Feminism is not sexist.

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 DraftWhile 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]n. http://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...;