args

Feminism is about equality.

my opponent has forfeited once again. I will simply reiterate what i said earlier. Feminism does not have a focus on equality. This is mainly derived from the women-centric advocacy. To advocate for women's rights, but not do the same for men, is to increase the rights that women have. The areas that i mentioned (Selective Service/Voting, Domestic Violence, and Rape) are areas wherein women have been given protections, or rights, that were not extended to men. For men, voting is not a right, it is a privilege. Men are liable to be arrested and convicted of a felony, should they not sign up for Selective Service. There is no compulsory public service for women, Feminism has not made it a point to fix this. By virtue of the clause "equality of the sexes" this should be a focus of Feminism. Domestic Violence law is not based upon the fact that a partner is being abusice. Rather, the Duluth Model, from which the VAWA was made, assumes that men are the perpetrator. It should be said that, by virtue of the aforementioned clause of the definition of To advocate for women's rights, but not do the same for men, is to increase the rights that women have. The areas that i mentioned (Selective Service/Voting, Domestic Violence, and Rape) are areas wherein women have been given protections, or rights, that were not extended to men. For men, voting is not a right, it is a privilege. Men are liable to be arrested and convicted of a felony, should they not sign up for Selective Service. There is no compulsory public service for women, Feminism has not made it a point to fix this. By virtue of the clause "equality of the sexes" this should be a focus of Feminism. Domestic Violence law is not based upon the fact that a partner is being abusice. Rather, the Duluth Model, from which the VAWA was made, assumes that men are the perpetrator. It should be said that, by virtue of the aforementioned clause of the definition of There is no compulsory public service for women, Feminism has not made it a point to fix this. By virtue of the clause "equality of the sexes" this should be a focus of Feminism. Domestic Violence law is not based upon the fact that a partner is being abusice. Rather, the Duluth Model, from which the VAWA was made, assumes that men are the perpetrator. It should be said that, by virtue of the aforementioned clause of the definition of feminism, this should not be the case. Abusive relationships should not be tolerated, regardless of the gender of the victim. The fact that men are more capable of damaging their partner is not a viable excuse to ONLY punish men. Legally, it is not possible for a woman to rape a man. The definition of rape requires penetration; consent is not a part of the legal definition of rape. Rape is only a punishible crime when a man is the perpetrator. The gender of the victim is irrelevant. The issue lies in the fact that "consent" is a mind-state. Penetration is an action, and herein lies the problem. I believe i have provided sufficient evidence and support in favor of my position. Given my opponents consecutive forfeitures, and lack of evidence and support, i would also state that i have presented the stronger argument.