Debate Rounds (3)
2- A political movement whose purpose is the campaign of woman rights.
2nd definition is the one intended in the debate. 1st definition is synonymous with femininity, which will be the word used in this debate for that definition. Pro assumes feminism equals equality, but this is not part of the definition. Arguing that " true " feminists are not misandric is a No True Scotsman argument, because the definition of feminism does not preclude misandrism.
Considering " Feminism " as described above is historically divided into three waves, each will be analyzed.
1st wave: Started in the early 19th century, ended around WWII. People of the 1st wave fought so women would have the right to vote, work, have estates, a formal education, etc. All requests of the first wave were dealt with in developed countries, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights covers these requests for modern purposes. Giving these rights to people in third-world countries is not an issue of feminism anymore, but of human rights. Countries that violate the clauses about sexual discrimination also violate many other clauses (right to live, freedom of religion, right not to be tortured, etc.), and some clauses (e.g. right to live) are not respected even in developed countries (all countries with the death penalty violate human rights). Since men are oppressed as well as women, the issues of the first wave do not apply today in any way that is not fulfilled by human rights activists. These people are not necessarily feminists (campaigning for the rights of women in particular), nor are feminists necessarily interested in human rights (such as the right to live of men).
2nd wave: Started in the early 1960's. Second-wave feminists argued that Western culture was intrinsically sexist, but made insufficient attempts to prove it. While localized abuses were made (and are still made) in the medias, I don't see housekeeping, marriage, or sexuality as intrinsically sexist. Marriage (of which housekeeping is an issue) was often egalitarian or complementarist : both parties would have assigned roles (raising the kids vs. making a living), or they could share them (having the husband and the wife work together, and raising the kids together). When sexism did happen then (e.g. women gaining lower wages in the industrial era), it was usually in households where roles were shared. Complementarianism is not sexist ; Pro held that people should have the right to be housekeepers. However, of the two, the wife is the best candidate. Since kids were praised in those times, the wife was very likely to get pregnant. Pregnant women couldn't make a living as well as men in most jobs, but they could still usually make dishes and knit clothes for the family. Periods also used to be a major issues until people devised ways to manage them, but that was before the feminist's 2nd wave.
The sexism of sexuality is not evident nowadays. Contraception became an issue for men as well after the baby-boom. There were double standards of promiscuity that lasted well into the 1980's, but then again baby-boomers made sexuality a more relaxed thing in mainstream Western society. Baby-boomers were activists, like those that made the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, except they did not act on any formal power but controlled the ideas and ideals of society in a subtler way. They fought for the rights of blacks as well as women. Second-wave feminism was thus getting its requests fulfilled by the same thing that started it in the first place : culture changes from one generation to the next. I should add that the second wave of feminism is the first to develop the ideology of radical feminism, which is intrinsically sexist toward men. Women-only institutions against relationship abuses and other such things are also consequences of feminism's 2nd wave.
3rd wave: Depending on what you decide is the third wave of feminism, this one is either a counter-movement against the narrowness of second-wave feminism, or what people generally think of when using the term " feminist ". In the first case, this proves the flaw of second-wave feminism : its failure to properly draw acceptance to anything but privileged women. If feminists decide to be both human rights activists and feminists, and identify as both, this is well ; but many people (even so-called " feminists ") have mingled these two things to a point where they don't realize you can be one and not be the other. In the second case, that is, the general public image of feminism, it is a confused mixture of women campaigning for the right of women to be the sole deciders in matters of parenting (anything from the child's conception to adulthood) to women putting everything on the fault of conspiracy theories such as the " phallocracy " (the idea that men are ruled by their penis instead of, say, testosterone, human reason, or their education), attacking hominists as if they were women-haters (basically the same claim hominists make about feminists, except to my knowledge no hominist suggested we kill all women, while Valerie Solanas was willing to kill all males) and simultaneously acting against the basic human rights of non-discrimination they are claiming to defend (by starting riots in hominist conventions), claiming such-and-such religion is intrinsically sexist (even when it isn't) and promoting New Age religions that have all kinds of eerie connotations (male-shaming, heterophobia and transphobia being all at the core of Dianic Wicca, which is one such religion).
Another problem with third-wave feminism is its apparent flip-flopping on issues such as body image, the right to be prostitute, etc. It becomes especially egregious when you see so-called " feminists " like the Femen or Miley Cyrus who explicitely encourage the objectification of women and contribute to the " rape culture " that is so often used as an excuse for the continued existence of (some forms of) feminism.
I stand by my opinion. Equality is an human right. Feminism is not equality and doesn't even require it, and equality doesn't need feminism any more than it needs to struggle with all forms of unnecessary discrimination, be it against men or women, black people or white people, gay or het or bi, etc. Once you get these things, you no longer need feminism (because by then women already enjoy all the rights of women). And there is not enough evidence that feminism actually helps the struggle for equality. Unlike, say, Christianity, Cynism, or Objectivism, the first two being distant precursors of feminism but asserting the equality of men and women some 2000 years before it became seen as a major issue of society, while the last one is more recent, but does not count as " feminist " by any standard, either.
ceciledesormeaux forfeited this round.
Network forfeited this round.
ceciledesormeaux forfeited this round.
Network forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by gannon260 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: worst debate ever, both sides forfeited
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.