args

Feminism is and has achieved equality. 3rd wave feminism is oppressive.

Your dictionary definition of "feminism" is a limited definition. There are different ideas within feminism (different ideas of what "equality" means and different ideas of what "women" mean). Feminism can't be defined so simply. You misunderstand my point about Christianity. It was to illustrate my point. A title like "feminism" or "Christianity" can be an umbrella title for different views. No one would say "All Christians believe the Eucharist IS the body and blood of Christ" because each denomination has different beliefs and practices. Similarly, not all feminists believe the same things. Why are we now talking about the Western world? That wasn't in the question. Even when limiting it to the Western world, feminism hasn't achieved its aims. It may have achieved a FEW aims, but not all. So you think all Catholics are paedophiles and all Muslims are terrorists because of a few? That's clearly wrong. Similarly, not all TWFs are oppressive. A few might be, but the majority are not. (I have given you facts. You chose to ignore them.) You're aware that your buzzfeed article actually argues that the wage gap IS a problem? Did you even read it? It also highlights how black and Hispanic women get an even worse deal. Black women earn 64%, Hispanic/Latina women earn 54% of that of a man. Download this and look at page two in particular: http://www.iwpr.org... Regarding your YouTube videos: Again, these are one person. Generalisation is a fallacy. You wouldn't say all Americans are black because Barack Obama is black. Besides, the first video's been taken out of context. She tried to argue against a group of Christians being anti-gay at a gay pride march. Your videos don't actually support your point. That's not what gender neutrality is. Gender neutrality is the idea that policies, language and other social institutions should avoid distinguishing roles because of someone's sex or gender. ( https://en.wikipedia.org... ). It's got nothing to do with insensitivity. Why should a woman HAVE to stay at home/man be the worker? If you're against gender neutrality, that's what you're arguing. It's about not having to abide by certain gendered stereotypes. I'm male but I shouldn't HAVE to be attracted to females. I shouldn't HAVE to pay for the meal if I go out with my wife. Gender neutrality says no gender should have to act in any certain, specified, gendered way. Everyone should be free to be able to act how they like. No one should have any pre-determined rules for how to act. Same-sex marriage is an example of gender neutrality. Marriage shouldn't limit husbands and wives according to gender. If I acted feminine people would tell me to "man up". If a woman acted manly people would call her a "dyke". Under gender neutrality men can be sensitive and feminine while women can be insensitive and masculine. At the same time, a woman can be feminine/a man can be masculine. It"s your choice to be who you want to be. TWF doesn't consign anyone to any gender norms. It DOESN'T say men HAVE to be feminine/women HAVE to be masculine. Your link to tumblr merely shows how people understand little about feminism or how much feminism has achieved. In fact, some of them may agree with TWF and not know it. The point is that feminism HASN'T achieved everything it wants to achieve. Saying "he" or "she" isn't offensive. It IS wrong to use the masculine "he" as a way of referring to gender neutral things. E.G.: "The population of the US consume a lot of BBQ. On average, he prefers Texas BBQ to Carolina BBQ." The use of "he" here is wrong; it should rather be "they". The use of gendered pronouns for non-gendered things is another thing TWF challenges. There IS evidence to support feminist claims, unlike the Loch Ness Monster. There IS a pay gap. See the above links. Look at your own links. Gendered pay gaps exist. ("Feminism" was coined around the 1830s by Charles Fourier. So the development of feminism under the name of feminism has been since then.) There's been plenty of real privileges men have received over women. One e.g: The Representation of the People's Act 1918 allowed men over 21 and women over 30 to vote. That's a 9 year male privilege. The pay gap is another. Husbands were legally allowed to rape their wives until 1991 in the UK. That's a male privilege. Women couldn't serve on submarines in the US until 2010. That's a long time that men have had a privilege over women. Between 1994 and 2013 women in the US military couldn't see combat. Again, another male privilege. Women can only get an abortion in Ireland under VERY strict rules. These aren't distant history, either. These are lots of real examples that prove that men have had a real privilege over women. If that is what you're debating about, this may as well be the end of the debate. These are only Western countries. How about countries where women can't legally drive/are abused and sent death threats for driving? (see Sara Bahai). Or FGM? Arranged marriages? Breast ironing? Acid throwing in South Asia? Kofi Annan (previous Secretary General of the UN) said 1 out of 3 women in the world have been "beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused". These are areas where feminism CLEARLY hasn't achieved its aims. It's trying to. TWF is about removing the double standard. It's about being free to make choices without being socially stigmatised for it. At the moment, you seem to be ignoring facts. What facts do you want if not from the last 40 years? TWF is a modern thing. It's not interchangeable with feminism generally. YOUR question asks about Third Wave Feminism. You wrote it. Stick to it. Women weren't suddenly oppressed after they got the pill. They have been oppressed throughout history. Until mid 1800s, it was UK law that a woman who owned land had to surrender it to her husband if she got married. These are problems that have blighted women across the history. Women couldn't hold public office until fairly recently in the UK meaning that at no point in the past 1000 years could women hold public office. Women couldn't be priests 1000 years ago and they're still not allowed to be priests in many denominations. I've told you some areas that TWF are asking for, like reproductive rights - e.g. the right to have an abortion. Plenty of places don't have that right (e.g. most African countries). I've given you lots of examples that TWF still has a long way to go. TWF is not only focusing on women and their liberation. TWF is trying to get liberation for all. For example, TWF wants to liberate feminine men who feel ashamed of being feminine. Society tells men they must be masculine. Rather, TWF wants a feminine man to feel comfortable being feminine. Similarly, TWF wants men to be comfortable being masculine if they CHOOSE to be so. Same for LGBT. TWF wants people to be true to themselves and not have to conform to societal norms, such as gender norms and gender stereotypes. It's about autonomy for individuals, which at the moment society doesn't give us. Society doesn't allow us to be who we truly are because society perpetuates a stereotype of the ideal man or woman. Men MUST be a "tough guy", must be masculine. Women MUST be feminine, wear make-up and shave their legs. Why? Because society says so. Just because there's no legislation telling women to shave their legs doesn't mean women aren't free not to. Just because there's no law telling me to do something, doesn't mean I'm free to do it. Society has its own norms and regulations. Sometimes people have internalised such norms to the point that they regulate themselves (for further discussion, read Sandra Bartky's "Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power"). Feminism - particularly TWF - has not achieved all its aims. THAT'S why feminism still exists. There are different problems that different feminist movements focus on.