 1 year ago
I really tried to hold myself back from replying to you. But you are showing huge elements of blindness when it comes to the comment section.

My entire debate has been based on Why feminism exists still and that MY belief and a lot of other is that 3rd wave feminism is oppressive.

The fact that you condemn me, for my outrage at someone who blatantly tried to undermine my intelligence throughout their argument, tells me that you cannot see this is why people get so sick of feminists... or you just don't want to.

I do respect the fact that you yourself are willing to put an effort into making a logical format for debate, in my perspective majority in your last uploaded retort and have rigorously stuck to it. That shows strong discipline, thank you, but...

Doubting my life circumstances I couldn't care less what you think! However, I hardly have a need to lie behind a picture of a cartoon devil and an on line handle, now do I?

Furthermore, telling me you doubt I have a good retort to any of this debate, like a large portion of the things you have said are in your opinion "the woman are probably feminists but they don't know it" its in black and white woman against feminism how could they not know they are against it?

Since you have shared your opinion on this comment section, you have now destroyed any credibility or desire to rationalize with you. By disregarding the the fore mentioned persons actions, while denigrating my approach on it, when I even listed out how absolutely condescending, self righteous and riddled with ridicule her propositions were shows you come from a completely biased opinion and not open minded at all, to use your words.

To me that makes you a Nazi style thinker; completely convinced the stance you have, justifies anybody who shares the same belief as you, acting in a way that degrades others.

Which means I don't need to or want to debate with you any more, knowing full well that you are comple
Posted by Existentia 1 year ago
Episteme hasn't insulted you or threatened/coerced/etc. you. She tried to help you to understand the debate that we were having (something it seems you clearly cannot do). She hasn't used as wildly and absolutely terrible logic as you have. Your logic is pretty rubbish.

You're not arguing against feminism here. You're victimising yourself and trying to blame other people for your lack of understanding (if you can understand, please prove it). Your arguments are illogical. Your arguments (in other words) are crap. But you want to blame feminism for your lack of good arguments, not yourself. Your inability to understand how arguments and logic work is the real flaw so far. You have skewed both debates (the one in the comments and the main debate) to the point of irrelevancy - choosing to criticise a person for their age and gender rather than trying to actually grapple with Episteme's argument itself (makes me think you can't reply to it because you don't known how to). You're ignoring valid requests to respond to an argument in favour of praising yourself and trying to make others feel inferior.

(Also - A person in Law who had been through college and law school would be a bit more rounded than you. They would be able to understand my arguments in round 1 and 2 and not get confused and call them 'off topic'. They would be able to understand basic grammar - something you seemingly fail at. They would be able to understand the difference between a social and a legal restriction.)
No votes have been placed for this debate.