The Instigator
Legendoom
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
funwiththoughts
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Feminism is not an ideology of equality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
funwiththoughts
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/19/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,962 times Debate No: 37906
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Legendoom

Pro

Feminism has morphed into a misbegotten ideology whose only purpose is to rally people behind a bigoted cause: that women are the oppressed party in every scenario, and we should pander to them whenever they cry that their feelings are hurt or that they are the victim in court cases. It has also nuked the fridge on the idea of the patriarchy and 'rape culture'. Without a doubt, patriarchy would have been an appropriate description of society 200 years ago. Even 50 years ago you could make the case for a patriarchy existing. Now, this society (the United States in particular) is not a patriarchal one.

Feminism had utility in the early 1900's, when women really were oppressed and rallying behind a figurehead and standing up for their rights was exactly what was required, and perhaps heavily Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia could do with a healthy dose of that kind of feminism, but certainly not the kind of 'Punch Men', politically correct, Tumblr-feminism that has taken hold of people in the United States.
funwiththoughts

Con

I notice you provided no definitions, so I will.

Feminism, n. 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.[1]

Therefore, any ideology which is not of equality (between genders that is, a philosophy can be racist, homophobic, etc. while still being feminist) are not feminist.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Legendoom

Pro

Until I am corrected, I'm going to operate on the assumption that you're a feminist due to this debate format. Therefore, it makes sense that you'd attempt to distance yourself from the undesireables that I purport exist.

The problem with that definition, and the philosophy it describes, presupposes that men have superior rights than women in every single case. That's not true. Men are not treated anywhere near fairly when it comes to child custody and child support cases [1]. Women are sentenced to 40% less prison time than men, for equivalent crimes, and more likely to avoid conviction altogether [2]. Prostate cancer, despite having a more-or-less equal rate of mortality and severity, recieves drastically less funding than breast cancer [3]. I could go on with domestic violence, hospital treatment, circumscision, education, drafting, etc.

The term 'equality for women' is a contradiction in and of itself.

[1]http://www.census.gov...
[2]http://misformalevolent.blogspot.ca...
[3]http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
funwiththoughts

Con

"The problem with that definition, and the philosophy it describes, presupposes that men have superior rights than women in every single case."

The definition presupposes no such thing! It merely states that feminism is a philosophy of equality between genders. There are cases where women get more rights than men, and vice versa, but this is not actual feminism. You have not provided any of your own definitions, so I had the burden of providing them. I provided them, from a dictionary, and you have provided none.

"That's not true. Men are not treated anywhere near fairly when it comes to child custody and child support cases [1]. Women are sentenced to 40% less prison time than men, for equivalent crimes, and more likely to avoid conviction altogether [2]. Prostate cancer, despite having a more-or-less equal rate of mortality and severity, recieves drastically less funding than breast cancer [3]."

I never said that women were treated worse than men in today's society. There are double standards on both sides, and the aim of GENUINE feminism is to get rid of both. By definition, any movement which does not demand equality between men and women is not feminist.

"The term 'equality for women' is a contradiction in and of itself."

Nonsense! It simply means getting rid of gender-related double standards. Not implementing them on one side, but eliminating them altogether.
Debate Round No. 2
Legendoom

Pro

I fail to see the point of providing definitions for terms that are generally clear, because I assume that most people are educated, intelligent human beings who know what words mean. Until they prove me otherwise.

You're right. Demanding equality can mean that one party is inferior to another, and the superior wants to be placed in the same category as the inferior. The problem there is that that is not feminism. That's called humanism, or more accurately, egalitarianism, which is generally included in the beliefs of most humanists, like myself.

And just because I can, I'll humour you:

Egalitarianism
1. belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, social, or economic life [1].

Why don't we stop inventing seperate categories for a universal problem and start addressing the issue as a cohesive unit? Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal by focusing solely on the issues of one of them.

And just to rule out a pointless ad hominem attack, I'd say the exact same thing about MRA organizations that claim equality yet proudly call themselves 'mens rights activists'.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...;
funwiththoughts

Con

"I fail to see the point of providing definitions for terms that are generally clear, because I assume that most people are educated, intelligent human beings who know what words mean. Until they prove me otherwise."

I have provided a dictionary definition. I would assume that that is the first place to look for "what words mean".

"You're right. Demanding equality can mean that one party is inferior to another, and the superior wants to be placed in the same category as the inferior. The problem there is that that is not feminism. That's called humanism, or more accurately, egalitarianism, which is generally included in the beliefs of most humanists, like myself."

I agree, except for the "that is not feminism" part. Feminism is a part of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is equality for everyone, Feminism is equality for men & women. You can be feminist without being egalitarian, but you can't be egalitarian without being a feminist.

"Why don't we stop inventing seperate [sic] categories for a universal problem and start addressing the issue as a cohesive unit?"

The debate is not called "should we address different types of discrimination separately?" I would be glad to address all forms of discrimination in one unit, but that does not mean feminism is not a philosophy of equality.

"Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal by focusing solely on the issues of one of them."

I already gave you the definition of feminism, and from a dictionary. It has nothing to do with giving one side more attention. Show me a reputable source saying that this is the DEFINITION of feminism, and I might be willing to accept it.
Debate Round No. 3
Legendoom

Pro

You completely missed the point of the first paragraph.

And what's to stop me from turning around that argument? I can just say MRA's are for equality between men and women. But that's a self-defeating claim, because that's like having two soccer teams wearing identical jerseys, trying to score on the same goal, yet they think they are competing against one another and butting heads. Not to mention the terminology flaw: if its equality for everyone, then calling it feminism seems a rather misleading idea.

I'm elaborating on the debate.

That's a quote I heard that I enjoy bringing up because its rather appropriate. I never claimed it was from a dictionary. Also: that's nonsense. How many feminists do you hear screaming about how domestic violence against men is just as common as it is against women, if not more so? Or how many feminists do you see out in the streets protesting that the education system is massively skewed in favour of girls? Or, at least, how many do you see that DO NOT preface it by saying that it's a part of 'the patriarchy'?
funwiththoughts

Con

"You completely missed the point of the first paragraph."

[sarcasm]Wow, what a clear explanation.[/sarcasm]

"And what's to stop me from turning around that argument? I can just say MRA's are for equality between men and women."

This debate is not about MRA's. Stop going off on tangents.

"Not to mention the terminology flaw: if its equality for everyone, then calling it feminism seems a rather misleading idea."

Agreed, but that doesn't change the definition.

"I'm elaborating on the debate."

No, you're distracting from it.

"Also: that's nonsense. How many feminists do you hear screaming about how domestic violence against men is just as common as it is against women, if not more so? Or how many feminists do you see out in the streets protesting that the education system is massively skewed in favour of girls? Or, at least, how many do you see that DO NOT preface it by saying that it's a part of 'the patriarchy'?"

I never said that I agree with the methods of movements that CALL THEMSELVES "feminist". Any philosophy which is not of equality between genders is by definition not feminist, regardless of what they call themselves.
Debate Round No. 4
Legendoom

Pro

Legendoom forfeited this round.
funwiththoughts

Con

Extend argument.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MarxistHypocrisy101 2 years ago
MarxistHypocrisy101
@funwithoutthoughts

"You can blabber all you want about what kind of people you consider feminists, it's not gonna change the definition."

And you can talk out your rear all you want, but a definition that was written a hundred years ago for a school of thought that has nothing in common with the current bastardization of it does not mean Feminists get to demand preferential treatment and pass it off as "equality".

I bet you don't understand the difference between Classical Liberalism and the current bastardization of that word, either.
Posted by MarxistHypocrisy101 2 years ago
MarxistHypocrisy101
Con's argument is absolute garbage. You're literally claiming that, because a definition of Feminism (you clearly do not understand the differences between First and Second Wave Feminism) contains the word "equality", that means they can demand the exact opposite of equality with impunity.

This is nothing more that a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
"I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that I found his argument far better than yours. I don't think that Ofcourse."

I said nothing to that effect.

"While I believe That Pro should've provided HIS definition of feminism, I know that you should have come to the conclusion that he does not accept that definition as correct simply from looking at his opening argument."

But since he never provided any definition, nor explicitly mentioned changing the definition, it is assumed that it is the definition.
Posted by Izic 3 years ago
Izic
@funwiththoughts: I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that I found his argument far better than yours. I don't think that Ofcourse. While I believe That Pro should've provided HIS definition of feminism, I know that you should have come to the conclusion that he does not accept that definition as correct simply from looking at his opening argument. I don't think providing a definition is incorrect in response to this, but basing an argument off that definition is just going to lead to circular argument.
I'd also like to apologise for any bad grammar or sentence structure in these comments. I'm far from any computer so this is being done on a smart phone.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
@Izic: Except that Pro never provided any kind of definition, and therefore it is assumed that all words go by dictionary definition. Had he not wanted to go based off a definition he should have said so explicitly.
Posted by Izic 3 years ago
Izic
@funwiththoughts: well, I might of misinterpreted Pro's argument, but by my understanding it is an argument that feminism is no longer corresponding with its traditional definition of being about gender equality for all sexes.
If that's the case, then providing the definition to feminism as a case, against the argument that feminism definition is incorrect, is absurd.
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
@Izic: Yes, and...?
Posted by Izic 3 years ago
Izic
I believe Con's argument was horrible. Con's first argument was essentially "Feminism is for equality because the definition provided says it is".
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
Quoting definitions verbatim from a dictionary is considered "lying" now, apparently. You can blabber all you want about what kind of people you consider feminists, it's not gonna change the definition.
Posted by GDawg 3 years ago
GDawg
Whoa, I never knew I could just straight up lie to win a debate, now I am going to be undefeated from now. Feminism is absolutely based on the patriarchy. It is not even disputable because, Feminism took hold when there actually was the patriarchy. Feminists stood proud cause of their anti-patriarchal beliefs, and even noted that was the center of their theory. They have adjusted the definition over time, but still, it is standing up for women's rights and ignoring men's rights. By definition it doesn't support equality, and the reason that I have never seen, heard a feminist, try to help men's rights issues, but instead, focus on extremely dumb issues that are not sexist in any way. The word for someone who wants to solve the issues of both sexes is an egalitarian.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
LegendoomfunwiththoughtsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: For obvious reasons. Not only did Pro forfeit the last round, but he never fully defined his resolution thus the debate was spent largely on defining the initial term to begin with- something that Pro tried to redefine from its actual meaning.
Vote Placed by Kenneth_Stokes 3 years ago
Kenneth_Stokes
LegendoomfunwiththoughtsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Forefeit.