THBT the feminist movement should oppose military interventions that claim to further women's rights. OG - CAMBRIDGE A OO - EDINBURGH A CG - OXFORD A CO - SHEFFIELD A
MO's Speech: Mr. speaker, the problem with the feminist movement isnt that theyre saying the wrong things, is that nobodys listening. We think that if we can prove in this debate that you harm the hability of the feminist movement to achieve its aims at home, then on the comparative, this isnt the world in which we want to live in, because the comparative in this debate has been completely missed, and this is why I came ... looking baffled. Because the problem in the western liberal democracies at moment is that the feminist movement are small and peripheral as actors, theres a low number of women, and even lower number of man self identify as feminist. People in this room are self identified as feminist, but that's because you're spending a Saturday evening listening to a history on the ... speech in the National Theater. So on the comparative these conflicts happen anyway. The feminist movements do not have the ability to stop these wars occurring. No conflict has ever looked unlikely until the feminist hopped on board and gave their public support. No conflict was ever looking certain until the feminist said we oppose this and then they said we'll stop proclaiming that, this is for women's rights. That this is important. Why is this necessary important on the comparative? Because, at their very best, they are slightly less likely to go into this wars, for the reasons Ben told you of how people already proclaimed that they are acting for womens rights in terms of a sham proclamation that doesnt occur, and at their worst with their home you harm perception of the feminist at home. On our side, the conflict still happens as it will already except Caitlin Moran and the Fawcett Society or I don't know feminist organizations in other countries because thats kind of the point right that they were peripheral organizations with very little International sway. And you get enormous harms the feminist movement, which the we think to be weighted in this debate right. Opening opposition kind of talked about this but they got the discursive changes wrong when they say that the daily mail if they criticize this at all are going to say that delinking feminism and the militarists state. Far more likely that they're going to say if they report on this stands at all and has any efficacy, the feminists are opposing helping women who was stoned and denied education. We think that is a statement that is likely to enormously damage the feminist movement, and not one we think it should take. Only two pieces of extraneous rebuttal then, which are both giving that comparative responses directly to the extension. He says two things: Firstly, there is a harm when feminist supports these conflicts in as much as you link gender in those conflicts. Notice the armies will still go in and the states will still go in saying they are acting on behalf of women and that's my POI whenever you get all of the harms Focus talks about. Like, Boko Haram: I'm going to go That's right I read in the guardian the feminists arent behind this, so it's not the women. You get all of the harms still, this is a non-sensical point. This is also true of the view in West in terms of a comparative. You still think that feminists are supporting this movement. You still think the women are behind it and therefore all of the harms they talked about fall. Just missed the comparative, right? Okay. Sorry, Im angry about this. So let's look at what's important in this debate, right? Because it might be older that closing op have been the being the first people to ... inefficacy, but we think that in the way that this works and it's really important. We think that it is incredibly unlikely firstly that the view that these feminist movements will take will change the stance of the government's. Firstly, these are numerically small organizations unable to sway votes and unable to sway the kind of support that happens. Secondly, in terms of their voice they're very peripheral, where they are not peripheral is on women's issues. Obviously, if feminists come out with a particular position on an issue, which is perceived by the general public to be one that is primarily about women about abortions or something like this, they have a disproportionate effort, theyre are invited to news programs to discuss these theyre are invited to all ... about what they think. In terms of a military intervention very few people are going to say what are the feminist thinking. How do I get the feminist votes on board so that it is incredibly unlikely the feminist are gonna have any efficacy in changing these kind of things. Why is this important? This is key. We do not think and we do not believe we should live in a world where a movement adopts a position even if it is maybe principly correct, OO said it wasnt, but even if it was principally correct , that has no impact on that issue and enormously harms your ability to make impact on other issues. Right? Why is it the case that it will damage then the perception. If we proved that like if we prove they have no efficacy why then is this harm that we introduced so bad? Three reasons These interventions where they occur are likely to have three factors to their name Firstly, theyre likely to have wide public support or at least a simple majority of public support. Notice the where interventions don't have these public support governments are unlikely to go to them, like Syria in terms of the UK and others. Secondly, they're likely to based on a serious greevance. Notice that we didn't believe that the actions taken by ISIS or the actions by Boko Haram were even enough to intervene in these areas therefore is likely that there are serious human rights abuses occurring in these areas. Thirdly, it is likely that there was strong support by the International Community for this intervention, we are beyond the age where individual states can go in without the consensus of the International Community. These three things will characterize these interventions. In opposing these interventions therefore what harms occur to the feminist movement? Firstly, on a general level, they all seem to be taking a peripheral view out of step with public opinion or opinions on human rights and the International Community and therefore further painting themselves as people that are other type of people that are probably criticizing this war, those on the far-left, and those that belong to the pacifist movement which often are able to mobilie large marches, but very very bad at mobilizing large support, right, particularly when the conflict is one of the three of us are described actually about taking out. You completely missed the point when you said a soft justifications on human rights are important. Those that are able to advocate on human rights are not a feminist organization organizations. On the Dalton part of the kind of feminist ideology and on proof on peripheral in that way. We think that those kind of organizations given that there are so this debate are probably likely for the reasons I gave you support this conflict and protection of Rights and therefore feminism actively moves itself away from the kind of Human Rights Tipping Point you talk about when you oppose these conflicts, right. So, reasons this happens Firstly on the general level it leads to public condemnation. But two specific harms when the feminist movement does this. Firstly, the idea of a ethical essentialism like the common perception of feminism that these are white middle-class women talking about like photoshopping of photoshopping of other videos or whatever and not actually looking at the way in which women's lives and their experiences are felt. We think you further this when you say the feminists are very willing to campaign or maybe abortions right in Western liberal democracies, or maybe like cosmetic issues like advertising, but when it comes to women who are stoned and denied education they say we should be non active. They say we should not act and they oppose moves that help those groups. We think it makes it less likely therefore you get buy in. Finally, being in terms of self-interest. It is more likely that they perceive these groups of self-interested the differs large public support in the feminist movement say ah but there are some discursive problems that might occur or in the long term it's going to be a good idea. If there's more between to a debate land and it doesn't play out as correct in the public sphere. We're in it'll say actually we believe in the justification for we believe that gonna be helped and you are only looking after yourself by saying there is going to be these ethereal discursive harms that we hear from these guys. Why is this important on the comparative. Because these harms make it less likely for these feminist organizations to be able to advocate for the kind of things we think are enormously important in closing opposition. Less likely to advocate in Western liberal democracies for abortion rights for gender pay gaps for the other things that they do so well when they take a stance which means they are less able to fulfill their core function, a core function we think in closing opposition is enormously important then they shouldn't take that stance. Since there isn't gentlemen panel. We think that this may be a principle stance. We think that if this principled stance has no effects and damages the ability of the feminist movement to realize change its not one it is worth probably be taking. The last time for Sheffield very very happy to oppose
MO's Speech:
Mr. speaker, the problem with the feminist movement isnt that theyre saying the wrong things, is that nobodys listening. We think that if we can prove in this debate that you harm the hability of the feminist movement to achieve its aims at home, then on the comparative, this isnt the world in which we want to live in, because the comparative in this debate has been completely missed, and this is why I came ... looking baffled.
Because the problem in the western liberal democracies at moment is that the feminist movement are small and peripheral as actors, theres a low number of women, and even lower number of man self identify as feminist. People in this room are self identified as feminist, but that's because you're spending a Saturday evening listening to a history on the ... speech in the National Theater. So on the comparative these conflicts happen anyway. The feminist movements do not have the ability to stop these wars occurring. No conflict has ever looked unlikely until the feminist hopped on board and gave their public support. No conflict was ever looking certain until the feminist said we oppose this and then they said we'll stop proclaiming that, this is for women's rights. That this is important.
Why is this necessary important on the comparative?
Because, at their very best, they are slightly less likely to go into this wars, for the reasons Ben told you of how people already proclaimed that they are acting for womens rights in terms of a sham proclamation that doesnt occur, and at their worst with their home you harm perception of the feminist at home.
On our side, the conflict still happens as it will already except Caitlin Moran and the Fawcett Society or I don't know feminist organizations in other countries because thats kind of the point right that they were peripheral organizations with very little International sway. And you get enormous harms the feminist movement, which the we think to be weighted in this debate right.
Opening opposition kind of talked about this but they got the discursive changes wrong when they say that the daily mail if they criticize this at all are going to say that delinking feminism and the militarists state. Far more likely that they're going to say if they report on this stands at all and has any efficacy, the feminists are opposing helping women who was stoned and denied education. We think that is a statement that is likely to enormously damage the feminist movement, and not one we think it should take.
Only two pieces of extraneous rebuttal then, which are both giving that comparative responses directly to the extension. He says two things:
Firstly, there is a harm when feminist supports these conflicts in as much as you link gender in those conflicts. Notice the armies will still go in and the states will still go in saying they are acting on behalf of women and that's my POI whenever you get all of the harms Focus talks about. Like, Boko Haram: I'm going to go That's right I read in the guardian the feminists arent behind this, so it's not the women. You get all of the harms still, this is a non-sensical point.
This is also true of the view in West in terms of a comparative. You still think that feminists are supporting this movement. You still think the women are behind it and therefore all of the harms they talked about fall. Just missed the comparative, right? Okay. Sorry, Im angry about this.
So let's look at what's important in this debate, right? Because it might be older that closing op have been the being the first people to ... inefficacy, but we think that in the way that this works and it's really important.
We think that it is incredibly unlikely firstly that the view that these feminist movements will take will change the stance of the government's.
Firstly, these are numerically small organizations unable to sway votes and unable to sway the kind of support that happens.
Secondly, in terms of their voice they're very peripheral, where they are not peripheral is on women's issues. Obviously, if feminists come out with a particular position on an issue, which is perceived by the general public to be one that is primarily about women about abortions or something like this, they have a disproportionate effort, theyre are invited to news programs to discuss these theyre are invited to all ... about what they think.
In terms of a military intervention very few people are going to say what are the feminist thinking. How do I get the feminist votes on board so that it is incredibly unlikely the feminist are gonna have any efficacy in changing these kind of things. Why is this important? This is key. We do not think and we do not believe we should live in a world where a movement adopts a position even if it is maybe principly correct, OO said it wasnt, but even if it was principally correct , that has no impact on that issue and enormously harms your ability to make impact on other issues. Right?
Why is it the case that it will damage then the perception. If we proved that like if we prove they have no efficacy why then is this harm that we introduced so bad? Three reasons
These interventions where they occur are likely to have three factors to their name
Firstly, theyre likely to have wide public support or at least a simple majority of public support. Notice the where interventions don't have these public support governments are unlikely to go to them, like Syria in terms of the UK and others.
Secondly, they're likely to based on a serious greevance. Notice that we didn't believe that the actions taken by ISIS or the actions by Boko Haram were even enough to intervene in these areas therefore is likely that there are serious human rights abuses occurring in these areas.
Thirdly, it is likely that there was strong support by the International Community for this intervention, we are beyond the age where individual states can go in without the consensus of the International Community.
These three things will characterize these interventions. In opposing these interventions therefore what harms occur to the feminist movement?
Firstly, on a general level, they all seem to be taking a peripheral view out of step with public opinion or opinions on human rights and the International Community and therefore further painting themselves as people that are other type of people that are probably criticizing this war, those on the far-left, and those that belong to the pacifist movement which often are able to mobilie large marches, but very very bad at mobilizing large support, right, particularly when the conflict is one of the three of us are described actually about taking out.
You completely missed the point when you said a soft justifications on human rights are important. Those that are able to advocate on human rights are not a feminist organization organizations. On the Dalton part of the kind of feminist ideology and on proof on peripheral in that way. We think that those kind of organizations given that there are so this debate are probably likely for the reasons I gave you support this conflict and protection of Rights and therefore feminism actively moves itself away from the kind of Human Rights Tipping Point you talk about when you oppose these conflicts, right.
So, reasons this happens
Firstly on the general level it leads to public condemnation. But two specific harms when the feminist movement does this.
Firstly, the idea of a ethical essentialism like the common perception of feminism that these are white middle-class women talking about like photoshopping of photoshopping of other videos or whatever and not actually looking at the way in which women's lives and their experiences are felt. We think you further this when you say the feminists are very willing to campaign or maybe abortions right in Western liberal democracies, or maybe like cosmetic issues like advertising, but when it comes to women who are stoned and denied education they say we should be non active. They say we should not act and they oppose moves that help those groups. We think it makes it less likely therefore you get buy in.
Finally, being in terms of self-interest. It is more likely that they perceive these groups of self-interested the differs large public support in the feminist movement say ah but there are some discursive problems that might occur or in the long term it's going to be a good idea. If there's more between to a debate land and it doesn't play out as correct in the public sphere. We're in it'll say actually we believe in the justification for we believe that gonna be helped and you are only looking after yourself by saying there is going to be these ethereal discursive harms that we hear from these guys. Why is this important on the comparative.
Because these harms make it less likely for these feminist organizations to be able to advocate for the kind of things we think are enormously important in closing opposition. Less likely to advocate in Western liberal democracies for abortion rights for gender pay gaps for the other things that they do so well when they take a stance which means they are less able to fulfill their core function, a core function we think in closing opposition is enormously important then they shouldn't take that stance. Since there isn't gentlemen panel. We think that this may be a principle stance. We think that if this principled stance has no effects and damages the ability of the feminist movement to realize change its not one it is worth probably be taking.
The last time for Sheffield very very happy to oppose
J
The dynamics of CO is very magical
Have you noticed that Adam's speeches seem like they're played on " faster "
氵
3:54
what is the name of the mo?
Adam Hawksbree
Hiiii saum
@@rohansastry3197 hiii sas
@@rohanseelamsetty6 yoooooooo
@@rohansastry3197 first subscriber remember me when you famous
Adam outshone everyone.
35:10
51:18
who won?
CO, Sheffield
Obviously, it is the CO.
does she really have to finish every sentence with "right" right?
N
o
owo