args

Third-wave feminism is about misandry and has nothing to do with gender equality

Sure equal opportunity is part of feminism. But so is equal treatment. If a woman performs the exact same amount of work as man it should follow that she gets the same pay. I cannot see any way you could logically justify the opposite. As to affirmative action, I find those just as un-feministic as the wage gap. 2 & 3. I was a bit unclear in this specific part of my argument. A woman is physically unable to work for maybe 2-3 months due to pregnancies and the immediate post-pregnancy, maybe a bit longer if the baby refuses breast milk from a bottle. After that she is perfectly capable of working again. And yes, during those 2-3 months it would be irresponsible for a husband/boyfriend/father to quit their job. It is what comes afterwards that bothers feminists. As a child is a result of two people the taking care of that child should be split equally. But sadly it is not. Just like the link you posted in the first round women spend twice as much time caring for children than men. And it is not only childcare, housewives are in general is so much more common than househusbands. It shouldn't be culturally acceptable for people of one gender to be the sole income earner just because they are of that gender. Also, I am not 100% certain of how thing work in the US, but I have heard that women only get like 2-3 weeks of maternity leave and therefore have to use their vacation time to be able to cope. Which I assume would then go into your statistics. 4. Communism has many faults, but gender equality is not one of them. When it comes to gender equality I'd say the Soviets kicked US's asss all through the cold war. When it comes to education and work gender didn't really matter for the Soviets because it was the citizens patriotic duty to do their part for the motherland. So when the commies rolled in three things they made sure everyone had was a job, healthcare and education. My mother was born in communist Czechoslovakia so I have a first hand source on this. Also, the link you posted agrees with me and it says nothing about the supposed sexist and oppressive nature of the Soviet Union that you claim. As to the women having brains wired in a different way, this is the most sexist thing I think I've heard all year and isn't true in anyway. Women choose arts and humanities because society says so. If you go all your life hearing that women aren't good at math and science and stuff you're obviously not gonna pick it when you eventually get the choice. And as I quite clearly stated, feminism isn't forcing companies to hire women, companies want women but can't get them because their is a serious lack of them on the labour market. Things that are rare usually becomes sought after. Want to fix the problem? Push your daughter to become an engineer. Make sure that in the future, applicants for jobs are 50/50 men and women. 5. That source you posted about women getting more doctorates is laughable. I will not take a source which literally says "Silly me, you can't be sexist against men" as credible when it comes to an argument about feminism. I can't give you any other proof of women getting less masters and doctorate than my own personal experience. I study at Sweden's largest university (Lund University if you want to google it) to become an engineer. I can tell you that on the engineering campus only about 30% of the students here are women. My friends who study physics and chemistry tell me it's just as bad for them. Medicine and biology do the best, with almost 50%. Please tell me how it is possible that women gain more masters and doctorates when they are quite clearly a minority? 6. I've covered this twice now and I don't want to repeat myself again. 7. Why would I want to prove that? It sounds like a load of cr*p. It has nothing to do with this discussion. 8. Yes, they all earned their wealth. And no one is saying anything about protesting or forcing their way into successful corporations. But if feminism is about equal opportunity as you yourself said in the first point, why then is the list made up of a majority of men. If men and women truly had equal opportunities then that list would be 50/50. If you disagree to that you must believe that one gender is superior to the other, which would make you sexist. As to the majority of men being low income workers, you did not give me any source about it and I couldn't find a reliable one that either confirms or denies that point. 9. How is it a woman's choice if her boss decides to give her 5% less hourly wages than her male counterpart? It's the boss' choice. 10. I don't want to waste characters to refute these because we are getting a bit off topic. But, my point was, which you apparently agree with judging by you last sentence, that "Ideology is ideology, regardless of practice" (very nicely put btw). Just because a person claims to be feminist does not make all their actions feminist. Neither does the feminist ideals of gender equality change because the word is being misused by "feminists". 11. You throw together a lot of metaphors and it eventually ends with a statistically incorrect statement. If half the population (men) and half the population (women) were equal, their wages would be to. That's how statistics work. Once again my opponent closes with pretty much the same finisher as last time. Just because you have met some crazy sexist women who claims to be feminist doesn't alter feminism. You are confusing individuals with a movement that has a very clear definition and an even clearer set of goals. And judging by some of the arguments you have made you are very clearly not an egalitarian (for example the women having brains wired differently argument). This however does not change the definition of egalitarianism, because you are only one person who missuses the word. But following by your logic, egalitarianism now should include some misogyni, because you as a follower of the movement have strayed from its core ideal