args

Humanism > Feminism

Excellent, thank you for accepting the debate. I agree with your definitions. Humanism is a social construct. It was crafted during the Renaissance as a social construct, a new one made following the medieval ages by the people post dark ages. Humanism only has its meaning because we gave it its meaning just like Feminism was given its meaning. Well, no, I don't believe that Feminism is the belief that women should dominate men. I agree with your definition of it absolutely. By the way, if the reader would like to know, I usually discuss paragraph by paragraph of the opponent, so that is how you can know the pattern. Nice and simple. Yes it was. There is a lot of debates out there as to this. I personally sit on the fence about this issue, and, as a humanist, I always say "Well hey, Humanism addresses the issues of both men and women economically. Why focus on one when we can focus on all groups plights? Females aren't the only discriminated ones, each and every group of people has their own discrimination they face. Why not help it all? Women aren't the only ones who are prejudiced against." Now this is an issue I kind of don't sit on the fence about. Yes, it is a stereotype of females that is and isn't followed depending on each individual person. But, for example, men are expected to be strong, emotionless, logical, physically competent, large, handsome and confident. African Americans are expected to be tall, athletic, ghetto, aggressive. Americans are seen as fat, lazy, prideful, greedy, stupid, always partying and being crude. Russians are seen as always drinking whiskey. You see, every group faces their own prejudices. A man that decides to wear more feminine articles of clothing is considered a tom-girl and thus un-masculine. Men have been essentially placed into a box of expectations- You see where I am getting at. You may think this doesn't have much to do with the debate, but it shows how it in fact is. I am saying that each and every group faces their own prejudices. Feminism covers one group. Humanism covers them all. Equality for all. By the way, I open doors for men and women equally. Does that make me a misogynist and a sexist at the same time? I feel it is rather tedious to use the same argument as my last paragraph, but men are met with similar expectations. You probably know the examples I am going to give out, the exact opposite of yours, so I won't much bother. In fact, as I read through this I believe you fail to acknowledge that men are met with several of their own expectations in regards to sexual activities. If you want examples feel free to ask. I agree that feminism is not women hating on men and trying to be dominant, I agree fully with your definition. The thing is, I believe that Humanism is simply better then Feminism. Also, may I mention that individuals still make up part of it. It may be a tumor to feminism metaphorically to you. So, if that is the case, then I would suggest then "Feminism as a whole" go and attempt to have some internal debates as well. Extreme feminists, as I mentioned seem to have no one objecting to their words within the system of Feminism. Also, have you ever met an extremist humanist? I sure haven't. A pleasure debating you, by the way,