A tip of the hat to TheLondonGroup for filming and editing this recent debate (video, 1:27:03). From the video description:
A debate took place at Bath University, UK, on 28th February 2017. The title of the debate was ‘This House believes Feminism is Outdated.’
Forming the proposition were –
Elizabeth Hobson – Member of Liberty Belles, a group of women fighting Feminism.
Natoya Raymond – Co-director of Women Against Feminism.
Belinda Brown – Writer for Coservative Woman and the Daily Mail.
Forming the opposition were –
Rebecca Fairbairn – Co-leader of Bath Branch of Women’s Equality Party.
Tessa Munt – Former Liberal Democrat MP for Wells.
Zeid Haj Hassan Truscott – Student at Bath University and member of Gender Equality Group.
A lively and heated exchange of views took place. Enjoy.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Very interesting. It was interesting in the different “styles” of the two sides . What struck me was that all three on the feminist bench (two women and an “inter-sectional” ) argued from an “its all about me” perspective. On almost all points their “arguments” were accounts of experiences they or people they knew had had. Very little analysis or real attempt to address broader experiences. In contract the non feminist bench (all women) were armed with historical and current data and usually presented an analysis rather than a story. In a way it rather proved the point that feminism is an ideology about the particular experiences and wants of quite unusual people, indeed all three in their opening statements spent some time pointing out how special they are (the intersectional chap also had a special upbringing and language as well as being a compendium of equality groups in one body). A real illustration of the point often made by anti or non feminists that the current feminism is all about privileged women who believe the universe (well Britain) should revolve around them.
One incident spoke volumes; the “new” Student Union President related a story of a older man saying of her new presidency; “that’s a big job for a little girl”. General agreement is was a daft thing to say and a panel members asked what she said back. Well of course after some prodding and evasion she’d said nothing. The panel member then making the point not only had she lost an opportunity to teach the chap the error of her ways but been pretty poor at being an “empowered woman”.
Now this is a theme throughout my working life, between women, frequently small disagreements escalate into “proceedures” (wherein one has to investigate) usually at the root is a minor problem that would have stayed small had the women spoken to each other clearly. Frequently the invoking of procedure is to avoid direct communication. In a sense the incident on the debate illustrates the need to avoid responsibility and assertion and get “others” to sort problems, which themselves only arise out of the avoiding communication.
So “its all about me” but “you have to sort it out”.
LikeLike
thank you for the comment. it was well observed! I am one of the girls who participated. we think that including some emotional story telling will help us next time. especially as the feminists concentrated on self serving issues that appealed to students such as pay gap – which everyone seems to continue to believe and would be concerned about
LikeLike