CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
This is correct because the idea of feminism was equal rights for both genders but this is not the case, this has brought on the problems of double standards, for example, a feminist would say 'I want to be treated equally as a man', while saying things like, 'You're the man so you have to buy me x,y and z and you have to treat me to dinner' etc, therefore holding the biggest double standard of all. Our society is constantly contradicting itself and I strongly propose the motion that 'If feminists really believed in equality, they'd call themselves human rights activists.
To identify as a feminist does not mutually exclude simultaneous identification with other activist handles, nor even advocacy of gender equality. It can simply signify that for that person issues of equality for women are especially important. Demanding that feminists abandon the specificity of that title would be akin to asking queer activists or POC activists to do the same; it makes little sense to amalgamate everything under one handle without a compelling reason to do so.
What you've said is true, but the title doesn't say that they are mutually exclusive, that they should abandon feminism, or place less of an importance on it, or really even that they should call themselves human rights activists instead of feminists.
Although the creator of the debate may feel that one can't be both a feminist and a human rights activist, the statement itself is still technically right.
The phraseology of the title indicates that at least one attribute of feminism is the pursuit of equality, and that to call oneself a feminist is fundamentally antithetical to that premise. This does establish the two as mutually exclusive: one can either be a feminist or one can be a human rights activists who supports equality; one cannot be a feminist who believes in equality. The semantic structuring of the given premise is effectively that feminism is not about equality, but rather of female advocacy that is either apathetic to or in excess of equality.
I know, it seems to imply that feminists don't believe in equality, and it's rather safe to assume that the creator thinks that the two are mutually exclusive, but technically it doesn't say that "feminists" can't also be human rights activists. I was just trying to point to the semantics themselves to undermine the solidness of the title itself.
Feminists can be pro female and pro male at the same time. There's nothing in the "feminist manifesto" that suggest they're anti male or seek to drag men down in order to gain stature in society. Just like being pro gay marriage does not suggest that one is therefore against straight marriages.
There's nothing in the "feminist manifesto" that suggest they're anti male or seek to drag men down in order to gain stature in society.
If you honestly believe this, I genuinely feel sorry for you. Why don't I just provide you with some quotes from feminists and we'll see how right you are. Here, I'll just leave these here:
"The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." -National NOW Times, Jan.1988
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." - Catherine Comins, Vassar College, Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52
"I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” -Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” -Valerie Solanas
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” -Andrea Dworkin
“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” -Catherine MacKinnon
“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” -Sally Miller Gearhart
“All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” -Marilyn French
"Sex is the cross on which women are crucified … Sex can only be adequately defined as universal rape." -Hodee Edwards
"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men…" -Elizabeth Stanton, One Woman, One Vote, Wheeler, p. 58
Now tell me, are these deplorable enough examples because I do have more. As a man with rights and feelings, this should appall and anger you.
There is nothing men can do in this country than all of our female citizens cannot also do. By continuing to label themselves as "feminists," they perpetuate the mindset of a victim, that they're continuously being quelled by the patriarchy.
As I stated earlier, the list of quotes I compiled were miniscule to the entire list I took them from. I guess I could have posted all of them, but I had other things to do with my time, so I simple provided an example.
I'm very well aware that not all feminists are part of the "all men are sexist, rapist pig bigots" club, but they belong to the shorter list. The majority of feminists are more deplorable and more disgusting than they accuse this supposed "patriarchy" of being.
There is nothing men can do in this country than all of our female citizens cannot also do.
This is likely true, but is only one of many variables to consider. Consider employment: disproportionate pay, promotions, and even employment offers remain persistent concerns (source). Consider health: women pay more than men for the same healthcare (source). There are more variables, but I think these suffice to demonstrate that the conversation is hardly closed on the matter.
Additionally, not all self-identifying feminists in or from this country center their work around women's issues in this country. There remain parts of this world were conditions for women are positively deplorable in terms of equity.
As I stated earlier, the list of quotes I compiled were miniscule to the entire list I took them from. I guess I could have posted all of them, but I had other things to do with my time, so I simple provided an example.
You could have posted every single quote you have and you would still be committing the same fallacy, because those quotes do not prove that anti-male sentiment is necessarily inherent to feminism nor that they predominate.
I'm very well aware that not all feminists are part of the "all men are sexist, rapist pig bigots" club, but they belong to the shorter list. The majority of feminists are more deplorable and more disgusting than they accuse this supposed "patriarchy" of being.
Prove it, and not with another logical fallacy.
I've included yet more resources: [...]
I have no idea why you think these are relevant to the preceding comments. Nevertheless...
From your first source I was entirely unable to locate exactly where you were pulling the 40% statistic (page citation please?), but found plenty of evidence in the report which indicates that women do experience greater rates of sexual violence than do men and that for both women and men the perpetrators were mostly men. Whatever the exact rates are, that disproportionately remains an evident fact. Thank you for providing evidence that demonstrates my first point in this rebuttal quite well.
Consider employment: disproportionate pay, promotions, and even employment offers remain persistent concerns.
The wage gap is yet another myth, debunked by 4 sources (one of them being the US Dept. of Labor) 1234.
Oh, and the reason why women sometimes have a hard time acquiring job offers is because they pick Majors with naturally lown pay medians, good ole' sappy shit like "Women's Studies," that always lead to lower-paying jobs than those of men who chose logical, higher-paying Majors.
There remain parts of this world were conditions for women are positively deplorable in terms of equity.
True. And it is in those parts of the world where a degree of feminism actually makes sense. But not here, and here is where my concerns lie.
Those quotes do not prove that anti-male sentiment is necessarily inherent to feminism nor that they predominate.
Alone, no, they do not. But they are supportive evidence of what is widely known about feminism -- and that is that one of its core principles is of opposing the patriarchy, that damnable male authority they feel so smothered by. Of course there in an inherent hatred of men, when most women of the feminist movement feel they're being oppressed by them. Would you love, trust or respect someone you deemed to be essentially your captor? I think not. Sometimes critical thinking is all that is needed to fill in the blanks, my friend.
Prove it, and not with another logical fallacy.
I have proven it, now kindly cease with the fallacy fallacy. ;)
I have no idea why you think these are relevant to the preceding comments.
I was providing an argument and referencing proof to back up those arguments. So I have no idea why you wouldn't think them relevant.
From your first source I was entirely unable to locate exactly where you were pulling the 40% statistic (page citation please?), but found plenty of evidence in the report which indicates that women do experience greater rates of sexual violence than do men and that for both women and men the perpetrators were mostly men. Whatever the exact rates are, that disproportionately remains an evident fact. Thank you for providing evidence that demonstrates my first point in this rebuttal quite well.
Tsk, tsk, I don't think you read everything you say you do. ;) Note that the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (or simply NISVS) doesn't consider it rape when men are forced to have sex with women. On page 84, it states, "Being made to penetrate is a form of sexual victimization distinct from rape that is particularly unique to males and, to our knowledge, has not been explicitly measured in previous national studies."
Goodness, did you hear that? What splendid news! For you and all other men -- that apparently, you cannot be raped. Shew, glad we got that out of the way. And here is why you think I've provided evidence to support your argument when it really still supports mine.
The wage gap is yet another myth, debunked by 4 sources (one of them being the US Dept. of Labor) 1 2 3 4.
1: You should really read your sources more closely. This DoL article actually explicitly debunks your statement, as well as literally every other source you just cited in defense of your stance. (e.g. "MYTH: There is no such thing as the gender pay gap – legitimate differences between men and women cause the gap in pay, not discrimination.")
2: This article does not state that there is no wage gap, but rather that part of the wage gap can be accounted for by other variables (leaving a still statistically significant gap). Notably, one of the primary variables they list which accounts for most of the gap they dismiss is that women tend to work part-time more than men do... however they do not establish that this is a matter of choice rather than a consequence of discrimination. Much of it is also repudiated by the more recent article #1 that you shared.
3: This article assumes without substantiation that all fields are equally permeable without respect to sex/gender, rendering its conclusion that women are "choosing" lower income professions premature. And again, its claims are also debunked by #1.
4: This article lists two sources contradicting your view, and then nothing to support its conclusions that that research is incorrect in any way. And again, it is debunked by #1.
Oh, and the reason why women sometimes have a hard time acquiring job offers is because they pick Majors with naturally lown pay medians, good ole' sappy shit like "Women's Studies," that always lead to lower-paying jobs than those of men who chose logical, higher-paying Majors.
Again, from #1: "Decades of research shows a gender gap in pay even after factors like the kind of work performed and qualifications (education and experience) are taken into account."
You also did not refute my substantiated point about higher costs of healthcare for women, so I take it as conceded until such point as you do. That alone is adequate basis to conclude that feminism remains a valid self-identifier.
True. And it is in those parts of the world where a degree of feminism actually makes sense. But not here, and here is where my concerns lie.
This qualifier is an entirely new modification to your original construction of the issue; you said "feminists", not "American feminists exclusively active within the U.S. context."
Alone, no, they do not. [...] my friend. & I have proven it, now kindly cease with the fallacy fallacy. ;)
Your claims are not widely known about feminism (though they may be widely claimed), and you are overextending your evidence as a list of quotes demonstrates only the existence of a particular sub-ideology not its prevalence relative to other sub-ideologies. Not all feminists consider individual men to be oppressors or "captors", and consequentially lack any serious motivation to hate individual men. That such feminists do exist places an express burden upon you to substantiate your claim that they are in the minority, and simply reiterating that they are is entirely inadequate.
This is also entirely irrelevant to the question of whether feminism can be a legitimate self-identification, as its being illegitimate in most cases does not render it inherently illegitimate for all cases.
I was providing an argument and referencing proof to back up those arguments. So I have no idea why you wouldn't think them relevant.
You introduced an entirely new subsidiary issue of feminist advocacy, and I did not understand the point in your specifically focusing upon sexual assault when you have effectively stated you believe all subsidiary issues to be non-existent. My observation was not that the issue was not relevant at all to a discussion of feminism, but that within the context of the preceding comments it was somewhat random. At this point, that observation hardly matters.
Tsk, tsk, I don't think you read everything you say you do.
When did I ever make any claim to that effect? I certainly never said I closely read every word of every lengthy statistical report others throw at me searching for one specific statistic. My request was entirely reasonable if in fact you had found that statistic in the report you cited, yet notably you have failed to provide a page citation at all.
Note that the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (or simply NISVS) doesn't consider it rape when men are forced to have sex with women. [...] And here is why you think I've provided evidence to support your argument when it really still supports mine.
I had already accounted for the definitional misrepresentation in my observations. Reference Tables 2.1 & 2.2 and you find that both lifetime and 12 month prevalence rates for all types of sexual violence (accounting for the definitional issue) are higher for women than for men, and that it is especially statistically significant with respect to lifetime prevalence.
Somehow, the additional link you have provided concludes that prevalence is roughly equitable which the aforementioned tables indicate is not the case even in absolute numbers (women forced penetration = 14,617,000; men forced penetration & made to penetrate = 7,032,000). Even were this false claim accurate, the (rough) calculations of this article find only that the disparity between offender type (male and female) is smaller than the report indicates not that the disparity does not exist (in fact, the articles establishes a 40% differential which is still highly statistically significant).
What this report demonstrates is that the gap is not so large has been indicated, but it still proves both that women are more likely to be victims of sexual violence than are men and that men are more likely to be perpetrators than are women... and both to statistically significant degrees. So, actually, yes another one of your sources does disprove your claim.
For every anecdotal example you can find of a man-hating feminist, one could easily find a blatantly sexist MRM quote to cancel it out. Similarly, one could find quotes from legit equality minded feminists who don't wish to tear men down in order to assert their position in society. A quote pissing contest is not much of a debate.
How about we talk about what specifically bothers you about feminism? Do you not agree that there are some bad apples in every group of purveyors for social change?
My "quote pissing" was rather a list of feminist quotes proving a point, evidentiary support, if you will, of my argument.
I have conceded that there are feminists not so monstrous as the others, but as I said before, their list is quite shorter than the list of feminists with victim mentalities.
I feel as if both of you have seriously missed my entire point. Without even getting into the whole tired, drawn-out debate about their beliefs and misdeeds and hypocrisy, the original point I was trying to make with my headline was that if feminists really believed in equality of men and women, would it not make more sense to call themselves human rights activists rather than stick with, and attack people for, a label that singles out men and their rights and lifts up the rights of women as superior?
would it not make more sense to call themselves human rights activists
I think that makes plenty of sense, though I daresay they don't choose that particular vernacular because it dilutes their objectives. Feminists are probably unconcerned with labor union rights, or Native American marijuana growing rights, or appropriate eye care for the elderly rights. If the semantics are truly what bugs you about feminists, just pretend it's an acronym for:
Females Equal Males In Nifty, Inclusive, Social Territories
It's not the semantics that bothers me. There's no need for feminism in America. Women have the same rights as men. Imagine if masculinism popped up -- how pissed do you image women would be? Feminism would fare better in less socially developed countries. Here, it's just a nuisance.
Masculinism does exist, and rightly so. And it has pissed off some feminists; but there you go again generalizing... this time not only that all feminists are men haters but that all women are feminists.
I've proven already that one of the core principles of feminism is to oppose men (I'll assume you didn't read it). And not once did I say that "all women are feminists." I'm simply stating the obvious -- the feminist movement already insists that women have less rights than men, so were men to pursue masculinism, there would no doubt be an outpouring of feminist outrage.
Now. I'd like to respectfully request that you get another hobby. Following me around and commenting on every single thing I say makes you appear a bit desperate to prove something. ;)
I've proven already that one of the core principles of feminism is to oppose men (I'll assume you didn't read it)
I did read it, and I gave you an extensive explanation as to why you have not actually proven this claim. In short, selective quotations and asserting one sub-ideology as as the primary ideology are not actually evidence of prevalence. You can address that else where though if you find it redundant.
so were men to pursue masculinism, there would no doubt be an outpouring of feminist outrage.
Again, they have and there has been some such outpouring... but once more no actual proof that it has been widespread let alone categorical.
Now. I'd like to respectfully request that you get another hobby. Following me around and commenting on every single thing I say makes you appear a bit desperate to prove something. ;)
It is not special treatment. I do this anytime the forums are quiet... and it has been so quiet lately :( . I also have done it to people who post far more prolifically than you. I post a lot because this is how I unwind. If you ever do not want to respond to something, just say so.
If by both of us you mean to indicate myself, let me be clear that I have not missed your point. I addressed it directly in my own independent post which was in reply to the debate prompt. The exchange you have elected to focus upon was made in the context of your statement, and was intended to identify a perceived logical fallacy. You then replied at much greater length and the tangents ensued from thence.
If physicists really believed in the pursuit of knowledge, they'd call themselves scientists.
Oh, wait- they do. Physicists are scientists, with a specialization; similarly, the feminist motion is activism for human rights, but specialized out of necessity. "Equality" is simply far too broad in scope for activism to ultimately amount to anything.
Remember: no matter what trait or other metric is used to distinguish between two or more different subsets of a population, there is almost certain to be some form of statistical inequality between the two (or more) divided populations. In many cases, said inequality is severe enough (or at least, is perceived as severe enough) to warrant action.
If you started an "Equality for all" movement, I'm sure you could initially attract a flood of interested parties to contribute to said movement- until you actually tried to come up with a plan of action, only to find each individual party in favor of prioritizing one type of inequality or another, and your movement is ultimately paralyzed.
For activism to be functional requires that all involved be on the same page, or at least the same chapter- and like it or not, such requires specialization. A segmented movement can be more damaging to a cause than no movement at all, as can be seen with feminism. The issue with feminism is not that it's too narrow a term as this debate suggests- it has in fact become too broad of a term, and the actions of radfems and the like are damaging the overall stated cause of feminism because of it.