Humanism is a better ideology then Feminism

1. Wage Gap Response: Wage gap is women getting paid less for doing the same job. The factors you listed were for reasons why women might not get hired. There is a difference. You give reasons like maternity leave, but the person who's video I linked was young and someone less qualified, and a male, was getting paid more. I'd look up which shade of grey this is but that book is sexist too.2. Lack of Representation: Ma... maternity leaves? Periods??? Women shouldn't be allowed to hold office because of periods and maternity leave? Not to mention fathers, in some countries, also go on leave and you are also assuming all women want to have a child, is a sexist argument in my eyes.3. Laws on the Bodies of Women: Here's the thing you aren't getting. These are bills that control women bodies. You know bodily autonomy? These rules go against that. If there were 700 bills proposed to regulate the bodies of men, even if it was only relating to pregnancy (which I'm pretty sure they aren't all about pregnancy, but okay), and 80% of the people voting on this stuff were female, I would assume some matriarchy stuff going on there. However, it's the opposite, and the idea that "Oh, well, if we lived in a system that systematically favored men over women then all of democracy would collapse because reasons." We do still live in a democratic republic, you know? There are rules that are in place so you can't just go "You know what? Women can't have abortions. Make it illegal!" Pretty weak argument.4. "Strawman" and Humanism: When saying such a broad statement as "Feminists are lucky to gain ANY (especially when feminists had already had a place in politics, so kind of confusing) ground in politics" there may be confusion. You didn't specify "gain ground in today's politics" or "modern-day feminists". You say blanket statements as "ANY" and "feminists." Your inability to explain is not my strawman. On the humanism topic, what I see here is you admitting humanism can't fix Africa. So what you are saying is that you claim Humanism is just as ineffectual as feminism. Your premise is that Humanism is better. Sounds like you just negated your own premise.5. Men are victims too. Notice how I have said many times before that men can be victims of sexism but women are victims to it in more areas. 1 in 4 women are victims of domestic abuse[1]. I already stated rape statistics. It sounds like you are misconstruing my argument here. I even listed the dismissal of male victims in rape and domestic violence situation, so preaching to the choir, mate. To say that men are victimized to the same extent by women from sexism is wrong. You then talk about how MRAs are truly the knights in shining armor for men everywhere. Not women, though. You haven't shown that they are for equality between the sexes. Your quote about feminists by TJ "High School Dropout" Amazing Atheist applies more for MRAs than feminists.6. The Exceptions and Rules: Oh. I see. You don't see it that way so I'm wrong. I'm glad your subjective reading on the facts is enough to apply to an objective truth. It'd be cool to, you know, see the facts so we could all make sense of them. No? Okay. By the way, you did contradict yourself, you just clarified later. 7. TJ "HSDO" AA. You misunderstood. He is qualified to speak about these issues. He is not qualified to be an authority on these issues on his word alone. George Carlin was insightful on issues. Was he an authority? No. TJ can offer insight. He is not an authority.You don't really offer anything here to defend your premise in this round, which is that Humanism is better than feminism. Thinking about that now, it is not really a specific resolution. Are we arguing whether or not humanism has better ideas for humans than feminism, or that humanism is more effective than feminism? You didn't say anything about new arguments in the fourth round, so let me launch into why the debate is itself a logical fallacy. It is called a false dilemma. It suggests one cannot be both a humanist and a feminist, and supports an either/or but not an and/both choice. The point of feminism to combat misogyny and promote equality of the genders. You mention somewhere (it's late and I don't want to find an exact quote) but you imply that being a humanist would solve these issues because humanism promotes well being of both genders. Actually, humanism promotes the well beings of humans in general. Feminism addresses a different but just as deadly foe to humanity that humanism does; humanism addresses well being, feminism addresses inequality. Men's rights activism is a backlash against equality, it is a backlash against feminism. Because these men aren't trying to fix the issues, they are trying to defend their privilege. Sure, there are legitimate issues they can bring up. But who is hurt more, the person hit by the recoil, or the person hit by the bullet? Besides, you aren't supposed to be defending MRAs (which I assume if you are against a "one sided and *heavy sarcasm* sexist movement like feminism, surely you'd be against the response to that), you should be defending humanism. So let's talk about humanism. Here's an excerpt from an article about its origins. "But humanism’s foundations were lain during the European Enlightenment, which attempted to remake the humans of the New World (and the Old) in the image of its own “enlightened” crusaders: privileged white European men. Contemporary humanism is touted as the “outcome of a long tradition of free thought,” but this grand tradition is not free from bias. As Judith Butler explains, humanism “supposes that there is just one single idea of what it is to be human.” Humanism turns away from difference and diversity. Equality in humanist terms means equal our way.[2]" Maybe that whole making the exception the rule argument is looking more valid, right?Sources:[1] http://www.ncadv.org...(National).pdf[2] http://thefeministwire.com...