By Jordan Holbrook: On Tuesday 28th February, I attended a debate at the Bath University Debating Society titled “This House Believes That Feminism is Outdated”. Readers of this site will no doubt already be aware my position on the matter.When the video goes live, I shall copy a URL to it somewhere around here.
Featured below is the fact sheet I prepared for one of the panellists in order to support her. I have copied it in its entirety, save a few additions/amendments. As some links are to files, they may not be clickable, so you may have to copypasta those into your URL bar.
Soundbites, rebuttals, etc. (This House Believes Feminism is Outdated)Issues:
[Here I have listed different issues that may arise in the debate pertaining feminism. If there are other issues you would like soundbites/rebuttals for, hit me up and I’ll get you it.]
[Where I have used them/they I use it to mean the other side, the opposition in the debate.]
Pay Gap Myth:
This is easy.
Most recent data for hours worked shows that total weekly hours worked are 1,023.2 million during Oct-Dec 2016. Men (16+) worked 619.9 million of that (60.6%) whereas women worked 403.3 million (39.4%).
Also, the Women in the Labour Market 2013 Report shows that 42% of female workers are part time compared to a mere 12% of male workers.
Hours Worked and Workers Working Them
Data ran for ages 16+. Data ran for period of Oct – Dec 2016.
Hours* Workers^ Hours a week (H/W)
Men 619.9million 16.9million 36.7
Women 403.3million 14.9million 27.0
Men work 35.9% more hours, yet the pay gap is 19.3%. Why are men working all these extra hours and not being remunerated for them?
Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (Released: 26th October 2016)
According to the latest release of the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, the pay gap stands at 9.4% for full time employees and 19.3% when including part-time employees. The pay gap is calculated here by comparing median hourly earnings, which thusly includes but doesn’t account for position, type of occupation, length of tenure, hours worked, etc. Ironically, they exclude overtime because “Including overtime can skew the results because men work relatively more overtime than women, and using hourly earnings better accounts for the fact that men work on average more hours per week than women.” – This should give an indication why men earn more. As men work more, they earn more, so when comparing median earnings, of course men will be in the lead. Simple maths.
Ultimately, if feminists want men to earn as much as men, they must expect women to work as much as men.
Gender Pay Differences
“It should be noted that the figures do not show differences in rates of pay for comparable jobs, as they are affected by factors such as the proportion of men and women in different occupations. For example, a higher proportion of women work in occupations such as administration and caring, which tend to offer lower salaries.”
That is from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, the very source feminists use to “prove” the pay gap. The very fucking source they use to prove this pay gap is saying that their statistics cannot be used to prove that women are being paid unequally because that is not what they are measuring! Just ask for the source of the opposition’s stats on the pay gap when they mention it then hit them with the above quote! Ha! I love life!
Explanation for the difference in the gender pay gap estimate between full-time and all employees
The gender pay gap estimate is calculated as a differential proportion of two median estimates, the middle points of the data, one for female and one for males. The composition of the male and female employee workforces are quite different, with more women working part-time than men (41% compared with 12% respectively – source: Labour Force Survey, Quarter 2 (April to June) 2016, Table EMP04). Because the hourly earnings of part-time employees tend to be less, on average, than the earnings of full-time employees, this means women are more likely to receive lower hourly rates of pay. It’s this fact that helps explain why the gender pay gap for all full-time and part-time employees is greater than the gender pay gap for full-time employees only.
When all employees are considered, the typically lower-paid part-time workers are included, of which there are more lower-paid female workers than male. As a consequence, this causes the gap to increase (usually as a result of the female median decreasing).
Investigating the difference in the gender pay gap between part-time and full-time employees further by the number of paid hours worked (shown in Figure 7) reveals the transition between the gender pay gap favouring women over men and vice-versa. Typically, more men are employed in jobs that involve working a higher number of hours, and for these jobs, it can be seen that the gender pay gap is in favour of men. However, for jobs where the number of paid hours worked by an employee is between 10 and 30, more women work in these jobs and the gender pay gap is in favour of women.
Domestic Abuse & IPV:
Another good one. Look out for the “two women a week killed by a violent partner or ex-partner” trope. It’s bunk.
Firstly, you can crack out that men account for 64% of homicide victims. Second, you can say that in the year ending March 2015, the homicide rate for males (11.7 per million population) was almost twice that for females (6.4 per million population). Third, the homicide rate for women is 3.58 victims per week of which 44% died at the hands of a partner or ex-partner (1.57 per week). Whilst they are rounding up, it would be more accurate to say that 1.5 women a week are killed by a partner or ex-partner. But I’m just being fussy.
Whilst on the topic, we can also say that 0.4 men a week are killed by a partner or ex-partner, but that doesn’t sound as exciting (1 in 4 of victims who die at hands of a partner or ex-partner is male – that might sound better).
Also, if they bring up the 2 women a week statistic, ask them why? Is it to scare women away from relationships? 1.97 men a week are killed by a complete stranger (which is more victims than women killed by a partner or ex-partner), should we recommend agoraphobia to men as a preventative measure?
13.6% of men and 26.3% of women stated they have been a victim of domestic abuse since they were 16. This equates to 2.2 million male victims and 4.3 million female victims.
Male victims (39%) are over three times more likely than women (12%) not to tell anyone about the partner abuse they are suffering from. Only 10% of male victims will tell the police (26% women), only 23% will tell a person in an official position (43% women) and only 11% (23% women) will tell a health professional.
The number of women convicted of perpetrating domestic abuse has increased seven fold since 04/05. From 806 in 04/05 to 5,641 in 15/16.
In the year ending March 2015 (for England and Wales), 29% of male victims of partner abuse suffered ‘Any Physical Injury’ compared to 23% of female victims. See table below for fuller breakdown of injuries sustained.
When the opposition says “muh, more women are put in hospital because of evil menz” just say, “no, honey, more women elect to go to the hospital, the men stay home and suffer in silence”. More men suffer injuries but more women choose to go to hospital. Of those who receive medical attention as a result of partner abuse experienced in the last year, 27% were men and 73% were women.
|Appendix table 4.17: Physical injuries and other effects felt as a result of the partner abuse experienced in the last year, year ending March 2015 CSEW1,2|
|England and Wales||Adults aged 16 to 59|
|Any physical injury||29||23||25|
|Minor bruising or black eye||18||17||17|
|Severe bruising or bleeding from cuts||6||4||4|
|Internal injuries or broken bones/teeth||2||1||1|
|Any other physical injury||2||5||4|
|Mental or emotional problems||30||47||42|
|Stopped trusting people/difficulty in other relationships||19||22||21|
|Tried to kill self||3||4||4|
|Other effect (including becoming pregnant or contracting a disease)||–||1||1|
|Unweighted base – number of adults3|| |
FTSE 100 / FTSE 500 / FTSE 1000 & Business Success:
The argument here is that women are held back from the corridors of power, yet 33% of directors, managers and senior officials in occupations with the highest pay are female!
Might we add that 72% of service users for homelessness accommodation projects in England are men? It’s almost as if the male success bell curve is wider and flatter than the female success bell curve!? Women hugging round the average and more men at the poles … hmmm, where have I seen this before?
Also, the Women in the Labour Market 2013 Report shows that 42% of female workers are part-time compared to a mere 12% of male workers. How can someone expect to climb the ladder if they’re not always on said ladder?
Number of Female MPs:
There is a gender gap in voter turnout which is growing:
- In the 2010 General Election there were an estimated 9.1 million women of voting age who did not vote, compared to 8 million men.
- Between 1992 and 2010, turnout fell by 14 percentage points for women compared with 11 percentage points for men.
- In 1992 voter turnout for women was higher than the turnout for men (women 78.2 per cent, men 77.2 per cent)
- In 2005 voter turnout for women fell behind men and in 2010 voter turnout was three per cent lower for women than men (men 67 per cent, women 64 per cent.)
If women really want more women involved in politics, they need to turn up to the voting booths and vote them in!
[Only use this for comparison, as we are UK based it’s probably best to keep citations UK-centric] – In the United States, the seminal research of Burns, Schlozman, and Verba (2001, p. 2) demonstrates that when survey findings are translated into actual activity, even seemingly modest gender gaps accumulate to sizeable differences in total political inputs: “2,000,000 fewer phone calls or letters to public officials from women than men … 7,000,000 fewer campaign contributions from women than from men … 9,000,000 fewer women than men affiliated with a political organization.” Importantly, women are least engaged with the stages of the political process when new issues are introduced to the agenda.
http://politics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-71?print=pdf – (Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Politics, Gender and Political Behaviour, Miki Caul Kittilson)
If the opposition mentions the dreadful All-Women Shortlists as employed by Labour, mention the Equality Act 2010 and how highly illegal AWSs are (except it’s not yet been tried in court!!!).
According to UCAS, at the end of the 2016 cycle there were 3,810 acceptances of males onto Politics courses at university and 3,755. Since 2007, men have been in front (some years, such as 2012, there were nearly twice as many men), yet very recently this gap has been closing. Women have the opportunity to pursue a politics degree and thus career, but are choosing not to.
In years 2007 – 2016, 30,825 men studied politics compared to 26,870 women. That’s 1.15x as many men. It’s not like as if women aren’t going into politics.
If feminists want more female MPs, then tell women to stop procrastinating and GET INVOLVED IN POLITICS!!!
I will also add, for your viewing pleasure, this clip of Theresa May roasting Jeremy Corbyn:
Very easy to refute, if we include Medicine in STEM to make STEMM then we find there’s more women in STEMM than men. 8% more women entering STEMM fields in university than men. This uses the 2015 UCAS end of cycle data though, trend hasn’t be re-run for 2016.
[Be warned, this is US data:] Women enjoy a 2:1 hiring preference into STEM over men with similar history. Authors of study say their “results suggest it is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science. Messages to the contrary may discourage women from applying for STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) tenure-track assistant professorships.” In other words, it’s a great time to be a woman and entering STEM and that the message (mainly from feminists) that say it is difficult for women to get into STEM is the thing that is stopping them from pursuing such a career.
It is illegal to circumcise your dog but not illegal to circumcise your son. See section 5 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
“The most common form of MGM is more harmful than the most common form of FGM.” – Your quote. Is a very good quote.
If they pull up the shady study from Africa where they found a 61% reduction in HIV for circumcised males, tell them you got an equally shady piece of research from the Middle East, Dr. Haamid al-Ghawaabi, to be precise, who said: “The secretions of the labia minora accumulate in uncircumcised women and turn rancid, so they develop an unpleasant odour which may lead to infections of the vagina or urethra. I have seen many cases of sickness caused by the lack of circumcision.” If we accept shady “research” from Africa to support MGM, surely we can accept shady research from M.E. to support FGM? Or is the opposition racist?
Following the above 61% quote, whilst that 61% sounds like a lot I will point out that the actual difference was an incidence rate of 0.85 HIV infections per 100 person-years for the circumcised group and 2.1 HIV infections per 100 person-years for the uncircumcised group, a difference of 1.25 incidents per 100 person-years. Hardly substantial stuff.
Always ask them to define “patriarchy” as I have found that different feminists have different perspectives about what constitutes a patriarchy, how it manifests, its effects on the real-world, etc. Ask them what they think of “kyriarchy”, I daresay they may cannibalise each other tripping themselves up with their virtue-signalling, holier-than-thou, oppression Olympics, mumbo-jumbo!
According to the London Feminist Network, “Patriarchy is the term used to describe the society in which we live today, characterised by current and historic unequal power relations between women and men whereby women are systematically disadvantaged and oppressed”. The core assumption of this definition is that women are not in positions of power because they are refrained from doing so, that an external force is preventing them from attaining higher ranks (the same force in turn promotes men and male success). As per the norm, feminists are viewing the world with an incredibly external locus of control.
According to the Women in the labour market report, 33% of directors, managers and senior officials in occupations with the highest pay are female. Hardly an effective patriarchy if women are allowed to share in all the success, eh?
If you really want to trigger their knickers off, tell them that patriarchy (or, as I should really put it, male-leader societies) developed because that is what was wanted by the society. A study from the University of Kent found that “during intragroup competitions, people prefer a female leader, whereas in intergroup competitions, they prefer a male leader”. As we live in an inter-group competition world (inter-group applies to nations, businesses, etc) it is therefore seen as preferable by society to elect male leaders. The authors speculate that “such gendered leadership prototypes are a residual of human evolutionary history that still affects the way people evaluate and respond to leadership in society today”.
“Consider this: Raids, battles, and wars have been a significant force throughout human history, and men have always played a more active role in doing the fighting than women have (Goldstein, 2003; Keegan, 1994); better male warriors achieve more status and reproductive success in traditional societies (Chagnon, 1988). Finally, compared with women, men adopt a more hierarchical leadership style (Eagly & Johnson, 1990), which is perhaps better suited to engage in intergroup aggression (Browne, 2007).”
http://www.webmail.professormarkvanvugt.com/images/files/SexDifferencesintheofLeadershipDuringCompet-PsychologicalScience-2008.pdf – Mark Van Vugt & Brian R. Spisak at University of Kent
[I would recommend giving the entirety of that study a read, it’s quite interesting.]
I tried finding evidence of “male privilege” but my searches all ended with me finding crappy feminist sites spewing garbage rhetoric about how men have it better because patriarchy.
I would recommend chasing them up on their definition of “male privilege”, asking for evidence and citations then combatting that – no point getting in a semantic conflict over subjective definitions and fantastical phenomenon.
First Wave Feminism:
[You mightn’t have time to read it but Simon Webb’s “The Suffragette Bombers: Britain’s Forgotten Terrorists” is a great book that details the less-than-cordial actions of the suffragettes. If you can attain a copy, skim-read it and highlight useful points I would recommend doing so.]
The key issue, the reason for the existence of the suffragettes was, as they put it: “Votes For Women”. Except they weren’t exactly the first to try it, there were, of course, The Chartist Movement and The Suffragist Movement.
SUSANNA INGE, 1820 – 1902
On 02 July 1842 (some 61 years before the formation of Emmeline Pankhurst’s Women’s Social and Political Union) Susanna Inge wrote a letter to The Northern Star titled “To the Women of England”. The literate and well written letter argues that “as civilisation advances man becomes more inclined to place woman on an equality with himself, and though excluded from everything connected with public life, her condition is considerably improved.” She goes on to say, however, that this is not sufficient, and that women should “assist those men who will, nay, who do, place women in on equality with themselves in gaining their rights, and yours will be gained also”.
In October of the same year, she called a meeting in the Chartist Hall at 55 Old Bailey “for the purpose of forming a ‘Female Chartist Association,’ to co-operate with the Male Association and for other objects connected with the ‘People’s Charter’.” One of the speakers (Mr Cohen) at this event attempted to derail the validity of the argument implying that her femaleness would cause her to be swayed by a young male lover. Fellow Chartist Mary Ann Walker disagreed:
“She would treat with womanly scorn, as a contemptible scoundrel, the man who would dare to influence her vote by any undue and unworthy means (cheers from the men); for if he were base enough to mislead her in one way, he would in another. (Hear, hear and renewed cheers).”
She too took on Mr Cohen in a later debate, arguing that “woman ought to be better educated, and that, if she were, so far as mental capacity, she would in every respect be the equal of man”.
(The Examiner, 19 November 1842)
LILLY MAXWELL, 1800 – 1876
On the 26th of November, 1861, Mrs Lilly Maxwell voted in a by-election. As she was the proprietor of a kitchenware shop in Manchester, she was a ratepayer and so was placed onto the electoral register. This was before the secret ballot and she voted for Jacob Bright, the liberal candidate, because he supported the suffragist cause. Outside, she was met with applause and cheers.
Source: Simon Webb – The Suffragette Bombers: Britain’s Forgotten Terrorists
Dr Sarah Richardson, Associate Professor of History at the University of Warwick, attained a poll book for the election to the local office of Assistant Overseer of the Poor, in the parish of St Chad’s, Lichfield in 1843. Curiously enough, it featured the names of many women: Elizabeth Shorthouse, Hannah Holiman, Phoebe Skelton, Ann Mallett. Everyday women, voting in an election, some 75 years before the historic 1918 change in the law that granted women the vote.
The wealthiest female elector on the roll was Grace Brown, a butcher, who managed a large household including several servants. Due to the high rates that she paid, Grace was entitled to four votes in the election, which she cast in favour of the Conservative candidate.
There were women who lived lower down on the social scale present on the list, including the laundress, Caroline Edge, the servant, Sarah Payne and even paupers, including Sarah Batkin of Stowe Street.
At the Labour Party Conference in early 1907, Keir Hardie, the first Labour MP and founder of the Labour Party, put a motion for women’s suffrage that was framed in terms of “equal suffrage”. The conference rejected this and instead passed, by a huge majority, a motion calling for universal suffrage, the right to vote in parliamentary elections for every man and woman in the country. Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst subsequently left the ILP.
Did you know, the first terrorist bombing in 20th Century Ireland was not committed by the IRA but was instead committed by the feminists (suffragettes)!?!?
On 31 July 1914, Lillian Metge, alongside three accomplices, lit sticks of dynamite under an old stained glass window in the east wing of Christ Church Cathedral, Lisburn, blowing out many windows.
12 February 1913, two members of the WSPU burned down the refreshment pavilion at Kew Gardens. The proprietor, Mrs Strange, confronted the WSPU about this activity. She spoke with Harriet Kerr, Secretary of the WSPU, saying “by burning down the pavilion you did not injure the government but myself and a number of women I employ”. Kerr responded by saying “You take too personal a view of the matter. Your women will, I have no doubt, be very glad by and by to think they have their help”.
14 February 1913, Ashford Golf Course was damaged.
19 February 1913, a small group of women, one of whom was Emily Davison, crept into the uncompleted building of Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George’s house with two 5lb bombs. Lit and detonated with primitive candle based fuses, it was a miracle that the men who had just arrived to start work on building the house had not been severely injured in the blast.
03 April 1913, suffragettes placed firelighters in every carriage of an empty train standing in a siding at Stockport, a few miles outside of Manchester, and sprinkled the seats with paraffin. In one of the carriages they then planted a bomb. As the train was resting next to a busy line it is therefore unsurprising that when the train exploded another train was passing by. The force of the blast was enough to hurl the carriage in which the bomb was planted over an embankment. A beam of wood was fired from the destroyed carriage and flew through the cab of the passing train, narrowly missing the driver (it removed his cloth cap – he could have been decapitated).
04 February 1914, suffragettes torched Aberuchill Castle in Scotland.
Such attacks show the callous indifference the suffragettes had to the lives of the public.
Source: Simon Webb – The Suffragette Bombers: Britain’s Forgotten Terrorists
Never hired by WSPU – she received no payment from them whatsoever.
Evening of Saturday 30th November 1912, Emily Davison slashed Revered Forbes Jackson, a Baptist minister of the Crown Terrace Baptist church in Aberdeen, with a dog whip all around his face while he stood alone waiting on a platform of Aberdeen’s railway station. She was shouting “I see through your disguise, Lloyd George. You cowardly hound, I’ll punish you!” She was then restrained by porters and handed over to the police. When arrested, she gave her name as “Mary Smith” and explained that the motive behind her attack was that the man was in fact David Lloyd George, the then-Chancellor of the Exchequer, dressed up in disguise as a clergyman.
“The entire class of wealthy women would be enfranchised … the great body of working women, married or single, would be vote-less still.”
Ada Nield Chew, writing of the WSPU in 1904.
Norah Elam, also known as Norah Dacre Fox, who had been the General Secretary of WSPU from April 1913 to summer 1914, then moved on to the Blackshirts (British Union of Fascists), a fascist movement of the early to mid-20th Century. She attended the 09 October 1934 rally at the Pier Pavilion in the south coast resort of Worthing with the leader of the blackshirts, Sir Oswald Mosely, and William Joyce, who later became famous for broadcasting on behalf of the Germans during WWII, earning him the name Lord Haw-Haw (after the war, Joyce was hanged for treason).
Mary Richardson, famous for slashing “The Rokeby Venus” in the National Gallery in 1914 as a protest against the treatment of Emmeline Pankhurst, became chief organiser of the women’s section of the British Union of Fascists.
Mary Allen, who organised Emily Davison’s funeral, was an active member of Mosely’s fascists.
Adela Pankhurst, daughter of Emmeline, was arrested and interned during WWII for being a Nazi sympathiser.
(Baroness/Lady) Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence, a women’s rights activist born in Bristol who was an early and very influential member of the WSPU, remarked on the paradox that an organisation “that was founded upon a desire for the extension of democracy” should have become “an enthusiastically supported dictatorship”. She later compared it in retrospect during the 1930s to the fascist movements then in power in Germany, Italy and Spain. Baroness Pethick Lawrence was expelled from the WSPU in 1912 because she disagreed with the more radical ideas of the Pankhursts. She started the publication Votes for Women with her husband in 1907 and whilst treasurer of the WSPU, she managed to raise £134,000 over six years.
Since its inception, the WSPU barred men from joining. Ironic that a group formed to fight against discrimination based on sex would then discriminate based on sex.
“If at any time a member, or a group of members, loses faith in our policy, if any one begins to suggest, that some other policy ought to be substituted, or if she tries to confuse the issue by adding other policies, she ceases at once to be a member. Autocratic? Quite so. But, you may object, a suffrage organisation out to be democratic. Well the members of the W.S.P.U. do not agree with you. We do not believe in the effectiveness of the ordinary suffrage organisation. The W.S.P.U. is not hampered by a complexity of rules. We have no constitution and by-laws, nothing to be amended or tinkered with or quarrelled over at an annual meeting. In fact, we have no annual meeting, no business sessions, no elections or officers. The W.S.P.U. is simply a suffrage army in the field. It is purely a volunteer army, no one is obliged to remain in it. Indeed we don’t want anybody to remain in it who does not ardently believe in the policy of the army.”
Emmeline Pankhurst writing in My Own Life, published in 1914.
Second Wave Feminism:
Marital Rape: Only concentrated on it from a gynocentric perspective, as they did with all rape. Hence why rape laws are gynocentric, see Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
(a) – he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) – B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) – A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) – Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) – Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4) – A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
There’s part 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 – it’s an amendment to the 1956 Act:
- Meaning of “rape” etc.
(a) – he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it; and
(b) – at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she consents to it;
and references to rape in other enactments (including the following provisions of this Act) shall be construed accordingly.
(2) – It is hereby declared that if at a trial for a rape offence the jury has to consider whether a man believed that a woman was consenting to sexual intercourse, the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the jury is to have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether he so believed.
Historically, many cultures had a concept of a spouses’ conjugal rights to sexual intercourse with each other. Feminists took issue with this but, not from an egalitarian perspective, instead from a feminist (gynocentric) perspective. They still maintain this position.
The marital rape exemption was abolished in England and Wales in 1991 by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, in the case of Regina v Regina.
R married his wife in August 1984 but the marriage became strained, and his wife moved back to her parents’ house in October 1989, leaving a letter expressing her intention to seek a divorce. A few weeks later, in November 1989, R broke into the house while his wife’s parents were out, and attempted to force her to have sexual intercourse with him against her will. He also assaulted her, squeezing his hands around her neck.
The police arrested R and charged him with rape contrary to section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The couple were divorced in May 1990.
A change in parliament was not required in order to close the Marital Rape Exemption, Lord Lane, who presided over the panel of five judges at the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) hearing of R v R stated “This is not the creation of a new offence, it is the removal of a common law fiction which has become anachronistic and offensive and we consider that it is our duty having reached that conclusion to act upon it.”
R appealed to the House of Lords where the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld. To quote the Law Reports from the House of Lords:
“For over 150 years after the publication of Hale’s work there appears to have been no reported case in which judicial consideration was given to his proposition. The first such case was Reg. v. Clarence (1888) 22 Q.B.D. 23, to which I shall refer later. It may be taken that the proposition was generally regarded as an accurate statement of the common law of England. The common law is, however, capable of evolving in the light of changing social, economic and cultural developments. Hale’s proposition reflected the state of affairs in these respects at the time it was enunciated. Since then the status of women, and particularly of married women, has changed out of all recognition in various ways which are very familiar and upon which it is unnecessary to go into detail. Apart from property matters and the availability of matrimonial remedies, one of the most important changes is that marriage is in modern times regarded as a partnership of equals, and no longer one in which the wife must be the subservient chattel of the husband. Hale’s proposition involves that by marriage a wife gives her irrevocable consent to sexual intercourse with her husband under all circumstances and irrespective of the state of her health or how she happens to be feeling at the time. In modern times any reasonable person must regard that conception as quite unacceptable. [Emphasis mine]”
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1991/12.html – (British and Irish Legal Information Institute)
The Marital Rape Exemption had been tested and narrowed previously:
In R v Clarke  2 All ER 448; 33 Cr App R 216 a husband was found guilty of raping his estranged wife, as it was held that a court order for non-cohabitation had revoked the consent.
A similar result was reached in R v O’Brien  3 All ER 663 after the grant of a decree nisi for divorce.
In R v Steele (1976) 65 Cr App R 22 the husband was convicted after had given an undertaking to the court not to molest his wife;
In R v Roberts  Crim LR 188 a formal separation agreement was in place. R v S held that the granting of a family protection order was sufficient to negate any implied consent.
[It might be fun to mention the story of Jean-Louis B. who was forced by a court in Nice, France to pay his ex-wife €10,000 damages for not providing enough sex during their 21 year marriage. The 51-year-old man was fined under article 215 of France’s civil code, which states married couples must agree to a “shared communal life”. The judge ruled that this law implies that “sexual relations must form part of a marriage”. The judge in the south of France’s highest court in Aix-en-Provence ruled: “A sexual relationship between husband and wife is the expression of affection they have for each other, and in this case it was absent… By getting married, couples agree to share their life and this clearly implies they will have sex with each other.”
Domestic Violence: Recite the story of Erin Pizzey. Give stats about DV/IPV that are mentioned above.
If Kate Millett and her dreaded book “Sexual Politics” comes up, reference this Front Page Magazine article by her sister that denounces Marxist Feminism:
It is from this period onwards that we notice the “paradox of declining female happiness”, the paradox that despite the advancements women have made, they have been getting more and more depressed as time goes on.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969 – Betsey Stevenson & Justin Wolfers, 2009. “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 190-225, August.
Third Wave Feminism:
Kyriarchy describes a system of “interlocking structures of domination”. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza critiqued mainstream, Western feminist theory for focusing solely on gender difference, as it “masks the complex inter-structuring of patriarchal dominations inscribed within women and in the relationships of dominance and subordination between women, as well as failing to acknowledge the role of elite, white women and Christianity in helping perpetuate oppression.” Schüssler Fiorenza, drawing from Bell Hooks, expressed that kyriarchy helps us to understand how interlocking systems of oppression, “criss-cross the subject-positions that the politics of domination offers to individuals”.
But She Said: Feminist Practices of Biblical Interpretation (1992), Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza
“Kyriarchy in classical antiquity was the rule of the lord, slave master, husband, elite freeborn, propertied, educated gentlemen to whom disenfranchised men and all wo/men were subordinated. In antiquity, kyriarchy was institutionalised either as a monarchical or as a democratic political form of ruling. Kyriarchy is best theorised as a complex pyramid system of intersecting multiplicative social structures of super-ordination and subordination, of ruling and oppression. Kyriarchal relations of domination are built on the elite male property rights as well as on the exploitation, dependency, inferiority, and obedience of wo/men…
Rather than identifying kyriarchy with binary male-over-female domination, it is best to understand the political system denoted by the term in antiquity. Modern democracies are still structured as complex pyramidal political systems of superiority and inferiority, of dominance and subordination. As kyriarchal democracies, they are stratified by gender, race, class, religion, heterosexuality, and age – structural positions which are assigned to us more or less at birth. However, the way we live these structural hierarchal positions and respond to them is conditioned not simply by the mere fact of the structural positions themselves but also by the subject positions through which we live our structural kyriarchal positions. Whereas an essentialist approach assigns to us an “authentic” identity, let’s say gender, that is derived from our structural position, our subject position becomes coherent and compelling through a certain political discourse, interpretive framework, and theoretical horizon, which I have termed kyriocentrism.”
Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation (2001), Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza.
Otherwise, with third wave feminism, just discuss the issues and how contemporary feminism is prohibiting actual discussion/change/progress.
Fourth Wave Feminism:
Kyriarchy (again) and Intersectionality. I am not too sure how this will pan out so you will have to play it by ear and respond to whatever threats/stimuli you are presented with.
The Guardian published a wonderful article claiming “The patriarchy is dead … but the kyriarchy lives on”. I was a little unsure whether to put this in the Third or Fourth Wave, it shall stay here for now. I will include these paragraphs, for your reading leisure (and pleasure):
“Kyriarchy links the latest feminist wave to decades of activism, while better framing today’s more subtle oppressions. It helps us to recognise the interconnection of education, class and eating disorders such as anorexia, and of domestic violence and poverty, rather than encouraging us to indiscriminately blame men. It contextualises the contempt of working-class male unionists towards Margaret Thatcher. It helps to explain how women themselves can in some cases morph into the supremacist bully, when paranoid mothers pass on anxieties about food and bodies to their daughters, ground down themselves by years of trying to live up to constructed notions of beauty.”
“Perhaps most importantly, kyriarchy exposes a sin within the women’s movement itself: that of feminist-perpetuated oppression. (I can already hear feminists hissing at me as I type. But don’t worry – I’ll hiss at myself in the mirror later for perpetuating the stereotype of internecine cat-fighting.) When feminist commentators and charities working to “liberate” sex workers relate their tales for them, rather than letting them speak first-hand, that’s kyriarchy. It’s also kyriarchy when minority male feminists are forced to veto voting rights in equality action groups because they are male.”
“Whatever British feminism has achieved, it has never managed to fully convince men to get their march on. At least kyriarchy, with its emphasis on individual liberation and social equality, gives guys a chance to whinge about how they’re oppressed too. And not just by the feminists.”
If they say “we need feminism because there are countries in the world where women can’t vote” or “we need feminism because women in Africa suffer FGM” or “we need feminism because women in Saudi Arabia aren’t allowed to drive”, then ask them as bluntly as you can why that is in any way relevant to today’s discussion. We do not live there. We have no influence over what they do. Those issues are not relevant here. If these issues are relevant then what is the feminism we see over here doing about it over there? What is the feminist movement like over there? Actually, that’s a good point. If they bring up such garbage arguments, ask what the feminist movement in Egypt or Burkina Faso is like. I somehow have the inkling they won’t know. Sad!
It’s okay to compare issues as we (US & UK) are fairly similar. It would be improper to compare British and American Feminist History as the two are very different. Ergo, when discussing the “outdatedness” of feminism, stick to UK history. If the opposition references American Feminist History, ask them why they are doing so, surely such history is outside the scope of this discussion (unless if we are looking at International Feminist History?). As we are Brits having this discussion in Britain, surely it would make sense to restrict ourselves to British Feminist History?