args

Feminism! Hooray!

Thanks for accepting Cartidge, and welcome to the site! I'm glad we can come to a consensus that we both support equality, in regards to opportunity and treatment. ~ I guess I might as well quickly explain why I believe feminism is outdated and unnecessary before jumping into refuting your arguments. Now don't get me wrong, at a time feminism (or some type of equality movement geared toward granting women and men equal rights in the workforce, government, education, etc.) was necessary, much like most equality movements. At a time, the only people able to vote were white, male, property owners [1]. Different equality movements and groups formed over the centuries which in turn granted equal rights to everybody. Now this in itself is great, I don't have anything wrong with that. However look at North America now. Anyone (men and women) over 18 (or 21) can vote. Anyone (men and women) can apply for any job. Anyone (men and women) can attend any schooling. Anyone (men and women) can expect equal pay, with laws prohibiting lesser than equal pay if sexism or any type of discrimination is present. Anyone (men and women) can achieve anything they want if they earn it and fight for it. So why do feminists feel the need to ask for more "rights?" ...Well, I don't know. And to be honest I don't think a whole lot really know they're trying to gain superiority over men. However looking at the statistics, women and men have equal opportunities in practically everything. Both sexes excel in their own fields, and both have their pros and cons, leading to some college/university courses consisting of mainly one sex over the other, or some jobs/careers consisting of mainly one sex over the other. I see you brought up the infamous $.77 figure, so I'm excited to jump into that when the time comes. But for now, what do I think feminism is? It's nothing more than an outdated, unnecessary movement which has now "unknowingly" morphed into a female superiority regime. And that's what I'm against, not equal treatment of the sexes. Now let's see what you've brought up. 1. Gains have been made. Plenty. Enough where I can say we're treated equally. Some people (people) are biased, sexist, bigoted, disrespectful, etc. But that does not mean society as a whole is against women (considering there are plenty of sexist feminists), and it does not mean we need a group of social justice warriors fighting for peace, as that's utterly unrealistic. 2. For a claim like this to be made, we would need evidence of a backward-moving social justice system. I only see us moving forward or standing still, I haven't seen any sort of recession in the two decades I've been alive, and from research I've done, I haven't seen any since some time before that. And considering the vast amount of people completely against the feminist movement, don't you think it would be rather easy to just ignore feminism and move backward to a society where women aren't treated as equal to men if we really wanted to? The fact of the matter is we don't want that - because there is no patriarchy, there is no huge group of men wanting to push our society back to the 19th century - women are treated as equal to men and are given equal opportunity, and that won't change any time soon. So we don't need a feminist movement to ensure it doesn't. ----- Now in my first round I did mention modern feminism, so I do agree with you that feminism/equality movements have done lots of good in the past, so we can agree to agree on that. However I will address the infamous pay gap and gendered hierarchy in the workforce. "Pay Gap" So I'll just flat out say the 77% figure is... well, not worded correctly. Although it is true that women (as a whole) earn 77% as much as men, this is not due to workplace discrimination/sexism, and the 77% figure is nothing more than an incorrect assumption [2] [3] [4]. My fourth link, as you can see, gives some really good reasoning as to why men make more than women in general (notice I didn't say per specific job title, as that isn't the case.) Personal choice, anyone? It always makes me laugh when a feminist claims women don't make as much as men and women don't have jobs in high paying professions as much as men, like Law or Medicine, and when I ask why she doesn't want to she says she isn't interested in a position like that. ...Soooooooo you can have a preference as to what job you want, but other women can't? I would consider that quite... well I don't even know the right word. Hypocritical, maybe? Either way, it's detrimental to women, yes, feminism is detrimental to women as well as men. It sets unrealistic expectations and feminists claiming women aren't doing as well, or can't do as well,as men (when they really are, or can be, yet just chose to do well in other areas) is more than detrimental to society as a whole. Women and feminists are focusing on something that they misinterpreted. There is "equal pay day" [5], other government-approved organizations as well as non-profit and profitable groups that advocate and spend time organizing events for "equal pay," something we already have. Laws have been passed that make it illegal to pay someone less than another for discriminatory reasons, which I'm all for, but right off the bat we see that it's illegal to pay women less than men for the same work. And if employers actually paid women 77 cents to the dollar, wouldn't it be smart to hire a whole bunch of women? They'd save so much money having a mostly female staff. But the fact of the matter is they wouldn't, as the pay gap doesn't exist in the way feminists want it to. Considering I've used up 60% of my characters and I haven't addressed more than one point... I'd say it's safe to pass off the fact that more men make up academic medical positions much more than women because women tend to enter different career paths with an education such as this. We also have to take into account that employers don't only look at education when hiring someone for a position. Well Dave went to school and graduated with the same GPA as Sarah, but Dave volunteered elsewhere and dedicated more of his time to extracurricular activities that follow a medical path, such as taking night courses or having jobs at universities or even hospitals. The thing about statistics like this is that it only addresses one aspect, and ignores every other factor. Bad human behavior Domestic violence is a serious issue, but I don't feel a feminist movement is what's needed. Considering three million men are victims of domestic violence a year and four million women are, the margin is not a very big one, and a movement dedicated to helping women is selfish and (shall I say) sexist. Women being victims of one type of violence more than men does not require a movement helping women, it requires a movement helping victims in general of domestic violence. And this is another reason feminism is detrimental to society - it is mainly geared toward women for issues that affect both men and women. As beneficial as it once was, creating countless women's shelters with next to zero men's shelters, as well as funding for breast cancer and other women-related-hardships, while men are affected with their own hardships almost just as much is ridiculous and does exactly what the movement is fighting against - separation and segregation of the sexes. Gender Roles So back in the day... men hunted (or worked) as women were physically unfit to hunt animals, so the women stayed at home and took care of the children. Obviously we've abolished this mindset for the most part, however some men and women still sort of live by it. But I have one question - what's wrong with it? If a woman wishes to stay at home and take care of the kid and make food and clean and do what you consider "falling into a gender stereotype," then... why don't you let her? One more reason feminism is detrimental, it pushes women (and sometimes men) to do things they don't want. My Dad was able to take eight years off work to raise me while my Mom worked, and nobody cared at all. Nobody is forcing women to stay at home. Nobody is forcing men to be the "primary breadwinners." Nobody is forcing anything. Stereotypes exist for everyone. Feminism addressing ONE stereotype and trying to "fix" it (while it isn't broken, once again it's the woman and man's choice as to who works and stays at home) is not the right approach and is doing more harm than good. I've witnessed women complain that people are telling them they should get back to work after birthing a child and raising it somewhat, and allowing the man to take care of the kid, because of these "counter-stereotype" missions feminists are going on. Feminism is imposing itself on so many people's lives simply because the feminists don't agree with their choices. And yeah, emphasis on choices. Nobody is forcing women to do anything. I agree with abortion and I believe abortion should be legal no matter what the case. However this isn't a feminist issue, as the cause behind banning abortion is usually a religious one, or an actual logical one, ie. nothing to do with blatantly denying the mother the rights to her own body. Conclusion Feminism has made some strong steps forward, enough to say men and women are treated as equal. If a group of people excel in an area over another group, this is not sexism or patriarchy, it is simple choice or just coincidence, with biological factors backing it up. "Problems" feminists think require a feminist approach are not feminist problems, they are societal problems if anything, or are simply choices made by women that feminists don't like. [1] http://www.history.org... [2] http://www.wsj.com...; [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...; [4] http://www.cbsnews.com...; [5] http://www.equalpaycoalition.org...

Feminism is about equality.

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I hope it will be an enlightening and challenging one for both of us. Moving forward, I believe it to be prudent to address the issue of the definitions of “Feminism”. As it stands now, there are two separate definitions; as such, it will prove difficult for my opponent and myself to continue debating if we are using “Feminism” in differing contexts. Given this, I believe combining the definitions will allow this debate to be more insightful, enlightening, and challenging. The definition I propose is as follows: Feminism: organized activity, on behalf of women’s rights and issues, aimed at the political, social and economic equality of the sexes, or approval thereof. This definition does not include the intricacies of feminist theory, however, it does encompass the overall goal of Feminism, in that it strives to make men and women equals on all applicable fronts. The clause “approval thereof” allows for those who are not active, outspoken advocates in the feminist movement to be included in the definition, as they are, most likely, not against what other feminists strive to put into effect. The clause “organized activity” specifically references any attempts at making a tangible difference in the lives of women, from legal reform to organizations. From this point forward, I will use “Feminism” as it is defined above. In keeping with this definition, and considering the history of the women’s movement as a spectrum of activism, I will be referring to federal benefit laws, current domestic violence laws, as well as current rape laws. Federal Benefits In the US, certain federal benefits are derived from US citizenship. One key difference in women’s federal benefits and men’s federal benefits is the fact that men are required to sign up for Selective service in order to receive student financial aid or work federal jobs and receive federal job training. Even men who are not born in the US, and seek citizenship, if they are under 26 years of age, are required to sign up for selective service in order to receive citizenship. Any male 26 years of age or younger who has not registered is liable to be tried and convicted of a felony offense. Convicted felons in 11 states permanently lose their voting rights. As it stands, I have found no evidence of attempts by those who would be described as feminists towards advocating for this to be changed. As this is indicative of inequality between the sexes, it follows that it should a feminist issue. Assuming a man does not sign up for Selective Service, and does lose the aforementioned federal benefits of citizenship, he is liable to lose federal aid in his push for a college education, should he want one. This is an economic inequity, based solely upon the fact that he did not sign up for the draft. If feminism is to be about equality, this is something that must be worked on, at least to some degree. Advocating for women’s right to vote, as the Suffragettes did, but not ensuring that right came with a compulsory obligation, shows a willingness to promote inequality, which is in direct contradiction of the definition of feminism stated above. Source for the above: https://www.sss.gov... http://felonvoting.procon.org... Domestic Violence And Rape Laws 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. http://www.theduluthmodel.org... http://www.whitehouse.gov... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.justice.gov... http://online.wsj.com... Conclusion Given the current status of United State laws, and considering the focuses that should be core to feminism, I assert that feminism is not about equality. From the definition above, we can infer that any person who approves of, or supports what feminism stands for is to be considered a feminist. From that, we can further infer that any acts committed and laws created by those people would be a feminist acts and laws. Given the definition of feminism that I constructed from the two definitions provided by Merriam-webster.com, I would further assert that putting the ideology of feminism into action results in a direct contradiction of its definition. As such the “organized activity” on behalf of women’s rights and interests directly ends in further inequality of the sexes, in the social and political arenas. I look forward to reading and learning from my opponents Opening Statement.

Feminism

Masculism is the group dedicated to men's rights, and the members are called MRA's(Mens' Rights Activists). However, I believe masculism is wrong in the same way feminism is wrong: It focuses on gender, rather than the individual, which is why I am a humanist. We are not talking about history, where, as you have said, men have been dominant, though, we are talking about the present. Give me evidence that there is a pay gap, and it is not, indeed, women simply choosing jobs that pay less. I want to be proven wrong. Statistics are proven, words are just, well... words. Yes, there is more domestic violence against women than men. However, look up PSA's for domestic violence. I am willing to bet that no where near 20% of the PSA's will portray women being abused, let alone 40%. Personally, I have seen more males being made fun of for weight problems than females, but thank you for acknowledging that men face this problem. If men try to make their problems known, they will be insulted for it. If a man hits a woman, he's a monster. If a woman hits a man, he's weak. Some men do make their problems known, however.

Feminism Does Not Equate to Equality

The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the instigator. As the opponent, my job is to refute any claims that the instigator claims. If I refute them all successfully I win. My opponent has generalized every feminist in the world to being one's that hated men and want women to dominate the world. That's like generalizing that every Christian hates gay people and wants them to die which is obviously not true. My opponent has a very big misconception of what feminism is and hasn't looked very deep into the issue. Obviously as you can see from her points, she is basing them all purely off of the stereotyped crazy feminist lady. And that's the problem with today, so many people think that feminism is the crazy lady screaming that men are monsters when in reality feminism is the unnoticed passerby who wants to make a statement but is too scared that they'll be painted in the same way as the screaming lady. It is people like my opponent who fall into these stereotype traps and then they try and drag others into the trap as well. To that I say, please do not fall for it. So many woman all around the world are being oppressed. My opponent first concedes that women are being oppressed. This basically just cancels out everything that my opponent says later on. Women are being oppressed and therefore feminism is relevant in today. To bring women who have been oppressed out of oppression. My opponent claims then that all men and women have equal rights. "rights are equal to all men and women" is what my opponent said. To that I say, "what earth do you live on?" So that means that every single girl who was aborted in China just because they were a girl is actually secretly still alive? Because the whole reason to abort your child in China was because of the fact that they were a girl and you could only have one child. And girls in China did not have the same opportunities as boys did. And not having the same opportunities is exactly the opposite of what the definition of feminism is. My opponent is obviously a very ignorant girl considering that her back round is Asian. (I checked her profile) You should feel blessed that you're actually alive. A whole generation of girls went missing (aka they were killed) in China all because they would not have the same opportunities as boys did. And yet my opponent neglects that very fact. Then my opponent asks about women and leadership roles? To that I say, has there ever been a female president before that stayed for the whole term? Hillary Clinton has beaten all odds and may actually become the first female president if she wins. There was only one female prime minister for Canada and she didn't even get the full term. Society looks down upon women doing any sort of manual work for a job like construction working. Why else was the pink truck fad created? As for unequal pay, Serena Williams gets paid $450,000 and Roger Federer gets paid $700,000. And the interesting thing is that most people prefer to watch women's tennis because women return the serves more often. Both Roger and Serena are one of the top athletes in the sport. Why aren't they paid the same? This is about as fair as it gets in sports players being paid. My opponent can't deny the obvious wage gap here. http://www.wbur.org... Then my opponent claims that the wage gap does exist which practically makes her point useless. Then my opponent claims that treating everyone equally will result in bad things. Like women would literally be treated like a man, therefore having to act like one. I'd like to remind my opponent what feminism is. Feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social an economic equality to men." Does any of those three things state that women have to literally be a man? No, we as women are allowed to be feminists without having to be forced to act like men which is what my opponent is advocating for. Then my opponent states that giving liberty to everyone is bad. So what, only a select few chosen ones get liberty? Is that what my opponent wants because that's basically what she implied. How do you choose those select few special ones? On gender? Because it certainly seems like my opponent is implying that. The definition of liberty is "the state of being free in a society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life". So now my opponent had basically implied that some people should live in oppression because its somehow beneficial for those not living in oppression. Then my opponent goes on to blame the stereotype that men don't have feelings on feminism without any knowledge to back up that claim. That stereotype was created by the world wars. The war was very demoralizing for the men on the front lines and countries worried that men might not sign up because they had emotions that would stop them from killing so they created an image of a man who had no emotions and could get through anything because of that. As for rape, one in six women will be sexually assaulted. And those numbers are too small because more than half the number of raped that happen are not reported. The ratio of rapes from women to men are 85:12. And yet my opponent disregards the facts yet again. She tries to belittle the abuse women have gone through and blame it on the woman. One of the worst things you can do to a rape victim is tell them that its their own fault. And that's basically what my opponent has claimed. Men are suppose to pay child support because in most cases they're the ones who raped the woman. I do feel bad for the men who have been abused and don't want to get help for fear of not being seen as "macho" but putting the blame on feminism is completely wrong. Stereotypes are something that we need to get rid of because they hurt society in very big ways. Then my opponent tries to say she didn't say that the abuse of women was not gender discrimination without looking to prior rounds. Here is exactly what she said "The abuse of women do not lie in gender discrimination". But like I said before, then where does it lie? Then my opponent points out that all I've been doing is refuting points. But that's exactly my job. As the instigator, the burden of proof lies upon your shoulders and it is my job to refute your points. If I prove you wrong, then I win. But just to make you happy I will make a point. The definition of equality is "the state of being equal in status, rights and opportunities." The definition of feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social an economic equality to men." Being equal to men in society is the same as status. Being equal to men on political and economic standings is the same as having equal opportunities. And the advocacy of women's rights is the same as the rights spoken of in equality. Therefore feminism does equate to equality. Then my opponent blames men's discrimination on feminism and then says that feminism is ironic and feminists are hypocrites. Firstly have you ever heard the term "like a girl"? Yes? And was it spoken by a feminist or a an person? Probably just a person right? And it was referring to a boy who probably had done something "like a girl", right? Pretty much everyone has heard and probably said that term. That's exactly the reason why boys grow up to think that feelings are wrong and girls grow up thinking that doing things "like a girl" is bad. People like you and I use terms that we think are absolutely normal but in reality those little things all add up. Feminism isn't the cause of men's discrimination in this context. It's us. Society and the way we think either gender should behave. Now I shall comment on how ironic my opponent is. If I said "Go back to the kitchen" you would probably be angry right. Well, my opponent is practically saying that to herself. She has fallen into the stereotype trap and had tangled her self so deep that she is actually now against the very idea of feminism which is absolutely ridiculous. My opponent would not be writing this debate let alone going to school to learn how to write without feminism. Then my opponent says that feminists are hypocrites. How is believing that I deserve the same opportunities that a man gets hypocrisy. I feel privileged to be living in a place where I actually get education even though I'm a girl and my opponent should too. Some girls in Africa don't even get education all because their a girl. Girls in China were killed all because they were a girl. And you say that feminists in China don't want equality? It's quite sad to see a person so warped against the thought of feminism all because of a stereotype. We need to get rid of stereotypes because then men will be allowed to express their feelings without having to fear shame and women would be allowed to speak for their rights without getting hated on by people who believe in stereotypes. Feminism is relevant to today. Many women all around the world have had their rights denied. Feminism does equate to equality.

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.