args

Feminism in Today's Society

Thanks, Phuzzie. Con's argument is essentially this: given that mainstream Feminism has been supplanted by female supremacy ideology, is Feminism worthy of political endorsement? The question is moot because Con's core assumption is entirely unsupported. Con's sole evidence in round 1 is anecdotal: specifically and exclusively,, Con's personal survey of news and social media. In an era when media is customized to gauge and quantify political perspective and to satisfy individual presumptions rather than challenging with objective assessment, such anecdotal evidence is subject to distortion if not outright manipulation. Against Con's single anecdote I will apply my own. I attended January's Women's March and keep in my acquaintance mostly Feminists, ranging from ordinary egalitarianists to radical anti-patriarchalists, with no experience of the supremacist ideology Con invokes. To the extent that one personal experience is not preferable on first impression to another, Con's anecdote is negated by contradictory evidence. To make the case, Con must show that supremacist ideology is the majority position within To the extent that one personal experience is not preferable on first impression to another, Con's anecdote is negated by contradictory evidence. To make the case, Con must show that supremacist ideology is the majority position within Feminism. It won't be enough to simply supply radical essays, Con must demonstrate that Feminist leadership endorses supremacy with popular support. Con must demonstrate that women politicians publicly support supremacist legislation without reproach from the majoritarian Feminist community. As far as I can tell, feminist supremacy ideology was never more than an extremist, minority position, reaching its high-water mark in the 1970's, mostly in French-speaking countries, and with little appreciable influence on Feminist activism then or now. Let's distinguish female supremacy from the notion that women, comprising the majority of the population and the electorate, ought to enjoy majority representation in elected offices or business leadership. Majority rule is just Democracy and need not imply superior civil rights or the disenfranchisement of the male minority. Let's also distinguish female supremacy from female separatism, the notion that women ought to only be governed by women or that some elements of the franchise ought to be exclusive to women. As radical and antiegalitarian as any segregationist movement, they don't necessarily imply supremacy, the subjugation of men to women's interests. I support today's Feminist movement and find Con's caricature of modern Feminism less than believable hyperbole. I look forward to Con's evidence based refutation in the second round.