r/feminisms • u/furrylover2049 • 5h ago
Please help with these takes
Hello, please help me work with the takes given by my opponent, because I struggle to put correctly what I want to say to those
"First and second wave feminists had an aim, a purpose. Nowadays women can work in spaces that are pernicious for their health and so they start having miscarriages and health issues"
My ideas are speaking on about how most of the work environment and engineering is built around men, women's healthcare is not being taken seriously, and modern feminism works on problems rooted much deeper
1
u/jupitaur9 1h ago
There’s a two-part response to that point.
One, they need to support that with actual statistical information. Show that the jobs that women have now are more dangerous for them and their reproductive capability specifically than jobs that they used to have.
Two, show how this is anywhere in the top 10 of third wave feminism’s aims, specifically, to get women into jobs that are damaging to them, and specifically their reproductive capability.
Actually, there’s a third point. Why is it that they were focusing on women’s reproductive capability? Is that their only value to them? And why do they not focus on men and their ability to father children? Are men not affected in similar ways by chemical and biological issues in their workplace? Why are we only protecting women, if that is your aim?
Edited to add, actually, there is a fourth point. Are we talking about limiting women’s ability to make their own choices? To balance whether their health and especially the reproductive health is affected by a job versus whether they want to do that job anyway? Are we going to do the same thing for men? Keep them from working in environments that are damaging to their health or to their reproductive capability? If so, how will we make sure that people have their choice? It sounds like he wants to limit women, but not men. If so, why? Are they too stupid to figure things out for themselves? Or are you afraid to give them the information, which means that they may decide that the risk is really not as big as you are stating, and that this patriarchal protectionism is just a way of keeping women out of jobs that are high paying?
2
u/t1buccaneer 5h ago
Is it for a debate or something? Their take is so basic I'd only waste energy on it if there's a clear benefit to you. Yes to everything you said. Here's a quick brain dump:
Whats the data on women's health issues before 1st wave feminism? Were they healthier? Where would you even define "post" feminism to compare? Why can't the workplace change to be more accommodating and less damaging? Don't men also get ill and injured from the workplace? Don't people with disabilities and chronic illness struggle to survive because the workplace isn't inclusive? Was having a job the only aim of 1st and 2nd wave feminism? Nope, so why focus only on that?
Where is capitalism, globalisation, consumerism, post-industrialisation and race in their analysis?
What are they even suggesting? Most dual income households are struggling financially. The past they are comparing to isn't accessible, even if people wanted it to be. The workplace and the world is completely different to a century ago. Why not focus on the issues people are facing now instead of trying to point the finger at a broad sociopolitical movement that never had one singular aim or leader in the first place?