Feminism is not sexist.
I greatly appreciate your commitment to this debate. My opponent's argument stem from
a simple understanding of the definition; each contention presented by PRO holds to
the definition provided, rather than how it is applied in the real world. However,
one very important thing that PRO excludes from each of these contentions is the phrase
"of women's rights". The reason this is an important phrase is because it leads to
some interesting assumptions posited by feminists and pro-feminists. I shall look
at PRO's contentions through a lens where I apply the entire definition of Feminism
to various acts. PRO argues that feminism does not support stereotypes. In Round 2,
I mention the VAWA, which is a law that was put in place to protect women from violence.
The result of this act, however, is much more than simply protecting abused women.
While I agree that all abused persons should have legal protection under the law,
I do not agree with the model used to construct the VAWA. As aforementioned, the Duluth
Model posits the idea that domestic violence is used to control the abused. The Duluth
Model website, which supports the VAWA, is written in such a way that men are the
batterers and women the battered. Even if we do assume that women are the most frequently
abused, does this justify the "Primary Aggressor" laws that are in place? I would
argue no. Men are (supposedly) the ones who will use violence to control their partner
[1]. This does not justify the assumptions often made that women are acting in self-defense
when they hit their partners. Although women are physically weaker than men, this
does not mean that they can not abuse. This is stereotyping. It is a widely held,
and fixed, belief about the type of person who will commit certain acts. Also, given that this is advocacy on behalf of women's rights (particularly protection
under the law), it fulfills our definition of feminism. On top of this, as this law focuses primarily on female victims and male perpetrators,
to the exclusion of male victims and female perpetrators, it is also discriminatory.
PRO also tries to argue that most stereotypes are directed at women. The website provided
specifically mentions professional women, and the stereotypes directed towards them.
This does not justify the statement that stereotypes target women specifically. PRO
also argues that feminism is the key to eliminating stereotypes. I am not convinced. Even basic stereotypes
against women carry a corollary stereotype against men. Even on the website provided
by PRO, Feloni states that "[professional women] are expected to have kids and quit
their jobs". Unless I am mistaken, children take two parents usually. If this is the
case, and said professional women quits, it falls to the man to pick up the slack
that her exit from the job market caused. As such, the stereotype, or rather role,
that falls on men is that they will work to ensure this decision is financed. Traditionally,
it has been women's role to be caretakers, and men's role to be a provider. Such a
thing is what we consider gender roles. While it is argued that women had the shorter
end of the stick, a large part of the negatives for men are neglected. I will not
go into this, however, it is noteworthy here to reiterate such things as rape laws.
Rape requires penetration. Again, male victims of female perpetrators are neglected.
If rape were defined as simply "non-consensual sexual intercourse" men and women would
be "equal". However, there has not been this change, and I am unaware of any attempts
by feminists to change this. While the lack of evidence is not evidence of absence,
it is puzzling to say the least. Shouldn't women be as legally culpable as men? Feminism, as a movement focused on "equality" should try to ensure this is the case, however,
it does not, and instead feminists like Mary Koss present statistics on the instances
of male-on-female rape, arguing that "..it is inappropriate to consider as a rape
victim a man who engages in unwanted intercourse with a woman", without providing
any reason as to why. Incidentally, Mary Koss is the feminist who presented us with
the "1 in 4" rape statistic. Now, unless I am mistaken, all of these things can be
considered (1) prejudice, (2) discrimination, and (3) stereotyping. In the action
of advocating for women's rights, Feminism promotes sexism against men and women. Not only are men perpetually placed in the
perpetrator position, women are vicariously victimized, even when they are not the
victims. PRO's arguments fail to account for the actions of Feminism. Rather, PRO argues through the definition, using the "equality of the sexes" as
a pivotal piece of argumentation. While this is admirable, it does not survive critical
examination, mainly because the first few words (advocacy [or support thereof] of
women's rights) are not taken into account. PRO does not do this, but rather discusses
the act of advocacy in and of itself. Feminism advocates (specifically) for the rights of women. There are some sects that advocate
for more, or even different, but the prime mover within feminist theory and advocacy
is, at a minimum, the support of advocacy on behalf of women's rights. I look forward
to PRO's rebuttals. [1] http://www.abuseandrelationships.org... [2] http://criminal.findlaw.com...
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
