Feminism is and has achieved equality. 3rd wave feminism is oppressive.

To start with, your definition of Feminism is incorrect which makes me wonder who I am debating with. Feminism is; "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." There is no definition for Feminism outside of the scope of, directly relating to gaining rights for woman or to gain grounds for woman in some regard. Starting off your debate with thats total nonsense is not an argument. In fact my argument makes sense, it just does not seem to make sense to you personally.. why? I will further analyze your understanding of my argument, trying, as I might not to get sucked in to your satellite arguments and propositions - such as Christianity, which bears no relevance to a group fighting for more rights as apposed to a group that has dominated humanity for over 2000 years. You suppose that third wave feminism is more inclined to challenge gender norms, reproductive rights, celebrating sexuality as a means of female empowerment. language as in "he" (are you kidding me?) and so on. That is your definition of Third Wave Feminism - great so that draws us back to the argument I already put to you which is why is it necessary in a world where feminism has reached its goals in equality in Western civilized worlds? Moving forward; "some TWFs are oppressive - the extreme types", to which you refer me once again to religion, and denounce the prospect of religions being judged based on extremist activities... however, if you take a quick glance around the world you can see that the Catholic Church has been severely discredited due to sexual abuse within the church, and Muslims are pretty much seen as terrorists due to the actions of "a few extremists". But I wont let that hurt your argument I will continue on and maybe I will get some facts out of this debate. However, you are looking for references to why I believe the modern movement of Feminists is more about control and manipulation rather than about progress towards equality. 1) Anita Sarkeesian - manipulated 150,000 from the public in order to start a video campaign against the gaming industry - she received the money and is yet to follow through- however, deems it necessary to condemn the gaming industry for following a simple supply and demand model for their business. 2) Further to this, the wage gap of woman receiving 77% to a mans dollar is based on a fallacy, by using ratios and the average wage of females compared to the average wage of males, without servicing any further research into, yet it is one of the main focuses. "In 2013, women made 22% less than men in almost every occupation (source: http://www.iwpr.org...... )." This is a well spelled out version of how the "Wage Gap" truly exists without emotional bullying of the facts. http://www.buzzfeed.com... 3) Further more, any argument put forward that asks for facts within feminism is immediately hostile, in almost every public interaction. 4) The introduction of the professional victim, makes it impossible for men to even say anything at all without being accused of being hushed by a male who is blinded by his own sexist perception of the world. Saying that woman can NEVER be oppressive because they are oppressed..?! http://www.dailymail.co.uk... This is separate to the debate, it is just my opinion - I believe the concept of gender neutrality is based on the idea that some men are insensitive to woman, and the concept of the boys club makes woman feel rejected. This is because boys aren't willing to be more sensitive (name calling, bullying, being violent etc). In my honest opinion, gender neutrality should be named people who take pleasure in being sensitive and people who take pleasure in being positive. Because I know a lot of woman who are tough and more masculine than a lot of the men who believe in gender neutrality. Its psychological, some people like to talk about how they feel, like feminists and some people don't care about feelings because they just want to enjoy the moment - people who enjoy the moment will pick on people who are busy reflecting on how they feel - because in the moment people see that behavior as totally selfish, so they will call them sissy's or girls or gay etc... which is inappropriate, however it is the only description that has been made available to them over the last few millenniums. If you're out riding dirt bikes and have to stop because someone feels something, its pretty damn boring. Its generally why insensitive people stay away from sensitive people. Moving forward, the idea of gender neutrality, totally strips away any man liking that he is a man/tough. I would love to know why this is OK, and I would love to know why saying "he" or "she" is offensive... I am starting to believe that some TWFs really don't like being woman because womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/ shows a lot of woman that love being woman and men being men. You say I have only heard these things from feminists, because they are the ones who bring it up, and ignoring it wont make it go away. So, should I be looking for Bigfoot, the lauchness monster and aliens? Because conspiracy guys brought that to my attention? Really is that the argument you want to go with? Without proof that stands up, we are supposed to just take it, because TWFs are upset over something we have seen no evidence of? There has not been any real privilege for men over woman since the development of feminism and that is what I am debating. So far I have seen no proof of these privileges in this debate, furthermore legislation wont allow ANY oppression without 50,000 lawyers jumping for gold. Men showing skin and not being stigmatized? Have you seen all the celebrities who are nude lately? I don't think many men wanted to stop that behavior, I think they generally loved.. and love naked woman, for 1 reason. Guys pick on chicks the a same as they do with other men, if you cant handle it "leave the group". I for one give girls I know a hard time for sleeping around, but I do the same with guys - its called ribbing, and its a choice about who you associate with. The double standard I think is about sensitivity, and guys have less to be sensitive about and I think that is where TWF is coming from, making men feel and empathize with sensitivity. But when men hang around men they will try to find a common ground to be friends like who they had sex with, who they want to have sex with, who they beat at (whatever). It takes a specific type of person to discuss what toys children should play with to make them "feel" a certain way. "Women have asked to be able to do what they want before. And men have stopped them doing it." I would like to see evidence of this, and why it took thousands of years for woman to finally push it over the line in 1960s, the pill was invented thats why, not having kids changed the dynamic and allowed woman to be free of having kids and to pursue further ambitions.... male ambitions and the destruction of male influence. Using "facts from the last 40 years wasn't really what I was looking for when I said "did they ask before?" And "if men were so bad to woman, why would we even pass a bill to allow woman to do what they finally asked to be able to do?" I wasn't talking only about voting, I was speaking of an overall allowance for womans rights. But I have to ask, what is it that TWFs believe woman haven't gotten? Is it because they have rights now and now, TWF's just think they should be given everything and by everything I mean the world? Egalitarianism is not feminism, they are not the same things. But this still doesn't explain why feminists still exist, and why everyone isn't fighting for equal opportunity