Feminism is not sexist.
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting. Good luck to you PRO. Here is a revised
version of my syllogism, with the word "this" removed and replaced with the phrase
to which it refers: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Any movement which actively supports bias towards, or against, a single group within
the Legal, Social, and Political arenas. is discriminatory. 2. Any movement that [actively
supports bias towards, or against, a single group within the Legal, Social, and Political
arenas] on the basis of gender is sexist. 3. Feminism does [actively supports bias
towards, or against, a single group within the Legal, Social, and Political arenas
on the basis of gender.] C. Therefore, Feminism is sexist. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I say "actively supports bias...", I am explicitly referring to the support of
laws and treatments that place on group at a disadvantage when compared to another.
In this debate, men are my primary reference group. In the definitions provided in
Round 1, a very critical word is "grounds", which can be considered the justification
for belief in something. In this instance, that would be the belief in the advocacy
of women's rights. The goal in mind is the equality of the sexes, and Feminists (those
who agree with and support the tenants of Feminism) see advocacy of women's rights as the means to the ends. For this debate, I shall
be looking at such things as Selective service, and those things that come with it,
Domestic Violence, and the way feminist theory views it, and Sexual Violence. I understand
that this is Feminist Theory, and may not be characteristic of the beliefs of all
feminists, but these are the tenants used to justify Feminist Advocacy. Selective
Service and the Draft While we cannot blame Feminists for the existence of the Draft
and Selective Service, in any of its worldly interations, we can argue that feminism has allowed the Draft and Selective Service to specifically effect men. At least
in the United States, men are, by law, required to sign up for Selective Service in
order to gain access to voting and federal aid [1]. Not signing up for Selective Service
is a felony, and can actually result in a male losing his right to vote. This seems
to me to be an issue that Feminism should address, on grounds of the equality of the sexes, however, feminists at large
choose not to protest male-only Selctive Service and Conscription. Two options exist: Either A) support compulsory public service for women, or B) Support
the abolishment of Selective Service. Since it's inception in the late 19th century, Feminsm as a social movement has chosen
to do neither. This is to choose to support an inequity between the sexes, and given
that this is support of a law that affects men only, this is to also choose to support
a bias against men. Why do I bring up the Draft and Selective Service? I bring it
up because Feminism is supposedly a movement to support gender equality, but it chooses to only support
those things that benefit women (voting), over those things that would harm them (compulsory
public service). While i would not suggest women should be conscripted when the need
arises, I am arguing that there should be a similar system by which women must buy
their right to vote. Domestic Violence, Rape Law and the Duluth Model 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. Such things should be recognized as sexist. In each of these examples, women are
being granted rights and protections that are not afforded to men, and sometimes even
taking away rights and protections that should be afforded them. This creates bias
against men, and for women, based solely upon thier gender, which leads me to believe
that, per the definitions provided, Feminism is sexist. I look forward to PRO's responses. [1] https://www.sss.gov... [2]nhttp://www.theduluthmodel.org...... [3] ttp://www.whitehouse.gov...... [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...... [5] http://www.justice.gov......
[6] http://online.wsj.com...... [7] http://www.debate.org...
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
