Tamzin Lent | Feminism Cannot Be Capitalist (1/6) | Oxford Union

[@OxfordUnion]

Watch the full debate here > kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHSXoGqNZpidrZY

[@TheMagicLemur]

I often think debaters like this have the wrong definition of capitalism. "It was built by men, for men" is like saying "evolution was built by men for men" - it's a non-sequitur.

[@TheMagicLemur]

@@benjones6172 Not really - evolution is a process, not an origin of a thing. Same with capitalism - it is a process more than it is a fixed idea to critique.

[@theclockworkcadaver7025]

Tim Patmore A process is a thing. The origin of a process is what's being used to discredit that process. You're wrong; this IS the genetic fallacy.

[@TimBitts649]

Capitalist-feminism and the end of white people: Here's an obvious point, no one talks about: President Trump was bragging about the American economy, the other day. President Trump said most of the new jobs that have been created, have gone to women. He thinks that's a good thing. President Trump is a moron, when it comes to gender and economics. Women getting most of the new jobs means young white American women won't bother having children. This means families don't form, children are not born, when economics takes priority over biology. When young white women can make money and the men can't, families don't form, children are not born. This creates a future people shortage...So I guess we will eventually have to import millions of migrants, since we are no longer making future whit Americans? We either have our own children, or we will have to import them. Before you get angry, think this thing through. Feminism can be capitalist? We need to think this through, rather than just blame people. Why is all this happening? Here's my guess: There is an obvious conflict between biology and capitalism. As Paul Joseph Watson pointed out in his eggs video, the science says that by the time a woman is 30, about 90% of her eggs are dead. The natural evolved rules of human, for sexual reproduction, those rules of nature say that human women should have children, when women are in their 20s. This means nature doesn't want young women to have careers in her 20s....unless you want your culture to genetically die off. Nature wants women in their 20s to have babies, not careers. This is important because capitalism is now in bed with feminism and feminism says that women, when they are young, should not bother having children. Instead capitalism and feminism says women should work and go to school in her 20s....and not bother having children. I call it the Capitalist-Feminist Industrial Complex...it has taken over corporate America and academia and the news media. We now run white culture on the assumption that our current ideas on feminism, are a good idea. No they are not. They a catastrophic mistake. But it's not the women that are causing this mistake. It's white men that I blame. Rich white men. Capitalist-feminism, which brings sharply declining birth rates, is the problem. Capitalist-feminism was created by rich white men. The CIA and rich business men created feminism. Look up "Aaron Russo on feminism" and "The Fraud of Feminism" on y-tube. The men who run capitalism are to blame for the demographic collapse of America and Europe, not the women. The women are being duped and are being used and manipulated by rich white businessmen, who want to exploit white women for their cheap labor, to increase capitalist profits. Greedy stupid bastards. If you are not in favor of European-origin peoples doing a cultural suicide you need to understand this, particularly if you are pro-business and pro-capitalist, like I am. I started and ran a business for nearly 20 years. I'm as pro-business as you can get, but capitalism has an Achilles Heel, which is destroying it: Feminism and Capitalism have combined in a stupid way, to push a social pattern that will destroy white America, if it isn't changed. Capitalist-feminism and it's current assumptions are the problem. Capitalist-feminism is a way of looking at the world, a way of looking at economics, a way of looking at how women should be in the world. Capitalist-feminism says that women can avoid having children in her 20s. She can work and go to school instead, say Capitalist-feminists. Short sighted Capitalist-feminist men say: If she works in her 20s instead of having a family, the culture will survive, just fine..... Of course this is pure nonsense. The Capitalist-feminists are insane. Our culture won't survive it's current C-f social assumptions about women and working. The effect of Capitalist-feminism, is women get encouraged to work and make money and go to school in her 20s, instead of having families. The effects of this social pattern is that birth rates for white people, our birth rate drop like a rock. That is exactly what happened....birth rates have dropped like a rock. White people are ending. We are going extinct. Question: Was this deliberate? Answer: Yes...but women are not to blame. Rich white businessmen are to blame. This was planned by rich white businessmen: Anyone giving two minutes thought about nature and economics, can figure this out, so yes, this was all planned and foreseen. Rich capitalists know exactly where this stupid social pattern leads: the effect of women working and going to school when they are young, instead of concentrating on having children and families, the effect of this is the birth rate drops like a rock. This was planned... Your extinction was planned. The end of white people was planned. ...I generally hate communists with a passion, but Karl Marx had a point when he said, "Capitalists are so greedy, they will sell you the rope which you will use to hang them..." That' is exactly what happened. So, don't just blame the Third World. Most of those people who want to come here are just poor and desperate people who want to escape Shit Holes. It's not only, that we have imported the Third World. Yes, we have done that. But we have imported the Third World at the same time as Capitalist-feminism has taken over our schools and our culture is organized around women in advanced countries not bothering to have children when they are young. The problem with women working and going to school in their 20s, is human biology won't allow it, if you want to keep your culture alive. Men's Rights guys have known this all along. They call it "The Wall". It just means that when women are past 30, nature takes away from them, a lot of their sexual market value....and their sexual power. That's the way evolution set up female biology. This is because human females evolved to have children when females are young, not old. Capitalist-feminism tells human females to work and ride the cock carasol for a decade and not to have children. So, all of this seems pretty obvious...I've read thousands of people make similar comments. So: In between importing the Third World and American white women embracing feminism, we have set in motion events which will pretty much end white people in the United States. By the way, don't white blame women for this. My comment is not about blaming women. It's about blaming rich white men. They are the real villains. Most white women have no idea, that they are following a social pattern that will end white people. That's not their intention. They just want decent lives. White women find themselves in a social situation, not of their creation, which is destroying their future, destroying the kind of future, they want. To rich white men I say: Nice going, asshole....

[@TheMagicLemur]

@@theclockworkcadaver7025 It is a thing indeed, just not one invented by people per se, but an evolution of ideas. The underlying assumption of terming it a "system" is to create a false equivilency with some other (invariably inferior) idea. It's no more a genetic fallacy than evolution itself is.

[@trorisk]

Good point. Capitalism isn't what is claimed in the introduction. Capitalism is a way of production. Means of production are not held by people how uses them. So this is an off topic. F-

[@sayansen7648]

The last time I heard something so illogical, was never.

[@liberosisnow]

How is that illogical? What drove you to this conclusion and I'm not asking that to attack you btw.

[@charlieweaver6322]

@@liberosisnow Not the OP, Rafaella, but I'll have a crack. Firstly: 'In a couple (of) months I'm probably going to be the mot hated woman on the internet.' Wow, what an ego! As I type, this video has 13,663 views, 212 upvotes, 162 downvotes, and 129 comments (mine will be 130), not all the comments are negative, including your own. In reality, most people on the internet don't even know who Tamzin Lent is, let alone hate her. 'Feminism strives for the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.' I won't bother going through all the MRA/Antifeminist points, as there are many and you can find them elsewhere if you are inclined to, but Feminism in general only advocates for equality where there is a perceived disadvantage to women (eg. CEOs, MPs, etc.), but ignores areas where men suffer a disadvantage (eg. prison sentencing, homelessness, workplace fatalities). 'Capitalism is predicated on privatisation, exploitation, and inequality.' This is really only a half-truth, one of many during this speech. The ability to own private property is certainly true of capitalism, but is that really exploitation, and does it have to lead to inequality? This often depends on how you define words like exploitation and equality. If you consider it to be exploitation to offer someone money (a wage) in exchange for a service which you can make some profit on for yourself, and if you think equality is everyone getting the same result regardless of how much time, effort and energy they put in (not to mention skill level) then I guess you would agree with Tamzin's statement. Defenders of Capitalism, however, will tell you that unequal outcomes are often the result of unequal input, be it through unequal number of hours worked, skill/education level, experience, and job type (some jobs pay more because they are dirty, dangerous and/or stressful, or require the person to take on more responsibility), and that the business owner making profit from his/her employees is not exploitation, but a win-win situation since both the employer and employee stand to gain from this relationship. Also, and this is rarely mentioned by anyone who opposes capitalism, the word 'capital' from which we get capitalism, initially came from 'capus' or 'caput' meaning 'head'. It was used in money lending to designate the principal sum of a loan in contrast to the 'usury' or 'interest'. If more people understood this, we would be able to point to the real cause of so much inequality in the world, which is of course the banking and monetary systems. 'Feminism reimagines a future based on principles of equality, justice and liberty.' Liberty: the quality or state of being free. Equality: the quality or state of being equal. These two principles are contradictory, since if you give people freedom you will get unequal outcomes (for proof of this see any race where all competitors start at the same time, run for the same distance, but finish at different times). 'The system was designed entirely for men by men.' Here we have another of those half-truths. Did some men design the system we call capitalism? Sure. Did some men design it for their own benefit? No doubt. However, who were these men? Were they the same men who were working down the coal mines, or in the fields, or fighting in the trenches? Don't think so. It was the Aristocracy who created and benefited from this system, an aristocracy which consisted of roughly equal numbers of men and women. So, why is this always presented by feminists as a gendered issue rather than a class one? This is getting long, so I'll try to condense the next few points. Re: Women being given away by father to husband as a fetishized commodity. I'm pretty sure this is a much older practice than capitalism, dating back many thousands of years. If anything, capitalism has probably helped do away with this practice and given women more freedom than previously. Re: Marital Rape not being a crime in England until 1991 This is true, but again it's a half-truth or misleading of the facts. The way she says it, you would assume that men were raping their poor wives every night right up until 1991. The reality is that in marriage, which was based on teachings of the Bible, a man and wife both consented to sex for life (conjugal rights). eg: 1 Corinthians 7: 1-40 ESV 'Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ...' Re: In capitalism childrearing has no value. Strangely, it was feminism that convinced women that serving their employer and working for a corporation was liberation, whereas serving their family was oppression. An example of this is the quote from famous feminist Simone de Beauvoir: 'No woman should be authorized to stay home to raise her children. Women should not have that choice, because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.' Re: The gender wage gap. I'm not even going to bother. It's been debunked many times. Kate Andrews who is on the opposition panel has done so, and even though I haven't watched her speech yet, she probably will do again. Hope this helped.

[@googleuser2609]

This is more convincing that the argument put forward by the speaker.

[@MrSpacepauls]

Feminism dies at the inconvenience of a flat tyre.

[@trintapinto2624]

😂😂😂

[@whatis.afairy]

I am a feminist, and she talks of intersectionality but the entire time her "everyone" oppressed by capitalism is just women. Forgetting the rest of us POC, LGBTQ+ and even disabled people that also live with the harsh socioeconomic divide. Supporting women is not the core of feminism. It's about people, not the sexes. I believe the definition has evolved over time to better fit it.

[@alexanderphilip1809]

well disabled people are disabled by their physical limitations while the rest are limited by social factors. The former two can be part of any system, capitalism or otherwise but disabled people would need significant additional resources to be even functional whether it be in capitalism, socialism or communism.

[@endefisto123]

it is actually quite funny that feminism is the most capitalistic movement there is. I mean they doubled the work force which helped rich CEO's hire men and women for less money overall as there is a higher supply of human resource and the demand is rather the same so they spend less money on salaries meaning CEO's which the left wants to have less money and pay more taxes have a higher human resource and spend less on it meaning more for them. Overall feminism has made capitalism in the west thrive to extreme extend.

[@temple69]

intersectionality means incorporating multiple movements to create a more inclusive way of thinking. black liberation is allowed to be just for black people, queer liberation is allowed to be just for queer people, but women are forced time and time again to include everyone in their feminism. intersectionality is good, but people need to let feminism be a womans movement. intersectional feminism means including queer women, brown women, poor women, muslim women etc, intersectionali feminism is not including poor black men, queer men, etc. the burden of this sort of intersectionality is only placed on women, and not other liberation movements, this is misogynistic.

[@brobsonmontey]

This presentation was a demonstration that vapid and vacuous analysis will allow you to be right about what is wrong, but wrong about what is right.

[@1234oni1234]

Wow!

[@bannermanigans]

Doctor Crane!

[@muhammadlivain4302]

such as pseudoscience analysis

[@liberosisnow]

Thus, your comment.

[@intihumala9087]

@@liberosisnow He's right though this woman is creating a complete strawman, the second you dive into identity politics your entire argument becomes flawed and weak.

[@trorisk]

Capitalism isn't what is claimed in the introduction. Capitalism is a way of production. Means of production are not held by people how uses them. Anti-capitalism is a class struggle. But there are feminisms (not all) that prioritize the struggle of the sexes to the struggle of the classes, these feminists are capitalist feminists. To say that there are feminists who are capitalists is obviously not to say that there are no anti-capitalist feminists.

[@legalfictionnaturalfact3969]

Yes, University educated folks rarely know the definition of capital. It just means personal wealth. And therefore private wealth. Nothing about support for the ownership of private wealth is against feminism womanism.

[@gfy2979]

maybe call them matriarchalists?

[@legalfictionnaturalfact3969]

@@gfy2979 nature is "matriarchalist"

[@tdog708]

"Capitalism keeps women in the kitchen" Gives examples of women getting out of the kitchen "I don't agree with those women so they don't count" That is your argument, you are speaking Oxford University! There are imperfections of capitalism, but you are focused on the ideals of women. Your argument is women should only think one way your way.

[@dylanburgess6479]

9:00 how can you base your point on a lie?

[@nandodando9695]

8:00 You value your children. You buy that time not being at work. Do you think it's fair to be paid twice?

[@aman_insaan]

Let's assume if she's only parent! That's what capitalism does to minds... Thinking mechanically and to the extent that man himself becomes a machine to them... She's not in maternity leave for fun, I suppose. Or you're claiming that for getting milk for her baby she and a bread for herself, she must have to leave her child alone or in some caring home... Is this humane? Now, doesn't your argument goes in the dustbin?

[@MultiSpoonkiller]

@@aman_insaan he is saying that receiving a child's love is being paid in a currency that the man is sacrificing so he can earn fiat currency, and giving women both of those currencies in not equality

[@pookiecatblue]

@@aman_insaan It's HER responsibility...and the father's...nobody else.

[@samain11]

This is a brilliant example of the sort of intellect-free sloganeering that passes for debate these days.

[@KAIZORIANEMPIRE]

Lol i think debate is pointless since it's based on judges that don't necessarily know the topic. In scientific research we have peer review.its at least based on opinion of very logical well informed people. Debates by nature is about trying to appeal to emotion so logic consistency or good arguments form a philosophical or scientific sense is not the purpose

[@undo9981]

@@KAIZORIANEMPIRE it falls to those that present their points to bring data (even though it is hard to prove the correctness of data in a debate) and sound arguments to support their claims. The responsibility of the listeners is to use their own experience and logical thinking to filter the arguments of the speakers and cast a vote. The debates matter, but only if those 2 parties have the intellectual capacity to carry out their roles well enough to give the debate meaning.

[@dauntae24]

Is she excessively preening herself to juxtapose her argument or is she just nervous and oblivious of her behavior?

[@lightspeed001]

lol

[@cowsagainstcapitalism347]

Your opinion is worthless, incel.

[@eubiecordero2564]

Eleven minutes in and im screamin *what's your point??????*

[@cracanata]

She's advocating for communism, but she has such a very low cognitive capacity that she thinks she's talking Feminism. She's just an useful idiot misguided by her marxist teachers.

[@camrunner6633]

What? A woman who doesnt get to the point?

[@liberosisnow]

@@camrunner6633 brilliant, right? That's how good the system is. It knows that no matter the facts, some women will be brave regardless of what their daily experience is. Calling it out would be to become a victim and women don't want to be perceived in that way so, one better sucks it up, put on the corset and be the Wonderwoman :/

[@reardon535]

Wow these comments make me lose faith in humanity. It's not 2016 anymore, listening to Ben Shapiro and being anti-feminist isn't cool or funny anymore. It's time to grow up; I know I did.

[@James-iz9qb]

LOL these comments are delicious. I do not relish the chaos that the culture wars have and continue to bring, but boy do I relish the very real possibility that more people may soon realise how ridiculous they have been in arguing for ideas like this.

[@jkemp6791]

The premise is correct. Capitalism is about merit; providing something to your fellow man in order to get something in return. Feminism is about getting something because you’re female, not because of merit. So, feminism cannot be capitalist.

[@gordonhalcomb9363]

The Oxford Handbook & Cambridge Companion series on Plato made approaching the 'Dialogues' themselves this past summer exceptional, and so therefore an exegesis of Diotima of Mantinea could seem to be the foundation of Neoplatonic Academia for women philosophers; here I am privileged to witness modern candidates , and so thank you for sharing.

[@dempsey2023]

She failed to properly demonstrate how Feminism cannot be capitalist. She is just complaining about having to work and touting the wage gap myth between hair flips.

[@viktoriaorban718]

Capitalism Woman is the property of man So you are right from this point of view

[@eleanork3186]

'the wage gap myth'?? Expand...

[@endefisto123]

@@eleanork3186 1 year later, but the wage gap is taking what all men earn combined with what all women earn and it does not count for the field; hours work; taking days off. Meaning you take all men and combine their income vs all women and combine their income - but if you look at the statistics, men go into more dangerous fields and fields that tend to pay more - physics; chemistry; math while women go for fields that pay less - biology for example. On top of that women take more leave work less hours on average they don't work overtime as much as women are more social then men so they want more time for their personal life. Women can go up to 2 years I believe in maternity leave (could be more or less though) while men have maybe 2 months paternity leave, meaning men spend more time in the work force climbing the corporate ladder. On top of that men are less agreeable, meaning they tend to negotiate higher salaries in job interviews and are more likely to ask for a raise or change jobs based on conditions. So if you remove all of those factors the wage gap does not exist. It is true that most high paying jobs are filled by men, but the CEO position is not just money and traveling all the time and having fun, being a CEO of a successful company requires an insane amount of work and pressure and as mentioned before women want to have a social life and are unwilling to sacrifice that (at least most of them) while men are, on the other hand it is always a risk as there are a TON of people who start companies that go bancrupt and again men are more willing to take risks then women are. At the same time men also are the vast majority of the lowest income jobs and most women are around the middle, but the high paying jobs significantly make up for the difference from the bottom to the middle where the wage gap comes.

[@endefisto123]

@@eleanork3186 Well it did not take me that long to write it like 2 minutes top. Second you are unconvinced because of generalisations? Ok first of all you need to understand one simple fact and that is men and women are different. When I am saying these things I don't mean Every man and Every woman I mean the majority of them as if you look at the work force you will see for example the vast majority of lets say engineers are men. Why is that? There is affirmative action in most engineering schools asking women to join and the requirement for women to join in fields like Law Engineering Medicine is lower than that of men, you can look at the required grades for every college for men and women and you will see this. It is easier for women to go into engineering for example yet there are more male engineers, reason? It is not some hidden sexism just more men are interested in engineering than women are and engineers make good money that is simple. Again as mentioned Biology for example has a vast majority of women but there is no affirmative action for men to join it. When I say things the way they are I mean the majority there are exceptions to the rule but what I said is a fact. Also I have discussed these issues with a lot of women and this is where all of it leads. Also I do find it funny how you have no argument you just say I find it unconvincing you don't have time yet you took the reply of being passive agressive towards a statement you do not agree with. I don't want to tell you where you are wrong because I can't but I still don't like it is what you are saying. You are living in a lie if you believe that women get paid less just based on gender or some hidden sexism. The same reason you are arguing the pay gap is the same reply you are using to not agree with me - the pay gap shows if you take all women vs all men if that is not generalising I don't know what is.

[@endefisto123]

@@eleanork3186 Another thing I just remembered - in my old company there were like 250 employees roughly and it was with finances, divided in 2 floors. The first floor had about 200 employees roughly 70-30 women to men as my boss was a woman who employed more women. Second floor had about 50 people with 95% of them being men as there were a lot more money being made there. Now in order to get the promotion to the second floor you had to have great results in the first floor but in time my boss gave free spots to women as it was overwhelmingly men and some tried but the fact was with more money came a LOT more work and most of these women decided not to do it and went back to the first floor after just a few days. There I finished work at 19:00 but sometimes remained in the office till midnight, on the weekends even during holidays as there was a lot of work to do. Women in that company were given a free pass to try it but the huge amount of work was not something they wanted to do. I spoke with a lot of those women even asking them to come and take the offer for the 2nd floor and they said they wanted to make sure they have their personal life. Yes that is one company alone but there was blatand favoritism towards women and still the men made more money. Again men and women are programmed differently.

[@ignatiusreilly2141]

"Capitalism is predicated on the commodification of human bodies primarily in the form of labour", says an expensively educated Eng. lit. (just guessing) student at Oxford, "it's a system designed by men, for men", she informs a group which includes building and construction workers, refuse collectors and sanitary workers, ware house employees, farm laborers, firemen, ambulance drivers, soldiers etc. etc. as well as, ironically, the majority of the homeless, the suicidal and the incarcerated. Now that they know that the system has been created for them, that should put a real skip in their steps!

[@jaksbekalskkz1961]

Why is that sentence weird, I find it okay

[@jaksbekalskkz1961]

I pm referring to ‘capitalism is predicated…’

[@tharv120]

The irony is lost to her

[@russjcameo]

Is this simply a theoretical discussion? Do the speakers argue for points that they do not believe in?

[@simonvanteutem7288]

They are assigned a side, so, yes, they don't necessarily believe in these points.

[@MaisieDaisyUpsadaisy]

This person is a competitive debater so they may not believe in the views being expressed. But, then again, they may.

[@jordanpartypartyparty]

These comments are wild. In a capitalist patriarchy women have to choose between oppression or patriarchy. We do not need to elevate women to powerful positions as you said, we need to value and reward feminine roles in society.

[@jessesewell7922]

This young lady should have leaned in and spent more time crafting her arguments. Many assertions and bizarre claims. Very little evidence and skillful argumentation.

[@ToxicVaccines_HivHoax]

Many ill informed assertions and extremely bizarre claims, for sure!!

[@Savtea]

Talks about how women in power arent synonymous to feminists and then goes on to call out Natalie Portman for not working with women directors clearly I’m missing something here lol

[@strugglingthrough]

you really are clearly missing the point. Read your own sentence, you'll understand.

[@1234oni1234]

Women make 70 cents for every dollar a man earns, but men make more overtime hours, so that they make more profit for the company (see wage gap vs. pay gap). There certainly are smart women, as there are smart men, but you cannot find them among feminist advocates, as long as the standards to be such an advocate are so low.

[@figgles2472]

I think the argument that the situation now means it isn’t possible is weak, and showing examples of our current way of ‘fixing the situation’ aren’t working just shows we aren’t doing it right, not that we can’t do it right.

[@gfy2979]

Women are in near full control of the hiring processes in capitalism. When was the last time you saw a male HR person?

[@TheAltair236]

If you're not with me, then you're my enemy.....sorry i dont get it...

[@HornetCucumber]

A person can not be capitalistic and feminist at thr same time. So with that logic I declare *Business women does not exist.* Because business women are the most female empowerment symbol I have ever seen.

[@jordanpartypartyparty]

Women are faced with the choice oppression or patriarchy

[@jatozzie8623]

"According to capitalist economics women are only able to produce 70% of what a man can." wrong according to capitalist economics there wouldn't be any any men in the workforce because they would be outsourced by cheaper labor (women).

[@viktoriaorban718]

You are very stupid! Capitalism = social Darwinism the stronger will carry everything weaker or servant or perish

[@jatozzie8623]

How do you burgle your own home????

[@PaulV3D]

Interesting and bold talk but... FYI most homeless people are male. Ex military, manic depressives, substance abuse or more. Yes there are some female homeless but many are able to seek shelter more easily than their male counterparts. Edit; You had forgotten to mention disabled women...

[@viktoriaorban718]

Didn’t you think this is because my capitalist partner uses women as a sex object?

[@anshulpatel6232]

Ok and?

[@jafersorianocamargo6723]

Very well articulated but it’s still a game for her, what value does this holds?

[@jogrobler]

That is what I felt like @10:15. This was truly painful to watch. I really did try listening to this with an open mind. I hope the other members on her side of the isle do this topic justice.

[@patrickkilroy6512]

Feminism originated in capitalist nations. It flourished in capitalist nations. It goes hand in hand with capitalism and the premium it places on the innovation of free individuals, having emerged from the same Western context: The individual person and their conscience is valued above the collective, all individuals are equal (before god originally and then before the law), competition between multiple sovereign nations, international trade and commerce, Christian concern for the unfortunate / downtrodden. The beauty of the Western milieu, is that we live in such prosperity that this person is free to make absurd arguments, I am free to to point out their absurdities, and viewers of this video are free to make their own judgements.

[@viktoriaorban718]

What are you talking about? Feminism is a radical left-wing trend yet is a religion and capitalism right-wing one

[@patrickkilroy6512]

@@viktoriaorban718 Feminism is left wing yes. But there’s nothing “right wing” about capitalism or religion. Capitalism, and religion in particular, are things both political wings have participated in for centuries

[@rajthakkar3646]

The address is the definition of pseudofeminism

[@channel08]

I suppose some one at Oxford decided that constructing a joke on college students via free debate was a good idea. Maybe giving visibility and magnifying the wrong answer is part of the purpose? I hope this won’t drive new “thinkers” to make this a thing.

[@jayak3768]

I am not sure if her argument is that, even though women are producing less and working less, they need to be paid the same as men. I would argue if that is the case, even though more are committing less crimes then men, we should have equality of gender, in terms of number of people incarcerated. Shouldn't we.

[@Nimuel]

This is supposed to be the proposition? It's ironic that the complete failed argument is more efficient in undermining an argument for feminism as a whole than... Well, anything else really.

[@patrickkilroy6512]

What kind of motion is this? Capitalism is an economic system, Feminism is supposed to be a social rights movement. Those two are entirely distinct and a society should be able to have both simultaneously. In a sane world, this would be like asking whether the American civil rights movement was compatible with democracy. By framing the motion this way, Feminism is elevated to a holistic, political “theory of everything” like Marxism. If Feminism is deemed incompatible with capitalism, it is only because its modern inheritors have absurdly expanded its ideological boundaries out of megalomania. Territory has been ceded to fanatics at the outset.

[@quraninsanskrit6779]

महासनस्यनिदर्शनम् आयातुल कुरसी द्वितीयोऽध्यायः पञ्चपञ्चाशदधिकद्विशततमः आयातः بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم परमकृपामयम् अपारदयाप्रदम् आल्लाहस्य नामे 1. आल्लाहम् अपारञ्जीवम् अनन्तधारकम् अस्ति, न इलाहः (ईश्वरः, देवः) तद् विना, 2. न तद् तन्द्रा स्पृशति न एव च निद्रा, 3. तस्मै सन्ति यानि पृथ्व्याम् अपिच नभेषु, 4. कः प्राप्नोति तस्मात् माध्यस्थ्यः तस्य आज्ञा विना? 5. तद् जानाति यानि सन्ति तेषाम् अग्रेषु पृष्ठेषु च, 6. न तस्य ज्ञानात् किमपि ते गुण्ठयन्ति विना यत् तद् इच्छति, 7. तस्य महासनं पृथ्वीम् अपि च नभान् वेष्टयति, 8. न एव च क्लामयति एतयोः संरक्षणे तद् च परमोर्ध्वम् अतिमहानम् अस्ति.

[@sachinsinghpatiala]

Tum kis dharma keho

[@jabirlava6149]

@@sachinsinghpatiala Shayed muslim hain...

[@sachinsinghpatiala]

@@jabirlava6149 Bhai tum hindu

[@jabirlava6149]

@@sachinsinghpatiala naam se pta nehiin chalta kya...

[@sachinsinghpatiala]

@@jabirlava6149 maf Karna bhai confirm Karna Jaruri hota hai

[@hunterbramlage6044]

This debate is a joke.

[@HornetCucumber]

Wow such confidence, "most hated women on the Internet" managed to get only 14k views on a platform which is itself 1 million subscribers wide, which floats on a website with billions of views every day, a website which is just fraction of the world wide web(internet).

[@varunshahvo-tv9854]

Me @ 10:15

[@jayak3768]

It is honestly so hard not to cringe, feel uneasy listening to this complete illogical speech. Full of cliches without actually completing the thought process.

[@bvkronenberg6786]

Feminists are vampires. Cash type vampires.

[@saintmangina]

Jesus. She was awful. May have had a great point but presented it very poorly.

[@-M_M_M-]

#1 - Make a straw-man definition of capitalism. #2 and #3 - This straw-man definition doesn't go with my view of feminism. Case closed.

[@ryanboshell6124]

I thought feminism meant supporting women in whatever they decide to do? Including making a ton of money...

[@gogibear123]

who comes up with these fucking questions

[@123brownjames]

👏👏👏👏

[@jkemp6791]

Of course you’d clap. Look at you. 😂 You’re like the beta male prototype.

[@123brownjames]

@@jkemp6791 😂😂😂😂😂

[@apepeterpan]

This is a debate in oxford? Shows just what is wrong. Why not debate something actually bloody useful? Feminism is not about equality for the sexes, never was. It says in the name who it is for.

[@umbra014]

Came to dislike, dont mind me

[@MrSamuelWardle]

Wonderful argument! The best opening speaker at any Oxford debate :)

[@sparkymmilarky]

Is this the state of oxford university? Terrifying

[@scatton61]

Opening sentence.... wrong...".. equality of the sexes"? Feminism doesn't understand or care about men. Perhaps she thinks that women can't compete with men on equal grounds. No one is equal.... welcome to reality. Without capitalism feminist, wouldn't be able, as you say spend ages deciding what to wear, you wouldn't be one of the elite privileged minority, in Oxford uni. The list of things women wouldn,t have is endless without capitalism. Such a weak and poorly thought out argument

[@Sycatrax]

In debates that I have attended in the past, the Proposition did not use their introduction privileges for piecemeal jabs at the Opposition's background and company history. I look forward to watching the rest of the video(s), and the only "internet backlash" I would have to share is that I hope for respect and manners from and for all parties - including that of the Proposition.

[@bigzed7908]

She's wearing clothes that were made from capitalism. Pff...

[@bigzed7908]

@Ray Patson the Gods look upon us with shame. Our civilisation is so deep in manure that it will take one helluva struggle to break out of the madness corupt fools have brought upon us all.

[@SikanderG]

This is so stupid.

[@suu2212]

highly subversive

[@Inspector-Chisholm]

Frankly there's no point in debating with anyone who uses the word capitalist. It a deliberately pejorative term coined by socialists in the mid 19th century. You cannot redeem something by arguing the case for it using definitions that deliberately condemn it. As the speaker says, the aim is not to reform society, but to destroy it and replace it with a socialist utopia. These arguments are so old and have been discredited so many times. Not just in theory, but in the MANY disastrous results that have befallen any nation that has tried to implement socialists policies.

[@TotalCryuff]

👏👏👏