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

Is third wave feminsim still feminism

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
VincentBurda has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 927 times Debate No: 102252
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)




I believe that what feminism stood for when it was first started was actually fighting for equal rights for women. things like owning land and voting were things women should have been able to do but now all i see is a bunch of "gender queer" people getting on buzzfeed and complaining about video games. i am not trying to make jokes about this even there are literally women who complain about things that have nothing to do with them and i believe that this should be stopped


Feminism is defined as "equality of the sexes". It is not just about women; it covers men as well. Now technically you could use the term masculism, but as it should mean equality of the sexes they are two words with the same thing meaning, and feminism is already in use and common. So feminism does cover the whole spectrum of gender, and yes it covers things that have nothing to do with women.

First wave, second wave, third wave are merely labels that are put on feminism to vilify it. It"s all just feminism. Feminism is about equality, and that means that central characters being 57% male and only 31% female is not equality in books.

In 2010 EEDAR released a study finding 90% of all genre of games having male lead role, while only 51% could have female lead role, which is not equality in games.

Although the 23% wage gap has to do with choices that women make, and is therefore a dishonest comparison. When you compare the same job title with comparable backgrounds and experience women still get paid 5 to 8% less than men.
Glassdoor = 5.4% still unexplained -
Payscale = 7% still unexplained. -
Washington Post = 8% still unexplained -

When you look into fortune 500 company CEOs the number even get worse. Only 25 companies in the fortune 500 (that's 5%) have female CEOs.

Also women are almost twice as likely to be the victims severe physical violence by an inmate partner. As well as 1 in 5 women will be raped in their lifetime, where is only 1 in 71 men will be raped.

Which likely plays a part in why only 25 percent of women are consistently orgasmic during vaginal intercourse. (The psyhcological issue here have got to be pretty strong)

I could go on, but ya feminism is still needed, and valid. So please stop trying to discredit it, and pretending like women already have equality"
Debate Round No. 1


While there maybe certain "labels" of feminism i disagree with your statement that feminism is still the same. The evidence to my argument is publicly available on a majority of pro feminism YouTube channels and blog posts. There are women that literally belive that eliminating all men is the best way possible to create a "equal" world. There still is real feminism left in the world but there are very few women doing things to combat the kinks women face everyday. But like i said very few as to the majority is sitting around the buzzfeed offices complaining about video games or pushing fat acceptance or other sjw/liberal ideals. Reguarding the wage gap, i like that you pulled up actual statistics of men and women working the same job and position. But my counter argument is that 5 to 8% doesn't stop women from becoming leaders of the household. If in a well paying job that woman had to work her butt off for as much as the man did to get there that 5 to 8% becomes small as the woman can still provide for the man and the house aswell the kids.


For reference this is what feminism means from several sources:

Merriam-Webster - the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes - the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

Oxford - The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Feminism is about equality of the sexes, that"s it" as I posted in the first round. When you say third wave feminism or intersectional feminism or whatever other label you add to feminism to try and discredited all you are doing is trying to change the meaning so you have a strawman to justify your sexism because you can "defeat" feminism if you make it about more than just equal rights.

Next let"s talk about Fallacy of composition. It"s where you infer that some small portion of a group (like the ones who say that men should be eliminated) and judge the whole group on that small subset of data. It"s like saying all men are rapist because there are men that rape. It has no bases in reality, and it"s dishonest.

85% of women believe in equality for women. There are roughly 160 million women in the US, that means 136 million women believe in equality for women, but because of BS like what you are doing to smear feminism, and make it a dirty word only 18% of women identify of feminist. So even though they have very valid proof that the world is not equal for them (as I proved in the first round that you have not refuted any of" I mean ANY of, you just ignored it completely), they have stop fighting for equality"

And response to the 5-8% wage gap is the very heart of the problem. You see a sexist wage gap, and rather than thinking it needs to be fixed" you think it"s ok she should have to work harder. You think it"s fine that a woman gets paid less than you to do the same work. You spout about how there is no need for feminism, and you have NO problem screwing women out of money they deserve. And as I"ve already show it"s not just pay, there is a gap in many different fields. Sure, it"s close, but it"s not equal, and it just pisses you off that they won"t shut up and just be happy with getting close, right?

Look I get it Vincent. You are a guy, and now women want to be treated equal to you, and that chaps your butt because it makes your life harder, so you corrupt their movement to get equality, and make them out to be the bad guys even though they have facts showing that you are the bad guy. Finally, after you"ve beaten them down enough, most of them getting tired of fighting, and think just like you" it"s close to equality. And they think, is it worth all this hate just to get a few more percentage points? So, they give up, but that"s nothing more than being a bully, and that sure doesn"t make you RIGHT. They do NOT have equality, and you are NOT the victim in this scenario.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GodMarrtini 3 years ago
Posted by Coveny 3 years ago
A bit tired of having this same debate in two places. Check out
Posted by CrucifixOpinions 3 years ago
Like what thatNerd said before me, the definition of a movement can mean the very opposite of what they do. For example, (hate to bring Godwin's Law into this) you can say the Nazi's main message was that the German people were a part of a master race of people. But in reality, they aren't different from everyone else. The same goes for Feminism, while it advocates for the equality of the sexes, many (and I mean enough feminists that warrant political action, like Justin Trudeau in my country) feminists have enough power to determine what constitutes as oppression and "unequal", then they have the government create incentives for strictly women to enter job fields.

For example, the Government of Canada recently created a gender equal cabinet in 2015. The action was applauded across the country by feminists who considered the action to be equal. However, then you cross into the territory of whether women actually (on average) wants positions like that. If you look at College statistics, you'll find that more women go into medicine and child care, then into business and the trades. Now, when the government goes through an action like that, not only are they disregarding whoever might be better suited for the job (regardless of gender) in order to meet the quota, they are creating a way which makes it easier for a person (ultimately because of the sex they were born in) to achieve higher political statuses of power. Men and Women have the same opportunities to enter job fields (anything otherwise is illegal), but when the government chooses an action which gives women more opportunity and privileges than men, and it is applauded by feminists everywhere, then I do not think the definition applies here.
Posted by CrucifixOpinions 3 years ago
Well, now we are getting into the fact of the difference between being equal and equitable. For example, in your video games example in the main debate, you said that it is not true equality because most video game characters are male. Now, you would be right in saying it is not equal. But most gamers are male, therefore, there are going to be more male protagonists in games. That is being equitable, most girls play games on smartphones, so obviously there is going to be less female protagonists.

Now for the prostate cancer example, it is true that breast cancer recieves more funding because people like to talk about boobs, that is great. But why aren't there no feminists rallying for prostate cancer awareness? The silence is deafening. But you are right about more women being killed by breast cancer (that was a mistake on my part), but it is not that much of a higher percentage.

Feminism is a female supremacy movement because it advocates for the equality of the sexes, but when the other sex brings up issues strictly related to their sex (AKA men), accusations of misogyny are thrown around everywhere. Now, I am not going to pin 3rd wave feminism on the actions of a few (the Composition Fallacy), but according to Wikipedia (which was subject to a Art + Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon), feminists believe that women should have equal rights to men, such as the right to vote, to work, etc. But all of things have been achieved a long time ago, which only leaves Patriarchy as the system of oppression.

Now, I will just leave you the link to the page right here, since I am running out of characters.

People don't hate feminism because of people like me, they hate feminism because while they might not see the worst attributes of feminism in every feminist (#NOTALL), but they see it from enough feminists in order to dislike the movement.
Posted by Coveny 3 years ago
I"m not arguing that women have less rights than men I"m arguing they aren"t equal. To explain the difference, I"m going to create a hypnotical example. Let say that both men and women have the right to buy alcohol but men must be 23 where women need only be 21. Rights are the same, but they aren"t equal. This is my position, and feminism addresses it. (even when it applies to men)

Lung cancer kills 72k women and 87k men a year while breast cancer only kills 39k, and prostate only kills 29k. Breast cancer get 62k while lung cancer gets 29k. My point being that it"s not male versus female, if it were then funding would be going to Lung cancer as that"s killing more women. It"s about being able to talk about tits.

If you feel feminism is about female supremacy PROVE it, and don"t use composition fallacy when you do it like most people try to do. Your attitude is the reason only 18% identify as feminist. Most people aren"t like me, they don"t want to argue over a few percentage points (or to use the above example a couple of years) they don"t think it"s "worth" the time or trouble to fight about it. That doesn"t mean that it"s not valid.

Again you classify feminism and say it"s about oppression. PROVE it without using composition fallacy. Oh and good luck with that, because it"s BS, and people like you are destroying the movement" even though it"s valid.
Posted by CrucifixOpinions 3 years ago
Wait, so you did not argue that women lacked rights, but then you say they do not have equal rights to men? In order for them to not have rights up to the standards of men, they are going to have to lack some of those rights that only men posses to that degree. I do not simply find that the case. Of course there are always going to be issues concerning our society.

But you'll find that many of these problems affect both men and women, most of them do not confine themselves specifically to a gender. My example concerning Prostate Cancer is still equally relevant, if prostate cancer kills men at a higher rate than breast cancer kills women, why don't you see feminists rallying for more awareness concerning prostate cancer? Easy, it is not considered a feminist issue. Feminism isn't about equality of the sexes, it is a female supremacy movement, and it always has been, for better and worse.

I am not against feminists fighting for their "lack of equal rights" using peaceful protest, i openly encourage that. But I am beginning to see a problem, namely that only 18% of American Citizens identify themselves as feminist. You do not have to be a feminist to believe in equality of the sexes, that's because feminism is focusing on issues solely related to women. Again, that's totally fine. But the problem is that when you compare 1st and 2nd wave Feminism to 3rd Wave Feminism, you'll find that their is a desperate lack of "consensus" when it comes to the issues they are fighting against, and how who is the oppressed "class".

Why people call today's Feminism "3rd Wave" is that is focuses on race, ethnicity, and gender when it comes to oppression. Feminism is supposed to cover ALL women, regardless of their characteristics. But now, Black Lesbian Women are more oppressed than White Straight Women, therefore they need more social assistance. The movement is starting to destroy itself, because it has no clear issue everyone is rallying against. That is the problem.
Posted by Coveny 3 years ago
I argued that women weren"t equal, not that they are lacking rights, don"t try to make strawmen. They don"t have equal rights, it"s not difficult to see why they are marching. They action support this unless you us composition bias to judge them by a small subset of the group. (and remember the group is 85% of Americans) I see that breast cancer gets more funding than prostate. because men like breasts, and talking about tits, it"s not the cancer that kills the most women though, but it sure is the most popular. I"m also very familiar with the tender year"s laws, and getting rid of them was part of feminism.

It started out as feminism why should it have to change because you came up with a new word for it? What you consider first and second wave is nothing more than a way for you to say "see you were fighting for something important, but not you"re not". Equality has still not been achieved, just because it"s closer doesn"t mean that fighting for it isn"t still valid.
Posted by CrucifixOpinions 3 years ago
Coveny, give me one example of one fundamental right that only men exclusively have, and women don't. I am not trying to silence any feminist that claims that their experience in the West is not truly equal, but I do not see an overlying issue that women are fighting for a solution to, unlike in the 1920s and 60s. That is why in demonstrations such as the Women's March earlier this year, it was extremely difficult to find a clear concise reason to why they were marching.

Also, definitions do not do much when their actions clearly contradict themselves. For example, if equality between the sexes was a personal endeavor of theirs, why don't you see 3rd wave feminists raising awareness for prostate cancer (when breast cancer gets a LOT more funding), or how courts seem unfavourably biased towards women, especially when it comes to custody.

In the previous waves of Feminism, women were fighting for rights strictly women didn't have, such as the right to vote. That is why feminism isn't simply called egalitarianism, because it focuses on Women's issues. That is why I consider that 1st and 2nd wave Feminism was actual feminism. 3rd Wave feminism does not have a clear thing they are fighting for, and they (for the most part) do not seem interested in making their status equal to men's. That is why in lots of western countries, you'll find feminists lobbying for putting more women in CEO positions, even though women in college are more likely to go into medicine, child care and social work. That does not seem very fair or equitable to both men AND women in this situation.
Posted by Coveny 3 years ago
ThatNerd, just so I"m clear him using "gender queer" isn"t explicitly sexist? Because that sure seem like sexist name calling to me. And you don"t think "literally women who complain about things that have nothing to do with them and i believe that this should be stopped" is sexist either? You don"t think women have right to complain about something that doesn"t have to do with them? So it's not sexist to say women can"t complain that children in Africa are starving to death, they should just shut up. Really? That's your stance?

This is a debate where he is dismissing feminism, and women in general. When I call him sexist I"m not side stepping the argument" that is the argument. It"s about him being sexist. A personal attack is when you call someone a queer" oh wait bad example because you agreed with that part right? You, and people like you have NO problem doing personal attacks and calling someone a queer, but when I call you sexist for it you want to cry foul? How does that even work in your mind?

I say that anyone who says women are equal and should shut up is sexist. If that shoe fits, lace it right on up.

They call them 1st wave, 2nd wave, and 3rd wave feminism. Are you seriously arguing that it"s not a label for different points in time of the feminist movement? Yes just like 3rd wave coffee isn"t about " coffee.

Could you show me the website for supporters of third wave feminism? Because that isn"t what they support. That is what you call them so you can create a strawman to undermine their valid complaints you gender queer. (I figure it"s ok to call you that, as it"s not a personal attack in your mind or anything)
Posted by thatNerd 3 years ago
Coveny, I would consider it a personal attack to call your opponent sexist, when they said nothing that was explicitly sexist. You did this when you said: "They don't have equality per numerous sources across numerous fields, and--- yet people like you want to dismiss it, and say they are equal, because they are closer to equal than they have ever been, so you think they should just shut up and be happy about what you've given them."
I put three dashes before the part where you implicitly call anyone who has a different opinion on third wave feminism sexist. Also a dictionary definition for the word a movement decides to use does not define them. For example the Green party is a political party which supports green movement which is for concerns about environmentalism. If you google "green" without putting party in the search you will get the color green and the green party is not for promoting the color green.
Lastly, a movement may not even be defined by what they clam to be. For example, in 1841, John Tyler claimed to be a Whig but most of his decisions conflicted with the Whig's ideas on government. Just because supporters of third wave feminism claim to be feminist, does not mean they are.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.