 Hey everybody, today we're debating third wave feminism and we're starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. This is going to be a lot of fun, folks. Want to let you know a few things up front. First, here at Moderne Debate, we are a nonpartisan platform. So we have no videos espousing any particular views. We leave that totally up to the debaters. And also want to let you know, no matter what walk of life you are from, no matter what your views or background are, we hope you feel welcome as we're striving for a melting pot type of channel. And also want to let you know, we're very excited as today, want to say both the special things, just alone we're really thrilled and thankful to have Dr. Christie Winters and Shadow Dancer with us just for being willing to come on and debate. So first let me just say thank you for that. Also, I also want to add, I want to say thank you to them for making this possible that today, 100% of the super chats will be going to the Sexual Assault Prevention and Healing Center and that is linked in the description. Also, it has the Charity Watchdog Rating linked in the description as well as they're a very responsible charity and we always double check that. And lastly, want to let you know, we are happy to send that donation receipt to anybody who would like to see it. We really want to emphasize transparency. And so even if it's your first time here and you'd like to see that receipt, I am happy to send that to you. And so with that, very excited. This is going to be a great one today. Want to let you know just the format of the debate before we get started. So it's going to have kind of a quick intro, or I should say kind of a more formal but still quick type of format. And by that I mean, it's not going to be any sort of long statements. It's actually just going to be 10 minute openings followed by eight minute rebuttals, 10 minute cross exams, five minute closings and then 30 minutes of Q and A. So want to let you know, I have linked both of the speakers down in the description folks. So if you're listening and you're like, hey, I'd like to hear more, you can hear more. That's why I put those links down there for you. So with that, want to say, oh, last, for the Q and A, if you'd like to enter a question, feel free to fire it into the old live chat. If you tag me with at modern day debate and makes it easier for me to get every question in that list, also super chat is an option in which you can not only ask a question, but if you want to make a comment or objection, you can. Of course, each speaker would get a chance to respond to that and super chats will also go to the top of the list for the Q and A. So with that, we are thrilled to have both of our guests here. And so on whether or not feminism has, third way feminism in particular has done, more good than, you can correct me on the phrasing, both of our guests, more good than bad or more good than harm, we are going to get rolling and I just now noticing that there isn't strictly, given how it's phrased, an affirmative who would go first. Can you remind me if we did talk about who would go first? I'm taking the positive position, so. You bet. I think. Absolutely. That would be me. Absolutely, so. It doesn't matter. One thing I also want to say, just because we do have you linked in the description, want to give you each a chance to introduce yourselves if you would, just to let us know what you've been up to at your channel or at your link. We would love to hear it. And so Dr. Christy Winters, I guess since you're going first, we'd love to hear from you on what you've been up to at yours. Yes, well, I guess the most academic thing I do is currently I'm doing a book club on the social construction of reality by Luckman and Berger, Berger and Luckman. But I also have a very sweary politics show that I do with my co-host Kevin Logan called The Happy Hour and we do that periodically, which is every third or fourth or fifth day, whenever we feel like it. You bet. Absolutely, thanks for that. And shadow dancer, thrilled to have you as well. What have you been up to? So I'm actually still pretty new to YouTube but I have actually been working on world history and ancient history. I'm currently a history major at my college. Be graduating December with my bachelor's in history so I'm pretty excited about that. And basically I just, I give history lessons on my channel and I talk about the Bible and how it relates to ancient history. You bet. Well, thank you both. And with that, excited to finally get started, this is gonna be a lot of fun folks. Dr. Christy Winters, the floor is all yours. Yes, well, thank you to James for hosting this debate as well as to shadow dancer for taking part and to all of you in the audience for giving me and all of us your time and attention. Tonight I will argue that third wave feminism has had a more positive than negative effect in North America and in particular, I will focus on my home country of the United States. For me, the premise that third wave feminism has had a more positive than negative effect is an easy argument to make because for all the good that first and second wave feminism and feminist activists did for women and men, it is undeniable that those earlier waves of feminist activism were seen from and focused upon the concerns of upper and middle class white women. I will argue here tonight that if the aim of feminist critique and activism are societies in which women fully enjoy the same rights and privileges that men enjoy, then these goals of equality must include all women, not only cis straight white upper and middle class women until the third wave Western feminism both in theory and practice was not broadly inclusive. Right up until the latter part of the 20th century, Western feminism primarily reflected the concerns and the world views of white women. Now, before I go any further, I wanna make very clear that this same critique can be applied to the founding fathers of the United States. America's earliest version of equality reflected the concerns and the world views of educated, well-to-do white men in the same way that earlier feminist waves were centered on well-to-do white women's concerns. Let's take as an example, Thomas Jefferson who wrote that all men are created equal. Jefferson meant only men, not women. And Jefferson didn't even think that all men were created equal. His view of who was a full human being was limited to white men. Jefferson and his contemporaries sexism denied all women their basic humanity and their racism denied black, brown and Native American men their basic humanity. More egregiously, Jefferson was extolling the virtues of the equality of men while at the same time keeping men, women and children enslaved for his own financial benefit. Jefferson's hypocrisy makes us uncomfortable in the 21st century and rightfully so. Hence people nowadays routinely rescue Jefferson from his own racism and sexism. It is almost a reflex now for people to retcon Jefferson's words into we hold these truths to be self-evident that all people are created equal. In the 21st century, we choose to reinterpret Jefferson's unequal notion of equality to mean universal human equality. We choose against Jefferson's original intent to believe in a fundamental human equality that applies to every person regardless of their ethnic background, their economic status, their gender or gender identity, their age or disability or so forth. And in my opinion, we are right to reject Jeffersonian equality for our own version. So on this July 3rd, the day before Americans celebrate our independence, I emphasize today that we consider it a patriotic duty to reject the limited notion of Jeffersonian equality. But even through the 20th century, when we compare how American ideals of equality to what non-white people experienced, the mismatch is obvious. How can America said to have been the land of equality when we had legal structures that impose and reinforced racial segregation? Second wave feminism had a similar blind spot. The mainstream feminist perspectives focused on the concerns and the struggles of white women without addressing distinct forms of oppression faced by women of color or other women lacking privilege. This sort of feminism has come to be known as white feminism and it was entirely fair to ask how second wave feminists could claim to care about all girls and women's equality when the only voices that carried any weight were well educated, financially well off white women. In short, it could not. Just as we Americans had to do self reflection, self critique and then expand our understanding beyond the sexist and racially discriminatory Jeffersonian view of equality of men, so too has had 20th century feminists and feminism had to reckon with a far too limited view of equality. So if you agree that it is right and proper for people in the 21st century to revise and expand Jefferson's limited 18th century view of equality, then you will agree with me that it is also that earlier waves of feminism that were centered on white women's concerns should be similarly reformed to include all girls and women and all girls and all girls and women's experiences and third wave feminism is the name we give to that reform. The most powerful criticisms that third wave feminists have leveled have been not directly against sexism, misogyny and or patriarchy but against white feminism demanding that all feminists rethink who is included when we think about the ways in which women are oppressed by sexism, misogyny and or patriarchy. The third wave solution to the narrowing of sorry to the narrow casting of white feminist activism is intersectionality, a theoretical and analytical framework developed by Kimberly Crenshaw in 1989. It is a simple yet powerful observation that our experience of the world is shaped by the many ways that others in the world perceive us that is to say the role or ethnic background plays how much money we have our gender and gender identity, sexual orientation, class location, education and so forth. These must all be taken into consideration just need a glass of water. By applying intersectional analysis to issues that girls and women face it highlights the way in which our experiences will differ depending on other aspects of who we are and how that intersects with us being girls or women or non-binary or other things. Third wave feminism has had a positive effect much more than negative because it has been a critique of white feminism and narrowly defined feminist activism. Examples of third wave feminism in action are the recent marches in conjunction with Black Lives Matter that focused on black trans women, a group that has seen 18 women murdered in the first six months of 2020. Intersectional third wave feminism is the reason people are more aware of the plight of undocumented women who are sexually assaulted and then may feel they can't report their crimes because they have a fear of deportation. And unless we as a society wanna create a class of sexual predators who are safe from any prosecution as long as their victims are undocumented then feminist activism must seek solutions that keep all women safe. Third wave feminism, intersectional feminism makes that possible. As Flavian Zodans wrote, my feminism will be intersectional or it will be BS. She's not wrong. To say that third wave feminism has had a more negative than positive effect is to misunderstand the main criticisms of third wave feminism, which has been inward looking criticisms. That is calling out white feminism as unrepresentative and inadequate to the task of understanding the variety of forms of oppression and the need to encompass the totality of all girls and women's experiences. In the same way we Americans now hold ourselves to a more perfect understanding of equality than did Jefferson. Third wave feminists have done important work in demanding that the equality sought by first and second wave feminists be sought on behalf of all girls and all women, not only white girls and white women. Finally, I would like to address a common criticism of third wave feminism that somehow the actions of a few individual feminists often stereotyped in a sort of 2015 way as blue haired college aged third wave feminists have somehow hurt the feminist movement. To that I would say that is akin to saying that the American value of equality is completely invalid because Jefferson, a main proponent of that form of equality enslaved black men and women. And even worse, he exploited and for decades sexually violated Sally Hemmings, a woman who gave birth to four of his children, children whom he only freed from slavery in his will as part of a treaty that he made with Hemmings. And yet Americans do not wholesale reject the concept all people are created equal because Thomas Jefferson's moral failures. Let's be honest, there is nothing that any third wave feminist has said or done that rises to the level of immorality of Jefferson's perpetuating human slavery in his sexual exploitation of Sally Hemmings or in keeping his own children as slaves. We understand that the ideals and the idea of equality of persons are more than the product of any one flawed human being. In closing, to reject third wave feminism is to embrace white feminism. To reject third wave feminism is to ignore the lives of millions of girls and women because they are not cis or white or have a college degree or are well off. Third wave feminism has had a positive effect in America because it has and continues to demand more of our own egalitarian aspirations and to not leave a single girl or a woman behind. Thank you. You bet, thank you. Dr. Christy Winters, we will now kick it over to shadow dancer for her opening as well. And so thank you again, both of you for being here and the floor is all yours. Okay, I'm gonna share my screen. So give me a moment. All right, is it shared? I'm gonna try to. Give me one sec. I just realized that. Yep, I can see it at least. Okay. I'm almost there on my side. It's in Streamlabs, it's just a little bit hokey so it'll take one second for me to get it in. Okay. Okay, so we know when you're ready. Now, absolutely. Thanks so much for your patience. Oh, is it ready? Yep. All right, so me and Christy are actually arguing the same thing. I'm gonna term it as modern feminism. And that's just how I term it. I actually used to be a feminist so I actually understand why she's calling it third wave feminism. But what is it? It is the idea that women are oppressed due to male patriarchy and male privilege and that women needed liberation. I believe that all aspects of modern feminism are not really out to help women but to play a victim card, to get something for nothing for imagined wrongs. As you can see, I'm not actually alone in how I feel. And I thought this was kind of interesting about this article. There's a growing women against feminism movement that draws fury. Of course it draws fury because people are not actually agreeing with it and women are standing up against it. I'm not gonna read all these to you because this is just some of the pictures that were up on the internet. But women are actually coming out and talking about this and we're not against women, we are women. Now I like this one on the left down at the bottom. I won't cuss on the channel but also how the blank am I supposed to open jars and lift heavy things without my husband? I am grateful for our differences. And then more about why they don't need feminism. Now I'm gonna go more into depth but this is basically the essence of feminism in a nutshell. They don't want equality but equity which means they wanna hand out based on imaginary inequality of the sexes, male versus female. I will show why this is true. And a scientific methodology to help us understand why feminism has done infant more harm than good. Now I wanna point out something about equality. Well this only took about 80 years for our government to recognize men were not on equal grounds along with women. This article is from 2019 when a federal judge found it unconstitutional for a male only draft. Excuse me, sorry. So this article is from 2019. So how sad that feminism demands equality but it only strives for equity and we will see how this plays out. The three categories of my scientific methodology is men and women are psychologically, physically and biologically different. This cannot be erased, changed, morphed or manipulated. So any data feminists give you you can apply this method to see if their ideology holds water. Let's begin. First we will discuss the physical and biological differences in men and women. As you can see the two record holders I have up here for the women in the past or in 15 years there's only a 0.5 second difference. Now Florence Griffin and Usain Bolt have got modern technology and modern physical trainings that they use today. There is no difference between their trainings. But in order to get into the Olympics, men's Olympics you need 10.19 seconds. No woman has broken Florence Griffin's time and yet men broke this time in 1968. The 5,000 meter run which is 3.1 miles. Much newer record holders but I am seeing a clear physical and biological wall. Women have not surpassed men so when we hear that men and women are the same point this information, point to this information it is clear these athletes in modern times are still like I said trained identically. But yet women still lag behind. Does this make us inferior? No, but are we equal? Of course not. We are so different you can't compare us. Just in case you bring up this data as a method to show male patriarchy is holding back women is clearly evident here. Mike and Galena both made their records within a few years of each other. And if we needed feminism because we're oppressed and not reaching our full potential we should see men breaking Mike's record continuously but neither men nor women have broke these records in over 20 years. The next scientific methodology I'm gonna go into encompasses physical and psychological. Men and women are different. Men choose different jobs, women choose different jobs. On the left is the dad from the labor bureau from 1970. On the right is the data from labor bureau from 2018. Women are clearly making the same choices in occupations because we don't think the same as men. Yes, these are only the top 10 but let's move on and give it an in-depth look. This is data from 2018 on the left. Feminists rarely if ever want to bring up physically demanding jobs. Why? Because there's a tiny part of their brain that retains logic enough telling them that they can't physically do it. Very few can physically do it. And as we can see less than 5% women male-dominated occupations like construction, field work. And the graph on the right is 1975 to 1995 but I know it's a little bit older but these boxes I have drawn around the different areas. In 50 years we have seen less than a 5% change. Where's women's liberation on this topic? This is because they want equity and not equality so therefore they ignore statistics like this. Here we are gonna see how feminists showed themselves for what they really are. We know that women are physically and psychologically different than men when in 50 years 90% of women are still choosing the same occupations. But this is the feminist excuse. The beginning of the article cracked me up. This article is from 2016 and they admitted but women don't seem to be choosing. I wonder why? Because we are different and it's not to our detriment it's beautiful and a unique thing. Their excuse is an intimidating environment, harassment and inequity. No mention of the physical requirements or that psychologically women don't choose jobs like this. This is later in the article with some more in-depth percentages but the bottom portion states that 40 plus traits didn't have enough women to even give a percentage and they are much in demand. That's why they wrote this article. Why are feminists rallying to get women into construction? Stucko masons, iron and rebar workers are sorely in need of workers. This is the answer. They don't want equality but equity. They have now pushed their toxic agenda to the tipping point. This is the reason why I call it toxic and that it's bad. Forcing government to make laws forcing equity, not equality. Companies will now be fined that they don't comply. Understand something ladies and gentlemen, they can't fire the men on the board because then they'll just have a lawsuit. They have to actually increase their board space in order to make room for women. They even admit they have to change the standards for board members because there isn't enough qualified women out there. And admit also later in the article down here on the bottom right, the data could be wrong that they use to justify it. This is the nail in the coffin. This encompasses all three. If we really needed feminism, we would see women equal on all levels with men. Military training was designed by men for men and for combat. In 2013, the military releases ban on combat jobs previously closed to women. They wanted this time to implement what they call equalizing physical standards. But they did not change the standards for men but they did have to increase the standards for women to match the training already in place. Just in boot camp, before even getting to a combat job, women already have a 45% failure rate for just three pull-ups. Women will now be able to choose which one they wanna do. Pull-ups or arm hang. And by the way, the flex arm hang was actually what we did before 2013. But not men. Do you see the pattern here? Women continuously fail to meet male standards and it's because we are not men. Now they are telling the military they must revise their physical standards, training education. Why? Because feminists women are complaining they can't equal a man. We are biologically and psychologically different. If feminism were true, apply it to this. If it really helped liberate women so they could compete on equal grounds of men, apply it to this. It just isn't true. Now they are demanding the military open jobs women. If they remain closed, they must explain why. That's absurd. They were closed for a reason. This article was written by a former Navy SEAL in the previous article. And this one, the DOD military commander stressed that they would not lower the standards. Good for the military. Female colonel Ellen Herring down here on the bottom right of the US Army Reserve states this. Nobody asked for special considerations or reduced standards. Just let us compete the standards as they exist. Well, so far we have seen this is not the case but let's see what the data tells us. Pardon me. They did a $36 million study on co-ed units and found that they performed vastly inferior to all the male units and yet still proceeded to open up combat positions to women. The result is six out of seven women failed and 85% failure yet men only failed at 2.7%. The USMC infantry officer's course, 0 for 31. No woman has lasted more than two weeks. Here's the kicker and it exposes feminism for what they really are and what it really is. Female colonel Herring, a staunch supporter of opening the combat jobs and actually even suit the military, claimed the training was unrealistic. Yes, for you because this training was designed for men, we are not the same. She states, where do they get these standards? Who validated them and who can actually meet them? Men do 95 plus success rate compared to women at 85 plus failure rate. It should be clear we're not the same. And what they don't mention is that a core of this training is actually psychological and women failed that too but not men in such high numbers. Now she wants the standards lowered for equality. That's what feminists always claim it's for equality when in reality they want to hand out because they can't equal men. This is an old article dating to 1971. I apologize that it's a little bit blurry. It was actually in a really old newspaper but Anthony King on the left, basically it's all right. Oh, I'm sorry, they're talking about women's liberation. Basically it's all right but I don't think it's going to do any good. Don't feel that women can be equal. It would be nice if men could see women as something more than housewives and stay home and take care of the kids but I don't see women working in the coal mines or going to war. I absolutely agree with you. Now I'm just gonna read the guy on the right. You guys can read the two in the middle later. I wanna try to make sure I stay under 10 minutes. Michael Gates, women aren't equal to men because they can't do everything a man can do, physical things but they should be able to go out and work if they want and shouldn't have to stay in the house all the time after their kids are a certain age. If the kids never see their mothers during early childhood the family will deteriorate. We are seeing this today. My last scientific methodology is biological. We are not the same on any of the levels and men are nothing like us biologically. So this has great importance because feminism says they liberated women by allowing them to murder their babies and their results. Just look at these medical problems. Death, perforation of uterus, damage to the cervix, my body, my choice. What I am seeing is a bunch of women who label themselves feminists not only take responsibility for their actions. So they legalize murder. Is feminism really helping us? This was a good article. It's actually called the hard truth about abortion but the body inside your body does not your body was actually like a subtitle. Now this guy gave a great statement that is the battle cry of feminists who want to liberate women. But what about rape, incest, and disability? Since none of these circumstances are sufficient to justify harming another innocent human body after birth they're not sufficient to justify harming an innocent human body before birth. Well said, sir. Lastly, being a feminist means equality. Where is the equality? These three are women obviously and they are survivors of first and second term abortions. Please Google them, their stories are powerful. But to those who hold to this feminist ideology can you really look these women in the eye and say you were nothing but a bundle of cells or parasite, subhuman. These are women. How can feminists really be helping us when they are okay with killing women in the womb? They are okay making sure they have a handout for an imagined wrong. Ladies and gentlemen, you can apply this added to anything a feminist brings out. The wage gap myth, male privilege, oppression, et cetera. Oh, that's okay. I'll just go into, I was gonna bring this up but I'll actually bring that up in my rebuttal. Thank you. I think, forgive me, so sorry. The timer, I'm not exactly sure. Let me just double check really quick to be sure that that was, so I think I'll give you a little extra time, like a minute, so I'm gonna give Dr. Winters in an extra minute just to keep it up, so sorry. I can, I'll save, I'll reserve my minute till my final remarks. I don't know, I don't need them right now, so but thanks. Yeah, whatever you wanna do. I apologize, I didn't have a timer. Yeah, I read my speech three times to get it timed right, so it's a little, yeah. I thought I had it timed. With that, thank you very much. We will now kick it over into the rebuttal section so Dr. Christy Winters, the floor is all yours. Okay, well is the rebuttal in reverse order like this or does, because I spoke first, she gets to do a rebuttal, how do you? Usually we alternate. Okay, okay, that's fine. All right, well I'm a little, there are so many questions I have. I guess the first thing I should say is that what Shadow Dancer is arguing is a form of feminism called difference feminism. It's a form of feminism that has existed for a very long time. It was especially popular as a counter to second-wave feminism during the ERA. The thing is that when Shadow Dancer talks about feminists always claim or feminists, feminism says, she doesn't actually name any names. She's not pointing to any individual. She's pointing to a nebulous group of feminists. And so this difference feminism basically says that men and women are different. And when it comes to, as you pointed out, there are some physiological differences, psychological, biological. In fact, my entire thesis was looking at the role of sex versus gender in voting behavior. And I studied the difference between sort of agency communion, masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated views. So if you're expecting an argument for me to say that men and women are physically equal or men and women are identically psychological and nobody's identically psychological in their psychology or that men and women are identically in their biology, clearly that's not the case. So I'm not gonna be making that argument or even defending it. I don't even know that many people who I can't even think of a single person who makes that argument. The fundamental here, I guess the fundamental point is that you can shadow dancers repeatedly contrasted equality against equity, but I still don't hear a good definition of either of those terms or how they are different. And there's also, there's a very, I noticed in your series of pictures, from what I noticed now, I was looking down to make notes so I might have missed, but they were all white women. And in fact, one of them was Lauren Southern who is a white nationalist. So you might wanna take her out because she's not a great representation for women. And so generally when it comes to the arguments that you're making, the shadow dancer is making, they don't actually go to the heart of what First Wave Feminism was about. And First Wave Feminism was merely establishing that women could be autonomous, that we could, when we earned money, we could keep it because before First Wave Feminism, we couldn't, that we had legal citizenship separate from our husbands, because before First Wave Feminism, we didn't, that we could vote, that we could inherit property, that we had standing in the court when there was a divorce. Second Wave Feminism took up the mantle of the personals political. It dealt with issues of reproduction and it also dealt with issues like marital rape. And I don't know if people in the audience know. Just guess, when was it made illegal in the last state in America for a husband to rape his wife? What if I told you that that year was 1993? And that was the work of feminists. So when it comes to what the work of feminists has been, I don't see that reflected in the slides, however scientific put up because the issue of feminism comes down to issues of morality, issues of equality, notions of human dignity, and then reflecting that in both law and in life. Is that about five minutes? That was, yes, so you have extra time if you'd like to use it, but- I know I'll use it for my closing. You bet, all right, with that, we will kick it over to Shadow Dancer. The floor is yours. All right, so I got some more things to go back to. But let's see, okay, so quoting President Jefferson when he was talking about men, men is actually a term that's inclusive of all people. And yes, we do know about slavery, but we're talking about basically third wing feminism, which is today, way past slavery, way past the voting rights of the 1920s. But the 1960s, and I would like to read a quote by this lady. Her name is Edwina Curry, and she's from the Oxford Union. It changed not because of the burning bras of the 1960s anymore than women got to vote in 1920 because women had chained themselves to the railings and had thrown themselves into the King's horse. I understand she's from the United Kingdom. So it changed, I think, because in the end, reasonable people could see the reasonableness of just saying there should be equality under the law. And honestly, that is my argument, is that we should have equality under the law. But what my argument was is that saying that women are still choosing the same things that they were choosing back in the 60s. There's very, very, very little change. And this fundamental human equality, we have that under our constitution, our founding fathers, that's the whole reason why we're even able to have this debate and actually change laws is because of that. And as, okay, so as we never address male patriarchy and male privilege, we absolutely do. And we're not denying that it has happened and we're not denying that there are definitely jerk men out there who are gonna do that kind of stuff but you're gonna have women who are gonna do the same thing. Well, we're talking about an overarching invisible, you know, male patriarchy that's just oppressing women. That's what we disagree with. And I will actually have to reject the idea of this third wave finalism being intersectionality. I think that it's just a ploy to actually cover up the fact that they're really not fighting for anything today. They're trying to stand on the backs of the burning bras of the 1960s when there's nothing to fight for today. There's no law oppressing women. No law saying they can't do this. In fact, we even had a female run for president. And I think that's it. Whatever time is left, I'll either give it to Chris here or we can put it to the Q&A. You got it. Q&A sounds good to me. Sounds good. And with that, thanks so much. We will now kick it into 10 minute cross-exam. So we'll have Dr. Christie Winters asking questions to shadow dancer first and then in reverse for another 10 minutes, total of 20 minutes for the cross-exam. So I have got the timer set and the floor is all yours, Dr. Winters. All right, so shadow dancer, could I get you to define equality and equity and tell me what the difference is? Cause I didn't get that from your presentation. So that picture that I showed is the idea of equality versus equity. So equality is you've got a short person, a medium person and a tall person and you've got a barrier that they can't see over. So there's those that have what you would say inequality. They don't have the same, the tributes they don't have the same factors mean height. All right, they're just using height as an example. So they give them all boxes the same height which is equality. Equity is not giving the tall guy a box and giving the little guy two boxes. So basically it's giving them something that they, that's something for nothing basically. That's how I view it. Okay, so I know you just grabbed the picture but in terms of a definition of equality versus equity, I hate to go back to this but I know you just described the picture but really could you sum up the conceptual definitions here because equality to me means like a tree. Yes, I know you just grabbed the picture but could you try one more time not using the picture but actually using like a definition of equality and making it distinct from equity. Okay, so equality is everybody gets the same opportunity, right, meaning if women want to compete with men like at a business level, whatever they should have the same opportunities if they're not chosen, they're not chosen. Equity is the law like that business that I or the California law, you know, forcing businesses to add women to the board and otherwise they'll find them and then they have to redefine the board members like what it means to be a board member. That to me is equity and that's the definition that I've been given at my college because I was actually forced to go to training about it. So in terms of your assumption about equality that assumes that the people who are say starting jobs all have access to let's say, you know kind of the same privileges in terms of having maybe a family connection or an established relationship at a bank or some sort of inheritance. I mean, doesn't that equality first definition require a blanket, like a sort of sameness for men and women that you actually reject in terms of physiology and biology and psychology? So that's actually a great question and I'm really glad you asked that because the thing is is that men also have that as well. Well, how come feminists isn't fighting for men to have that? And at my college, it's an open enrollment college. You know, there are lots of ways out there that people can go and succeed, open up businesses and stuff like that. We don't all have the same starting situations but that doesn't mean that that has to define us. And I like how Morgan Freeman put it on just even just the idea of race, you know the bus leaves every day. People just need to take these opportunities. Right, but you have to have the bus fare to get on the bus. So getting back to your question about equality. Yes, in theory, anyone could apply to a university but not everybody has the financial means. Not everybody had gone to a school that prepared them to be successful. Not everybody, let's say even has the physical ability. Maybe there's a, like they have a physical disability that might prevent them from being on campus. So in order for us to have equality that kind of assumes we all have a similar starting point and can you acknowledge that people start from very different places? Yes, and so, but I got a question for you though. Just because we started- Like can you ask it? But can you ask it in your question time? Oh, yeah, yeah. Oh, I'm sorry, that's right. This is your question time. My bad. That's all right. So yeah, so in terms of this when you talk about equality, let's say quality of opportunity, like to go to university, this assumes that everyone is starting from the same point in the race that people aren't starting farther back on the track than others. And it seems like your criticism of equity is that it would actually meet the gap between people who have a head start and people who are lagged back, maybe because like I said of a disability or financial obstruction or lack of finances. And so you want to treat the world as if everyone does have the same opportunities but they also have all the same abilities to take advantage of those opportunities. Whereas equity is actually the concept of addressing the gap between the person in the front and the person who is much farther back. Well, and I would, so I would actually disagree with just that blanket term like that because the thing is is that equality does not mean that we all start from the same backgrounds because we know this, we all come from different backgrounds but we do have equal opportunity to change that. And it's our personal choice. What I dis, what, and the reason why I bring up equity is because I disagree with the fact that there's some kind of gap that government needs to close. But doesn't government, okay, finish. I'm sorry, go ahead. No, no, you finish your point. But I just disagree with government getting involved in it because now it is literally, now it's actually becoming unequal. There is no more equality anymore. It's equity. They're getting something for nothing because the women that have actually gotten into these CEO jobs before equity, before equality of the sexes in the 1960s or whatever did it based on their own merits. And they came from a background that didn't necessarily set them up for that. That's why I say it's equity today. And there was not that many women who made it through that process because of all the hurdles that prevented them from getting there. So they're actually quite exceptional, aren't they? They're not the typical, if things were so easy, then we would see a lot more women. But how much, I'm sorry, I just want to make sure that we don't go over time. Can I get a time check? You've got four minutes, four and a half minutes. Yeah, I'm also really interested in why you keep focusing on women's failures. I must have counted the word failure in your talk and women's failures and women's failures and women's failures over and over and over again. And I'm just interested in terms of this, why do you find it so important when you're talking about feminism to focus on the way women fail? I didn't remember saying failure that many times. But the thing is what I, and what I said in conjunction with that failure is that they're failing to meet men's standards. Why? Because we're not the same. Men and women are that different, even psychologically, you know? And that's why when you mentioned about like these hurdles and stuff like that, they're not hurdles for men, but men have hurdles when they try to get into, say, more women dominated occupations because we are better at that, all right? That is just the way we are innately. And men are different. Can you give some examples of occupations where men have a hard time entering? Not that they have a hard time entering because you're putting up that there's some kind of like obstacle like women just can't get in there. No, they can. It's just that we are psychologically different. We think differently. And so women tend to go, can to gravitate towards jobs that are this way. There was a business teacher in my college. He had all the fresh women, you know, raise their hands for a freshman. He goes, you can change your job to your degree right now and go into engineering, not a single one changed it. But could you give examples of men that have a hard time getting into women-dominated careers? Can you give example of those types of careers that you think men aren't suited for or aren't getting ahead in? That would be like teaching, nursing, social work. So wait, wait, wait, wait. We have seen, we have seen more men. Because men are principals, right? And men are heads, they're in administrative positions in those teaching jobs, right? And when it comes to social work, they are the administrators who oversee the women who are working, right? I'm talking about teachers. Okay. Yes, teachers, all right. But isn't it the case that there are more women teachers as there's younger and then the people who are running the schools are usually men. Men are principals, men are vice principals, men are in positions of power in teaching. They're just not in the classrooms. Well, I'm seeing I don't actually view it that way because I don't actually view the male patriarchy as a bad thing. I didn't say it was a bad thing. I'm talking about who actually holds the positions of power in schools. They might be women in the classroom, but the principals tend to be men. The vice principals tend to be men. Those people in power tend to be men running the schools. Is that not your experience? Well, of course it's my experience, but I just don't see where this is a power thing. Women tend to gravitate towards those jobs. Men tend to gravitate towards those jobs. I mean, the principals hire and fire, so clearly they have more power than the teachers. Well, I actually know it's a school board that does that as well. They can't just hire and fire off of that. And school boards have actually been, historically, even in the past 30, 40 years, they've had some women on there. So it's not just male dominated. Some women, great, okay. Okay, let's see. I'm just trying to think if there's anything. Oh yes, other than Edwina Curry, who's a conservative, can you actually name some feminists who say the thing? You said feminists always claim feminism says, but I'm not hearing many names. So just as a closing, can you actually cite some examples of some feminists, ideally not white women, who have talked about these issues? Because we've seen a lot, like I said, we had a lot of white women in your pictures and we've talked a lot about white women's issues here. Oh, and also this is one of the things while you're looking that up. There was Democrats in Congress who many times offered to expand the draft to women and it was Republicans who stopped the bill. So just on that point, I did want to make that note. Yeah, so. Okay, so I'll have to look that one up. And I did not actually find any specific, like female feminists. What I did, okay, so I used to be a feminist back in the mid-2000s, 2006 to about 2010 or something like that. And so I have actually seen the change of the feminism over time and that is what I'm arguing from, is from my experience of feminism and my experience after I stopped being a feminist. Were you like in now or part of Planned Parenthood or what kind of feminist groups? Was it quite diverse? Was it mostly white women? Was it quite ethnically, like different ages, different backgrounds? What's your, how extensive is your experience? Okay, so I was not one of those feminists that was gonna go join a group, march or anything like that. I was gonna put my money where my mouth was. If we are equal, if I have the same opportunities as men, I went and worked in construction. And it was about two years later when my body actually started to fail on me and I was only 24 years old. And I realized that my arguments were failing. I had no defense and so I decided to change my mind on feminism and I started to research outside of that. And I found out how much has been covered up based on this feminist movement. So I didn't join any groups or anything like that. Okay, time check, because again, I feel like I were getting close to the end. We have run out of time. So thank you. We will kick it into the reverse direction. So in this case, Shadow Dancer will have 10 minutes to ask questions for Dr. Kristi Winter. So with that, the floor is all your Shadow Dancer. Okay, so first I wanna go into, did you notice that there were other women on my slides that were not white? As I said, no, sometimes I was checking my notes. I remember being quite stunned by Lauren Southern because whenever a white nationalist comes up, I'm like, woo! So from what I saw, what I noticed was toward the end and they looked predominantly overwhelmingly white to me. And it makes a lot of sense that white women would be in a position to reject kind of feminism because they occupy sort of the most privileged sort of, they're white. So they have a different experience of life than women who are women of color. And so I'd also like to ask, what about the three survivors of the abortion? First and second term abortion? I really don't have that background. So I don't feel like I'm prepared to adequately speak to individuals' experiences. I can hear to give you my perspective and my knowledge, but I don't think it's worth anyone's time for me to empty speculation on what some women may or may not have felt. I don't think that that's something I feel comfortable. Yeah, I don't feel like I can speak to you. That's okay. May I link it to another question and see if it helps clarify? You did mention reproductive equality and I assume that you're okay with abortion and stuff like that. I'm just, I'm making an assumption, I'm at 100% sure. Yeah, I believe in, you know, I've support women's rights to make decisions about their own body, yes. Okay, so when you mentioned reproductive equality, what about those, that's what I meant about, what about those three women? They are women and yet a death sentence was signed to them in 1973, whenever Roe vs. Wade was. How do you feel about that? I think what, okay, I don't understand what this has to go, what my feelings have to do about the question of whether third wave feminism has had a more positive or negative effect. I mean, we could have a whole debate on what Christie thinks about this and what Christie feels about that. But you know, yeah, when we talk about equality and again, you know more about the background, I don't quite know if you're talking about, I haven't read your articles. So again, I'm not in a position to give a good answer. Oh, that's okay. Cause I'm just bringing up the point that these are women and you want equality for all women, not just white women. And that's why I bring that up in reproductive equality. Right, but you understand that Roe vs. Wade established legal personhood exists at viability, right? I know exactly what it established. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, so I guess if you want to put that into your quote, I don't know if that, and it all addresses it, but that is the legal basis of abortion rights, which means that third trimester abortions are the most restrictive that the Supreme Court, well actually it's not even that women have a right to choose, they found that doctors have the right to perform their medical procedures. But the state, there is a competing interest of the state with abortion at that point. And so more restrictions have been put on and found to be constitutional. So I see that for me, Roe vs. Wade is an attempt to thread the needle between the first trimester and early in the second trimester, where there is a less of, there's no argument to be made for viability. And then also acknowledging the concept of viability and then there is an interest there that the state has in terms of preserving and protecting life. And I'm actually fine with Roe vs. Wade. I would like to see it maintained as the law of the land. So, and I just want to keep on this topic of reproduction equality really fast. So you saw all the medical stuff that I put up. How do you feel about all the medical stuff? Is biologically actually hurting women on the inside? It's hurting our uteruses, our uterine wall. It's causing death. How do you feel about that? How is that liberating women? Okay, again, you put up a screen for a few seconds. I haven't had a chance to read it. So what I feel about what I saw in the headlines in terms of your characterization, again, I just don't feel like this addresses the question of third-way feminism having a more positive or negative effect when it comes to me talking about my feelings. Okay, so give me data. Give me data that actually supports that having an abortion is actually biologically safe for a woman. But that's not our debate question. Our debate question is about modern feminism, third-way feminism being more positive or negative. And so I guess if you wanted to have an abortion debate, then we can set up that as a second debate, but the scope here isn't just abortion. It's about feminism more broadly. So I came prepared to speak to that debate question. Okay, well, to me, this is actually a part of third-way feminism, but I'll go on to another question. Okay, well, it's a second-way feminism defining. So for me, I consider Roe to be a second-wave issue. But they're actually still talking about abortion in the third-term abortion and stuff like that. So this is actually a current issue. That's why I thought. It might be a current issue, but it's still rooted in the second wave. I think it's, I can see how it's related, but I think that to be fair, I think for the degree to which it could be argued it's related, we'd probably covered it enough. Okay, yeah, no, no, that's fine. I was actually gonna move on. So I wanted to know about, where do you get this idea of a nebulous group of feminists? You mentioned it. I kind of wanted to get a little bit more of a definition from you. Oh, that was just a reference to the way that you, I have a little quote here where you say, feminist always claim, feminism says. And then these, and that was to me, like you are making assertions about what people are saying without actually attributing it to any particular individual. You're assuming, and that was what I didn't understand. I was asking, like, can you give me actual real people who said real things that, as opposed to saying feminists always claim, because I'm a feminist and I don't make the claims, you know, I'm a feminist, but my feminism doesn't say what you're putting out there. And so that was, if I use a term nebulous, I think that was what it was associated with. Okay, so my next question is, is feminism an ideology? You can classify it in second, third wave, whichever one you want. Yeah, yeah, I mean, lots of things are ideology, Marxism is an ideology. Capitalism is an ideology. Ideologists just means a set of ideas that are grouped together. So lots of things are ideologies. And that's the reason why I ask you that question, because feminists, feminism is an ideology meaning it's a group of ideas. And that's what I meant when I was saying that. Oh, okay, well, that's much clearer. But that by a group of ideas doesn't say things, people say things. So if you want to say feminism says something, well, no, you actually need to find a feminine, in my worldview, like the way I see it, I'm not gonna just randomly attribute stuff to a concept. I'm gonna say something, someone says something, then I want to find the person. But feminism is an ideology, feminism can't speak, only feminists can speak. And so that's why I tend to be very clear when I distinguish between feminism as an idea and feminists as people who differ and have different opinions and worldviews and say things and disagree because there's a lot of disagreement and within feminism as well, between feminists. Okay, and then I also, James, how much time do we got left? I don't wanna go over time. We've got two and a half minutes left. Two and a half minutes. Cool. Okay, so hold on one second, I have my question. Shoot, I scroll down on the page. Okay, and I also kind of wanna know why do you think that it is only white feminism during the 1960s? Well, during the 1960s, the way that reproductive rights, let's say, or issues of sexual harassment in the workplace or issues of contraception access, these were all issues that obviously affect women broadly and also with like Planned Parenthood Services to cis and trans people as it has evolved, but the framing of it was always from the perspective of white women. So when we talked about, when people talked about contraceptive access and Planned Parenthood, there wasn't a sort of intersectional discussion of issues in terms of access for women of color or things like that. And so the way, it's kind of like a one size fits all assumption that my white, that my, in my white feminism, I reject it, but my white feminism is kind of good enough for everybody else. And that's why I think, that's why I would classify it as white feminism is that it elevated white women's concerns and frameworks and the way that they were thinking, their concerns about equal pay, their concerns about childcare, their concerns about contraceptive access without thinking really from the position of a woman of color who made as much money but might have also been facing racism in the workplace as well or from someone who was disabled, the disabled woman. And so it just kind of assumed that if it was worked for white women, it would work for everybody. That's kind of the, I think the blind spot in the flaw that I see in white feminism. So how did it not work for women of color? Well, it depends. I mean, as I pointed out, for instance, the fact that, let's say, I know you're dismissive, but if you look at the statistics, white women make more than other women of color, than women of color. So when you have the aggregate or the average, I should say, of the wage gap, a lot of that is pulled down by the underpayment of women of color. And so if you take out white women, white women actually do pretty well because we're quite privileged. But when you look at what a white man makes compared to a black woman or what a white man makes compared to an Hispanic woman doing similar work, you can see a much greater disparity. So it is important to understand that white women aren't the one-size-fits-all, that we actually have to look at things like disability, person of color, sexuality, gender identity, all of these other things because that will have an impact on how people are treated throughout their lives. So you're saying, so you're fine. We are at time. Sorry to do that to you, but we've got to jump into the closing statement. So as I mentioned, I accidentally lost track of the clock on the opening. So Dr. Winters, if you'd like, you have an extra minute and a half or so. And then we will jump into, after these closings into the Q&A, folks. So thanks for your questions. I've got them in a list. And with that, the floor is all yours, Dr. Winters. I should say, I've gone first every single time. So I think in Duffer and Shadow Dancer should be able to go first with her closing and I will go with mine at the end. I'm okay with it if Shadow Dancer is because it's up to you guys ultimately. Oh, that's fine. Thank you, Chrissy. Sure. All right, I'll go ahead and just kick it off. So I see that me and Chrissy, we have some definition problems. And before the debate, I didn't know this and so I actually kind of hope that we can maybe have another debate and maybe we can get into some more defining of terms and stuff like that between equity, equality, feminism, feminists, all these names, intersectionality, because I think the crowd or the audience would actually benefit from this. But in closing, I didn't get to ask my last question, but feminism was supposed to help all women and women of color were not rejected from say Planned Parenthood or anything like that. And if it was even framed in a white woman's mind, it was for all women and it benefited all women even today. I don't see how feminism has to include race, but that's just me. And in the end, I actually didn't get to say this on my very last slide, but I make no apology where I get my foundation from. And if you would like to know what it means to be male and female, I go to the Bible because God has wanted to create us so he knows us innately. Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself and the wife see that she reverence her husband. I understand something reverence means respect. Like if you revere somebody, still God is talking about love and respect. And some of those pictures that I showed in the beginning, some of the women actually put that on there, like I believe in love and respect. So deep down, every woman, we desire to be loved. Deep down, every man desires to be respected. That is why we are so different. That is why we choose different jobs. That is why we go our different ways. And yes, there are definitely some women that can do these jobs. But in the percentages in 50 years, we have not seen very much of a change. Just a couple percent of a change. And that's why I argued that feminism actually done more harm than good. Thank you. You bet. Thanks so much. And we'll kick it over to Dr. Winner's. Got the clock set for six and a half minutes. All right, thanks so much. So thank you again to James and also to Shadow Dancer for a very lively and entertaining and robust discussion, a frank discussion, which was very polite. And I thank you very much for that, Shadow Dancer. The one thing that I would say is that when it came to do my opening, my perspective was about focusing on the concept which is not unique to America. It's part of the International Human Rights Convention, this idea of human equality and human dignity and creating societies in which people feel safe to be themselves and to express themselves and to have that dignity with them. And I would go back to the aspiration of feminism as being a society in which men and women enjoy the same rights and privileges. Rights in terms of their legal standing, their treatment of the law, their treatment and employment, their in treatment and housing, but also in terms of the privileges, in terms of the respect that we show one another, in terms of the societies that we live in to not live in a society where men think that it's okay to come up and touch your body, to not live in a society where you don't, as a woman have to go and not only worry about being burgled, but also being worried about being raped and where when it's brought up that you're concerned about being sexually assaulted, you're told all the things that you're meant to do, but not one of those things is, let's teach men not to rape. And in terms of when it comes to values, certainly wherever you want to get your values from in life, in your private life, your personal beliefs, that's fine. The Bible though is built on hierarchy and the idea that some people are more worthy of power, some people lead and some people follow. But in our government in the United States, we reject the idea of inherent worthiness to exercise power more so over, simply by having a penis, in principle. What we have is a government that is supposed to be based on equality. And so, yes, that's the society that I would like to see America move towards, one in which we look at people as equal and not looking at people as, oh, you have to submit to me because I have this part of my body and you don't. I think that we should be judged on the content of our character. I think that we should see the equality of people, regardless of their background, because if we're all human beings, we're all part of the same group. We are all, we can give blood to each other, we can exchange organs, we are fundamentally, even though I know Shadow Dancer wants to focus on our differences, there's a lot more that's the same about us, including our aspirations and our hopes and our dreams. And so for me, Third Way of Feminism is about expanding that opportunity to live your full life, to be, to actually live in a meritocracy, to be able to have the same start in life as everyone else and to find your potential and go for it. And I think increasingly, because of the legal work done to free women and to establish women's legal personhood and law, because of Second Way of Feminism's work, helping us to control the number of timing of our pregnancies, to value us in the workplace, to stop workplace discrimination, and all the way up to Third Way of Feminism, which is looking at things such as undocumented women not being able to report sexual assaults or trans women being murdered. All of these issues are feminist issues. And I think that we are expanding the notion of what equality could be and also what society would look like and the kind of flourishing that we could have if we all actually enacted the kinds of, we were all people being created equal, that Jefferson only limited to white men. Thank you. You bet. Thank you very much, Dr. Winters. We will jump into the Q and A, folks. Want to give you a couple of quick reminders out there. First, 100% of your super chats will be going to the sexual assault and prevention program that I had mentioned, which is linked down in the description, as well as their charity wash dog evaluation as they have great scores on transparency and using the money on what they say they'll use it for to help people. So thanks for that as well as want to say, if you've come in late, I have put Dr. Winters and shadow dancers' links in the description. So that way if you want to hear more, you can hear more by clicking on those links. Next, logical, plausible, probable, thanks for your super chat. Said shadow dancer, I'm a huge fan. You've got a fan out there, shadow dancer. Next up, Lily R.O., thanks for your question. Asked, how is Christie feminist when she criticizes, this is, I don't understand, maybe I miss this during the debate, unless, so you feel free, Dr. Winters, if you like to respond any way you want. They said, when she criticizes a woman who has different opinions than her by her looks, countless times saying her looks will run out and then she has nothing. Right, so I think the idea that a woman can't criticize another woman because she's feminist is just a straw man argument. If you look all the way back to first way feminism, some of the people who were opposing the suffragettes were other women. There were women who were saying, we shouldn't have the vote because we're not suited for politics. So there's no sort of blanket exemption that women give, there's no sort of women pass that suddenly stops you from being subject and your approaches and everything else to be criticized if you take a public position on something. Gotcha, and thanks for your question from Jason, this is more of a statement, Super Chat said, Jason Mu says, equality equals equal opportunity, equity equals equal outcome. And so I suppose I think they're trying to say that for Dr. Winters if you would agree or not. I think that was a clarification of the definitions that I was asking Shadow Dancer for earlier. I think we had that round and round about equity and equality. So I think that that was my interpretation that they were giving their definitions of what those two things meant. You bet, thanks, that doesn't make more sense. And Wayne Burke, thanks for your question. You said, my name is James Coons and Darth Dawkins is my dad, very funny. Darth Dawkins, he would be quite the father. I hope he's doing well. Logical, plausible, probable. Thanks for your person, let's see. Or thanks for your question. I just didn't quite understand what it was meaning here. Next, Anci Sorvisto, thanks for your Super Chat said, equal opportunity is something to strive towards with equal fair qualifications, which are the same regardless of identification. Do both of the debaters agree? Yes. Can you just say it one more time? Cause I wanna make sure my answer is accurate. You bet, they said, equal opportunity is something to strive towards with equal fair qualifications, which are the same regardless of identification. Having been on the hiring process, and I don't know if the questioner has been, people don't walk in with cookie cutter actually absolutely identical resumes. When you're interviewing somebody, they might have a strength such as the ability to speak. Another person might be a really good listener. I'm just kind of making these up, but what I'm saying is that the idea that it's very easy to just go through and tick a box and say, oh, these candidates are identical. The real world doesn't work that way. The other thing too is that, if you might be looking for somebody who doesn't have typical experience. So, I think when it comes to actually doing real world hiring, you never get in a situation where you're like, oh, these two candidates are absolutely identical. So I'm just gonna go with whoever's gonna be the affirmative action pick. Hiring and people are far more complicated than that. And what each person brings is a plus and minus. So I guess I kind of resist the idea that there is a best candidate. I think there are oftentimes a lot of really good candidates for different reasons. And then you should, it's about finding the right fit. Gotcha, thank you. Might I throw in something really quick? So I think what they're trying to clarify is that when you walk in, you should have equal opportunity to get a position in the company based on your equal qualifications. I mean, if a man and a woman are qualified, equally qualified and there's only one job, well, I mean, they're gonna, well, let's have to choose. But if the woman is less qualified and the man is more qualified and the higher the woman over the man, that's what they're talking about. That's why- I don't think that happens though. But that's what I'm saying is that you might, depends on what you mean by less qualified. Because sometimes it's not about qualifications. It might be about personal skills or interpersonal skills or even their volunteer work that they've done on the side that gave them an experience that wasn't on the resume that you would compare like for like. So I just think that the hypothetical tends to not reflect real life experiences. And I'll just make a real quick statement on that, but that doesn't apply to men. It only applies to women, you know, what kind of qualifications, but not to men. They actually have to have the qualifications. What's your source for that? Just look, well, you need to look at that article about just look at the law that they've instituted in California. Okay, but one law in California is it representative of every single experience of every single person in all 50 states, let alone North America. So, and I would have to look at the article because, but yeah, that's you're talking about one instance in one state. And that's not like sort of, you know, it's very limited. I have to move to the next one. General Balsak, thanks for your super chat says, to Dr. Winters, is it only possible to see feminism through intersectional theory? Oh, absolutely not. There's a lot of feminist people who would, you know, like I said, difference feminism would probably, I don't know if they would really take on the approach of intersectionality. So no, I mean, intersectionality is something that has been brought to feminism, just like intersectionality has been brought to a lot of things like class analysis or issues of racial justice and other things. So it's a theoretical approach. It's an analytic lens that some feminists have adopted. And thanks for your question. Let's see, I think Jason Muse, if I'm pronouncing that right, let me know if not, said equity means equal outcome, not a great idea. Look how the communists achieved their goals. Not a huge fan, but Jordan Peterson does well on this subject. I have a feeling, Dr. Winters, you may agree with Jordan, or not agree, may disagree with Jordan Peterson, but I'll let you speak for yourself. I guess there's not really a question there. So I don't quite, I mean, it was a Q and A session. I don't hear a question. I'm sorry to kind of be evasive, but I just, I'm not gonna sort of riff on somebody's statement. So. Gotcha. And next, just so you know, though, that we always promise the audience, and it's okay, you don't have to respond, that we- Also, it was addressed at me. I mean, shadow dancer might wanna take that as well. I don't know if it was addressed to anyone in particular. Gotcha. The last one. That's a good thing. I think he was just making a statement, honestly. That's why I didn't say anything. Gotcha. Nellie Dower, thanks for your question said. Let's see. Since our super chats are a collection of ideas, does that mean we are an ideology? No. I, okay, so I'm gonna disagree because how do ideologies come up? They're not just something we found in the ground. They are a collection of super chats, a collection of people coming together and creating an ideology. So I'll have to disagree. I guess, you know, when I think about ideology, it's usually applied to a series of values, ideas or statements that hang together, usually on a theoretical basis, as opposed to just a random collection of ideas. So if you wanna say ideologies are structured in the way that Marxism is structured or capitalist ideology is structured, neoliberalism, liberalism, all of these ideas, they hang together thematically in terms of their values. So for me, just a collection of ideas, although necessary for the definition of an ideology, they aren't sufficient because they don't actually meet the criteria of connectedness for me. But we get to disagree. Spart344, thanks for your question. Asking Dr. Winters, if Bering promised to behave himself and take a debate with Dr. Winters seriously, would Dr. Winters be willing to debate him? I don't know who Bering is. Is this one of your foes from the past? From a long ago, yes. I guess I would like to stick to the topic of third way of feminism or feminism in general, if we could. You bet, no problem. And Brian Stevens, thanks for your question, said, shadow dancer said she used to be a feminist, but what were three things that she supported as a feminist? So at the time, I actually supported, I thought the wage gap was absolutely true. I thought men were oppressing us and that I wasn't gonna be able to succeed because of them. And I'm trying to think of what the third one would be. It's been a long time. Okay, I can't think of a third one, but those were some of the two big things that I heard. And I was like, yes, I know that's true. So that's what I thought. Can I ask how old were you at that time? Were you like in your teens or your 20s? Oh, no, no, no. I had just gotten out of the Marine Corps. So I'd already spent a lot of time. I don't know what that means for age-wise. I don't know, so. I know, I was getting there. So I had a lot, you know, I was fairly young, but I was 24. Okay, 25, I think, yeah. So when you started your feminism, how old were you? Like maybe 22, because I think I started sometime when I was in the Marine Corps. Okay. Next up, Sage 642, thanks for subscribing. Just saw that pop up on the screen earlier. I wanna let you know, no matter what walk of life you're from, we hope you feel welcome. And Robert D, thanks for your question, said, could Dr. Winter's name one law that is unequal to women? Oh yeah, men don't have to get the employment, the permission of their employers to get birth control. Gotcha. And, let's see, Nellie, we got that one. Slick with Nick, thanks for your question, said, Christy, why do third wave feminists perpetuate the lie that men are paid more than women when any inequality can be attributed to men working longer hours, working more dangerous and terrible jobs as well? Do you have a half an hour? I mean, I think if we wanna have a discussion on the wage gap, what I would say is, if you look at studies that have analyzed, like for like, even studies that have tried to control for things like men and women working in the same industries, women working with the same amount of experience, there's about 5% of the variation in pay gap that remains unexplained, no matter what you control for. And people like myself would point to that and say that that unexplained variance is sexism. And if you want to know more about the, I mean, the existence of the wage gap is undisputed. If you go to the World Economic Forum, they actually track the wage gap in not just America, in literally every country in the world, every year. You can go back every single year and they talk about the factors that they look at, the various elements that constitute the wage gap in which countries are doing better on the wage gap and which ones are really not doing very well. So, I mean, the wage gap, like the earth being round is a thing, like it does exist. And we can talk about the way that it's measured, yadda, yadda, yadda, but if you get into the numbers, it's a real thing. Go to the World Economic Forum. Like I said, they do great annual studies globally for every year. Gotcha. And SPART 344, thanks for your question, said, how does ranking people, oh, they said, for Dr. Winters, how does ranking people, according to their intersectional victimhood, help them? It seems more a hindrance than anything else and a way of keeping them down. That's a misunderstanding of intersectionality. There's no oppression chart, literally, none. It's been invented by people who like to take it down, but if you go and look in the academic literature, it's not there. If you go look at multivariate analysis where people look at things like your ethnic background, your age, your whatever, it's not as if there is some sort of chart that you have to use. So the fact is that this is just a strawman argument that's put up in order to kind of, in my opinion, avoid the really interesting discussions about intersectionality and the way that we can see and map on to, we can see from our own experience and then also map on statistically to the way in which intersectionality impacts people's lives. Gotcha. We have another one from logical, plausible, probable, that said, Christy, do you support Planned Parenthood in spite of its founder, Margaret Sanger, stating its purpose was to quote, exterminate the black population? If so, doesn't that make you a racist? Well, I guess I would come back to that. One, I don't think Margaret Sanger ever said that. I would have to see, I'm very, very skeptical. I know that Margaret Sanger has been criticized because of her racist views in much the same way Thomas Jefferson was criticized and is criticized now for his racist views and for owning human beings and for sexually exploiting a woman. And so as I actually stipulated in my opening statement, feminists in the first wave were products of their time, just like Thomas Jefferson is a product of his time in George Washington and all the other founding fathers, they had a very racist worldview. However, we don't reject everything that Jefferson wrote or everything good that he did because he was a terrible racist who exploited a woman. But we can't ignore that part of him either. And I would say the same thing about criticisms of Sanger in that she did some good work. She might have had, and again, I have to check again, I haven't looked at it lately, but if she had a horrid views, that's also part of who she was. But it doesn't negate the totality of the good work that Planned Parenthood does for men and women and for trans people. And that any more than Jefferson's moral failings means that we have to throw out the constitution or the Declaration of Independence. You bet. And I'll just add in really fast that I think those three women that were failed abortion survivors would highly disagree that that law was actually promoting them and helping them. Yeah, I'll have to read that. Next, thanks for your question. This one comes from JPP 3030. We've got only a little bit of time left, folks. So just got to give you a heads up that we got to close the Q&A intake and especially because it's late for Dr. Williams. Sun's going down. JPP asks Dr. Winters if you know who Jesse Lee Peterson is. Yes, I do know who Jesse Lee Peterson is. They also asked if you'd like to debate him. I was initially given an opportunity but then I got pipped to the post by someone else. Possibly, I mean it kind of would depend. Gotcha, all right, you bet. Nathan, artwork, thanks for your question. Let's see, I'm a little confused by this. Usually the speakers are able to interpret it better than I am. They said Planned Parenthood and Racism doesn't coincide to LPP. What LPP is. Baffled. I know what an LCC is. I don't know what LPP is. That was my thought, yeah. I know what OPP is. Right, I think we'll just leave that one on the table and move on. And Jason Muse, thanks for your question, said, Shadow Dancer, what's your opinion on equity and equality of outcome? Equity and equality of outcome. If you are not qualified for the job, then I'm not sure why we're trying to force an outcome that isn't there. And when I was in the military, I'll tell you one thing, if you try to force this, you're gonna see a massive failure rate like what we're already seeing. And they've already done studies. They have shown that these co-ed units, meaning trying to give women equity is not actually giving outcomes. So I would just disagree with this statement altogether. Next, Brian Stevens, thanks for your super chat. Just said he's doing it for charity. Appreciate that donation. By the way, folks, as mentioned, let me know if you wanna see a receipt. I will email it to you. Even if it's your first time here, we'll send it to anybody. Ian, you too, Ian. Thanks for your super chat. So James, where's the creepy dark spy room that you used to be in when you streamed? That's funny. I just moved. So I appreciate that. Good question. And Elaine Clark, our last question for the night, let's see, shadow dancer, why Bible is only number one view on women's issues? I think they're asking, why is the Bible your number one view on women's issues? I'm not sure. I think I understand what he or she is trying to say is that, you know, basically, why did I bring the Bible up at the end? And it's because we have been stumbling over ourselves trying to understand each other. You know, what it means to be a woman, what it means to be a man. And what I see from women and what I even see from women that I talked to that lived during the 1960s, like my mom, my great-grandmother, who was born in 1913, they're still women that haven't changed. So we're trying to complicate a situation that doesn't need to be complicated and we need to just celebrate the fact that we are different. Like, it's almost like it shouldn't be a news flash, but we are, we think differently. And I always point to the Harry Potter scene where Imani is telling these guys, you know, what this woman was thinking, you know, and she says like 12 different things and, you know, the other guy looks at her and goes, how could one person have all that in their head? But that's women. Like we just think differently and I think that it should be celebrated. And it clearly shows that in the Bible and that's why I brought it up. I hope that answers. Last, and thanks for, by the way, I wanna clarify the last super chat where it said Planned Parenthood and racism doesn't coincide to LPP. They were saying like addressing the person who had accused Margaret Sanger of being racist. So they were defending Planned Parenthood. Thanks for your patience on that Nathan artwork. And last, this is an interesting question. I just wanna, if it's okay if I run one more, because I was like, this is, I think they're being sincere. And I was like, oh, that's interesting. And I am curious to hear your thoughts, darker winners. They said, Christy, are you suggesting that men aren't looked at funny if they show an interest in dealing with kids directly on a day to day basis? I think they mean like if a man was saying, I really wanna work on a daycare. Like I'm, that's my- Right. I mean, I wouldn't, I would think it would be a fantastic thing for, I guess I'm trying to remember. Yeah, I had my second grade teacher, Mr. Nebel. He was awesome. I'm trying to remember my other teachers in school, but it was a long time ago. I think it's really important that kids, are exposed to the idea of men educating kids at every age. I think it's a good idea. I think it's good for kids to get experiences with lots of different people. And so I am not sure if that assumption is even correct. First of all, and I went to a school where people taught, actually were training to be teachers. And I would definitely hope that there would be men who would embrace the idea that, I wanna teach kids early on how to do math or how to do art or whatever it is. So I don't, I can't validate that that perception is even a problem. So, but in terms of my, where I think, I think a wide range of teachers is great. You bet. Well, I wanna say thanks to our guests. It's been a true pleasure. I've linked them in the description for you folks, if you'd like to hear more from each of them. And so I wanna say thanks so much, Dr. Christy Winners and Shadow Dancer for being here. And even staying a few minutes extra with us, we really appreciate that. No problem. Thank you. And thank you, Christy. I meant to say that in my closing. Oh yeah, no worries. This was wonderful. And maybe sometime we can do it again or maybe we'll find some other debate partners. Yeah, okay. Awesome. With that, thanks so much folks for hanging out with us today and keeps everything out there reasonable from the unreasonable, take care everybody.