args

Feminism is not sexist.

I would like to thank my opponent for their rebuttals. Issue with the Definition? To begin, I shall address my issue with PRO's use of the definition of Feminism; I made no accusations, I simply pointed out a fact. As mentioned in my Rebuttals, I made the point that PRO has neglected the first clause of the definition. This clause is crucial to my arguments as to why Feminism is sexist. "Advocacy [or support thereof] of women's rights" (emphasis added). PRO does not take this into account. The reason why this is crucial to my arguments, and truly this whole debate, is that it leads to the support of laws that are made to support women's rights. Such things as protection under the law and voting are some rights that can be, and have been, advocated for. As such, they fall into the realm of "feminism", and if the grounds for feminism is equal rights, then it should not be the case that A) primary aggressor laws disporportionately affect men, and B) that women are not subject to compulsory public service, as men are, in order to gain the right to vote. My opponent effectively drops this argument, instead relying upon the second clause "on the grounds of the equality of the sexes". Why is this problematic? It takes away the fact that it is the advocacy of women's rights that Feminists advocate for, per the definition. It is not the fact that PRO uses the definition that is an issue, it is the fact that PRO fails to utilize the entire definition. PRO argues that advocating for policy X is not sexist, but neglects the grounds upon which those laws were put in place. I mentioned these in my arguments, and PRO does not address them. I agree that we are addressing the IDEA of feminism, however, rather than argue that the focus of Feminism on women's rights specifically is sexist, i chose to argue that the laws that are supported in order to give women equal rights in America is sexist. This would be similar to stating that "Christianity is homophobic." While there are some Christians who are not so, the dominant nature of Christianity, as a religion, as an IDEA, is against homosexual activity. The Christian Bible calls such things "abominations" [2]. If we are to take Christianity at face value, and look solely at what the religion, or belief if you prefer, puts out, through the documents that are in support of it, or supported by it. PRO's Analogy Pro's analogy seems very weak to me. To compare Atheism, an ideology based on disbelief or lack of belief, to Feminism, an ideology based on advocacy (or support thereof) of rights, does not create a strong analogy. This would be similar to comparing the Civil Rights Movement (henceforth CRM) to Atheism. The basis of the CRM was to give African-Americans various rights that they previously did not have, but that "whites" at the time did. Atheism, being an ideology based on lack of belief, or disbelief, does not compare in a strong way. What do atheists advocate for that is definitive of atheism? What advocacy do atheists support that is definitive of atheism? Perhaps the only thing that could be argued here, in relation to advocacy, would be a removal of religion from major institutions. This might be considered advocacy on behalf of rights, insofar as freedom of (and from) religion is concerned. However, this is not a crucial part of the atheist position. Some atheists may be opposed to this idea, and might prefer religion to be permitted everywhere, as this is freedom of religion. None of this is crucial to the position. Again, PRO is, whether on purpose or accidentally, neglecting the first clause of the definition, which specifically states that feminists, in any strain imaginable, at the very least support the advocacy of women's rights. PRO's analogy does not display a connection between feminism and atheism. PRO then provides us with a straw-man of my argument. Support of laws based upon advocacy of women's rights and violence based on atheism are not comparable, specifically because violence is not an intergral part of the atheist position. We could not argue that Christianity, as a religion, supports same-sex marriage because some Christians support it. That is not an intergral part of Christian Theology, however, we could argue that Christianity is homophobic, or at least discriminatory against homosexual persons. For this analogy to be strong, it would have to compare such things as Abolitionism and the CRM to Feminism, as such things have advocacy and action as key components of the ideology. PRO's Rebuttals PRO tries rebuts my arguments by attempting to argue that since Feminism does not support the VAWA, it cannot be sexist. If the VAWA specifically targets men as the perpatrators of domestic violence and makes women the victims, it becomes biased. As such, given that it is biased against men, and toward women, it is sexist. PRO states that they would have to do more research to determine this, however, I have provided sources for this assertion. PRO says that "[The VAWA] is absolutely irrelavent to the topic of this debate..." Feminism is indeed not the "support of the VAWA", however, feminism is the support of women's rights, and the VAWA is supposed to be a law, or policy, that intends to ensure that women's rights are protected, or rather, ensured. PRO also drops my points regarding sexual violence. In relation to the Draft and Selective service, again, my opponent brings up Atheism. "...is atheism sexist?" Once again, my opponent conflates belief and action. Atheism is an ideology based on though, Feminism is an ideology based on action or support thereof. I did not argue that feminism was sexist for allowing the law to come into place, as the law was already in place, what I am arguing is that the "right to vote" is unfairly granted to women, essentially free of charge, whereas a man can have this right revoked due to failure to sign up for Selective Service. The argument is not for prevention of the law, the argument is against misapplication of rights. If atheists were to advocate for special spaces, wherein they could discuss science and philosophy with free-of-charge food given to them by the government, but Christians were not given free-of-charge food by the government, this would be discrimination. Another example: If I am in a store and purchase a $1 product, then pay $1.10 for it, I would assume we had a 10% sales tax. If the person behind me buys the exact same product, but only pays $1.01, there is something going on. If I ask the cashier why the other individual only had to pay 1% in sales tax, and I am told that the 10% sales tax only applies to men, and the other person was a woman, that would be discrimination, as the sole reason this individual had to pay the 1% sales tax is that they are a woman, and I am a man. The same applies to the Draft, Selctive Service, and even sexual violence laws. PRO's remaining arguments are either qoute-mined, or carry no support, and shall not be addressed. I have no CX Question for my opponent. [1] http://www.scholastic.com...; [2] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...