CreateDebate


Debate Info

12
28
Agreed. Disagree.
Debate Score:40
Arguments:24
Total Votes:43
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Agreed. (6)
 
 Disagree. (11)

Debate Creator

corpse(49) pic



If feminists really believed in equality, they'd call themselves human rights activists.

Agreed.

Side Score: 12
VS.

Disagree.

Side Score: 28
3 points

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.

Side: Agreed.
5 points

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.

Side: Disagree.
Stickers(1037) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: Agreed.
Jace(5222) Clarified
1 point

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.

Side: Agreed.
3 points

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.

Side: Disagree.
corpse(49) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: Agreed.
Jace(5222) Disputed
3 points

That some feminists express anti-male sentiment does not mean that all feminists, or even most of them, must also share those sentiments.

Side: Disagree.
HandymanBran(2) Disputed
3 points

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?

Side: Disagree.

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.

Side: Disagree.

The two phrases are not mutually exclusive.

Side: Disagree.
1 point

I disagree only with this statement (I don't like feminists as a group). The label is irresponsive of their actual beliefs.

Side: Disagree.