args

Feminism is about equality.

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I hope it will be an enlightening and challenging one for both of us. Moving forward, I believe it to be prudent to address the issue of the definitions of “Feminism”. As it stands now, there are two separate definitions; as such, it will prove difficult for my opponent and myself to continue debating if we are using “Feminism” in differing contexts. Given this, I believe combining the definitions will allow this debate to be more insightful, enlightening, and challenging. The definition I propose is as follows: Feminism: organized activity, on behalf of women’s rights and issues, aimed at the political, social and economic equality of the sexes, or approval thereof. This definition does not include the intricacies of feminist theory, however, it does encompass the overall goal of Feminism, in that it strives to make men and women equals on all applicable fronts. The clause “approval thereof” allows for those who are not active, outspoken advocates in the feminist movement to be included in the definition, as they are, most likely, not against what other feminists strive to put into effect. The clause “organized activity” specifically references any attempts at making a tangible difference in the lives of women, from legal reform to organizations. From this point forward, I will use “Feminism” as it is defined above. In keeping with this definition, and considering the history of the women’s movement as a spectrum of activism, I will be referring to federal benefit laws, current domestic violence laws, as well as current rape laws. Federal Benefits In the US, certain federal benefits are derived from US citizenship. One key difference in women’s federal benefits and men’s federal benefits is the fact that men are required to sign up for Selective service in order to receive student financial aid or work federal jobs and receive federal job training. Even men who are not born in the US, and seek citizenship, if they are under 26 years of age, are required to sign up for selective service in order to receive citizenship. Any male 26 years of age or younger who has not registered is liable to be tried and convicted of a felony offense. Convicted felons in 11 states permanently lose their voting rights. As it stands, I have found no evidence of attempts by those who would be described as feminists towards advocating for this to be changed. As this is indicative of inequality between the sexes, it follows that it should a feminist issue. Assuming a man does not sign up for Selective Service, and does lose the aforementioned federal benefits of citizenship, he is liable to lose federal aid in his push for a college education, should he want one. This is an economic inequity, based solely upon the fact that he did not sign up for the draft. If feminism is to be about equality, this is something that must be worked on, at least to some degree. Advocating for women’s right to vote, as the Suffragettes did, but not ensuring that right came with a compulsory obligation, shows a willingness to promote inequality, which is in direct contradiction of the definition of feminism stated above. Source for the above: https://www.sss.gov... http://felonvoting.procon.org... Domestic Violence And Rape Laws The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is based upon the Duluth Model, which suggests that domestic violence (DV) is a tool used by men to exert control over their spouse. This act changed intimate partner violence into a sexually directional offense, making it more likely that a man will be arrested for retaliating to his spouse’s abuse than his spouse being arrested for abusing him. While the VAWA does ensure that female victims of DV are protected, it has the negative consequence of preventing the protection of male victims. In this instance, a women’s right to equal and fair treatment under the law is not being applied. In keeping with the above definition of Feminism, and what “equality” would entail in this instance, a male abuser and female abuser would be held to the same standard. This would be a major piece of what feminism should take into account. While this may advocate for women’s interests, avoiding domestic violence, it does not provide equality for the sexes. Rather, in this instance, it shifts the balance of power in such a way that, even if he retaliates, a man is more likely to be arrested that a woman, in keeping with the Duluth Model. Ideally, advocating for women’s rights and interests would entail pushing for recognition under the law as a fully capable citizen, meaning a female abuser is recognized as an abuser, as much as a male victim is recognized as a victim. A program that holds women in “victim” status dehumanizes them because it makes the assumption that not only is abuse sexually direction, but also that women are wholly incapable of abuse, and solely capable of self-defense. As it stands, women are recognized as capable of the “positive” human characteristics (leadership, strength, intellect, compassion, etc.) but not recognized as capable of the “negative” human characteristics (aggression, ferocity, etc.) under the law. Whereas a man can be charged with sexual harassment for speaking inappropriately, a woman cannot be charged with rape, even after drugging and forcing a man to engage in sexual intercourse with her. While the dictionary definition of rape entails non-consensual intercourse, the legal definition entails penetration, making it impossible for a woman to rape a man through vaginal intercourse, regardless of his ability to consent to intercourse. Bringing alcohol, or other mind altering substances, adjusts the ability of an individual to consent. However, it is current law that if a drunk man has sex with a drunk woman, he can be charged with rape, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the encounter. If she initiates intercourse with him, it can be considered rape. Both individuals are drunk, both incapable of consent, and yet he can be charged with rape. There have been no pushes to change this. In fact, VAWA is the main reason the current situation exists. VAWA is the epitome of feminist legislation. “Women” is part of the title, so that suggest that these things are Women’s issues. Once again, there is the issue of equal recognition under law, the “equality of the sexes” is being adjusted by “organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests”. Even beyond this, it would be an intelligent inference to believe that being recognized as a full human, capable of good AND evil, is a part of feminism. http://www.theduluthmodel.org... http://www.whitehouse.gov... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.justice.gov... http://online.wsj.com... Conclusion Given the current status of United State laws, and considering the focuses that should be core to feminism, I assert that feminism is not about equality. From the definition above, we can infer that any person who approves of, or supports what feminism stands for is to be considered a feminist. From that, we can further infer that any acts committed and laws created by those people would be a feminist acts and laws. Given the definition of feminism that I constructed from the two definitions provided by Merriam-webster.com, I would further assert that putting the ideology of feminism into action results in a direct contradiction of its definition. As such the “organized activity” on behalf of women’s rights and interests directly ends in further inequality of the sexes, in the social and political arenas. I look forward to reading and learning from my opponents Opening Statement.