args

The world needs more feminism

Arguments: 1. Well, Australia was used by you, and I simply pointed out that there is not a domestic abuse problem there. Then pro, most likely understanding his point was done, went on to accuse me of being immoral... Simply because I said women are essentially equal in Australia. Did my opponent not say something as ridiculous as "the women is not considered equal in Australia". What planet do you live on? 13 people dead of domestic abuse is not a wonderful figure because even 1 is bad, but 13 is not exactly civil war. Australia is actually one of the most accepting countries. And quick note, women are not a minority. They make up slightly over 50% of the population in Australia. To sum up this point, I would like to draw attention to pro freaking out, asking how I could look someone in the face and tell them that women don't matter. This is laughable.. All I acknowledged was that 13 people dying is a low figure, and he is acting as if I hate women. On the contrary, I respect women to a high extent, and people dying is unacceptable. But let's please try to be civil here. And if you're going to be that picky about 13 people, then why are you not outraged that about 40% of severe domestic abuse victims in the US are males? Hypocrisy at its highest. 2. What are you talking about here? "I see nothing wrong with marriage at all unlike my opponent"..... Making up arguments out of thin air is not a genuine way to debate. I would appreciate if you read my defense of marriage in the last argument. I never said people have to stay married. If you would have read my argument, you would have noticed that I said feminism is encouraging young people to discard traditional relationships, causing the divorce rate to grow higher. This is because people still feel compelled to marry (which they should), but they marry someone they shouldn't, and feel that if they ever have a problem, they can bail. This is no way to live. 3. I sigh. Forced labor and slavery? In the mid 19th century America, sure. But let's actually critically think here, and bring ourselves to the mid 20th century. I understand the racism of the times, but you have to think about the situation. Black people did not dominate gangs, did not have the highest murder rate in the US, and were making peaceful strides towards more liberty. But what holds the most weight today are the movements of Malcolm x and black panther. While Martin Luther King is more widely celebrated, blacks and whites don't exactly intermingle as peacefully as he foresaw. I know you live in Australia, but in the US many blacks have a strong feeling of dislike towards white symbols of authority, mainly the police. African-American marriages and families are in ruins, and violence is at an all time high. This is attributed commonly to the breakdown of the family unit, causing chaos in the development process. You seem to be blowing off this societal distructure, when it is causing many of the problems we have today. Hopefully that summed up my example on marriage in a correct way. 4. Pro misinterprets my argument. I am not arguing for more feminism in the west, I'm arguing against it. Women's rights and feminism have been staples of western society for a long time, and this is a cause of that. Now if TRUE support for women were to come about, it would be accepted. It would not be anti man, make political statements, or use bullying tactics to demean those who do not agree. It would simply be for women's rights. And now that they have equality under the law, there is no point in having this hate machine around. Now, REALISTICALLY, feminism is not even close to that model. It's a pro liberal, Marxist organization that preaches hate against conservatives and those not agreeing with them. And along with that, it encourages females to be independent of men, and I would say most feminists would view traditional marriage as a way that the male has dominated the female, which is ridiculous. You say "Because the way I see this this is an equality issue". This dependance on feminism that you have to solve all equality problems in the world is blocking your view of how to fix the issue. "Feminism" is a similar word to "Nationalism", which many times today holds a negative connotation. It is not being just pro-country, or pro-woman. It means that you only have the interests of your country in mind. This holds the same for feminism.. they are not about fixing equality, they are about elevating the woman to the same level or above the man by employing the federal government to do their deed. Let me ask my opponent something. Are all basketball players equal? Legally they have the same opportunity. And technically, it should be possible for anyone to be a professional. But the NBA is 81% players of color [2], while the general population is 64% white. And just as many white kids play basketball young as other races. Does this mean whites are being discriminated against? Of course not, but by this feminist logic, shouldn't it be 50/50? Conclusion: Here pro takes massive assumptions and leaps of faith. First of all, let's be honest here. Pro did not "prove" feminism is the best way to lift countries out of poverty and raise the quality of life. That is utterly ridiculous and no legitimate economist can vogue for that. If you honestly believe women's empowerment is holding own third world countries, you may be too naive. The reason those countries stay down are due to the regressive ways they run their countries, where the rules intentionally hold their citizens back to keep their own power. And as an example from the west, we can easily see that feminism, if it even does anything, has made our economy weaker. Since the late 60s, when feminism took root, we haven't exactly experienced a great deal of economic success. Other than the 80s (which was the weakest point for feminism) and the technology boom of the 90s, our economy has been mediocre at best. Hopefully this is a testament to how "great" feminism made our economy, considering it even had an effect. I believe I have answered the question of whether or not we need feminism. To answer it more thoroughly, is encouraging women to be more independent and be critical thinkers good? Yes. Is giving women the same opportunity as men good? Yes. But is creating a female/"nationalist" organization that encourages women to act the same as men, and to not "submit". This places false ideas of how the world works into ignorant people's minds. The result of feminism in the west is social disorder and chaos, a breakdown of the family, and economic struggles. To finish off this debate, I will redefine definitions of equality, so we can re evaluate my opponents last statement. In math, equality is "having the same quantity, value, or measure of another" [1]. This obviously means exactly the same. This could pass for the communist definition of how the world should be. But if you believe in democracy and liberty, and the freedom of people, then it is oppressive to make everyone exactly the same. That creates a dull and grey society, where no one can flourish to their supposed potential. Now, the way we use the world equality in our terms, is more about "having equal opportunity". This is far different, because, even though my opponent will be hesitant to admit it, we DO have equal opportunity. I have to ask him, is he looking to create a socialist society, where all people are treated as equal machines, and not individuals, or a free society that allows personality to take over. Legally, we cannot be treated differently, so there is no argument. And like I said before, you cannot force someone to change their mind, so if someone does not want to vote for a woman, you can not make him vote for a woman, or else you cross the line between liberty and oppression. [1]- http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]-http://www.tidesport.org...