args

The world needs more feminism

First, I would like to mention that I will rebut in a numerical fashion, then state my argument. 1. My opponent has seemingly equated the 5.2% star with inequality in the workplace. This absurd idea is backed up with yet another stat " that more women are enrolled in college then men. He says that this should at least translate to a 50"50 ratio within the Fortune 500 perimeter. First and foremost, let me point out that both of those stats are misleading. To begin with the enrollment figure, let us first establish that while more women may be in universities then men, men outnumber women about 2:1 in many business fields, such as management or finance, most of which translate to higher salaries. Women are most likely to go a medical route, or similar field [1]. These jobs often offer lower pay. Another high"paying field dominated by men is computer science, where representation stands at about 8"2 [2]. A final example is engineering, where men make up about 83% of the field (a wealthy one I might add), whereas it is absent from the top 10 majors for women. So it should be established that while women may be higher in numbers, that in no way means they should have equal earnings all around, mainly because on average, women take lower paying routes. Hopefully here we can begin to see that the fortune 500 conundrum is based on the path you choose, not sexism in the workplace. 2. Pros second contention was that Australia's women are considered unequal, due to domestic violence. He validates the contention by saying two women are killed per week due to domestic violence, compared to 0 men so far. For starters, the population of Australia is 23.13 million, so that equates to about 0.00000562% of the population, and for just women that figure becomes a mere 0.00001124%. So considering that the percentage of women affected by this is so finite, I find it ridiculous to claim women are "not considered equal" or that they cannot walk at night without fear. To conclude this statement, I also want to point out that while arguing the number of women affected could be good, saying 0 men have been killed is not a sign of sexism. This is a good thing.. So it should be considered good when 0 people have died due to a reason. 3. To address the "contradiction" in my argument, I will quickly point out that my statements had no correlation to one another. The first was simply describing the general statement that you cannot force someone to change their mind. It had little to do with sexism, only a general statement. Because while you can influence someone, you technically cannot force them to think differently. So neither argument is nullified, both stand. 4. This rebuttal is compelling, but with flaws. Pro points out that times change, obviously, and so do people. But vital relationships and natural human interaction should not be discarded as mere "social change". An ageless institution such as marriage is very, very important to how we live. It has been shown that married people live longer, happier lives [3], and are much less likely to go to prison or get in trouble in general. So I did not pick the 50's as some nostalgic golden age of romance to prove my point, but instead as a model of how to build relationships. If you believe all people should be able to live fruitless lives of immorality and short term relationships, then go for it. But just know that it is contradictive to human nature to be a "lone wolf". The 50's works as an example simply because of low out of wedlock marriages, marriages rates in general, and it being the closest period to our timeline before the sexual revolution. It has been shown that permanent relationships are a key factor to your happiness, and being sexually active at a young age can have consequences, such as STDs and high welfare dependency (for out of wedlock marriages) [4]. To wrap up this point, I want to argue that women of the 50s were not objects. They were fulfilling jobs equal to or greater to those of men- raising the next generation. It should be seen as 2 supports leaning on each other for balance, both fulfilling equal, but different jobs to survive. You have a false view of history where women were enslaved to men, toiling for the oppressive mans desires. In actuality, women were completing equal jobs to men, and it is only recently that feminists have decided that raising traditional families is bad. 5. Pro argues that because equality has gone up, so has divorce. In reference to my last paragraph, let me stress again how important marriage and relationships are to human life. It has nothing to do with any inequality or enslavement. It is something that has been found in every society, ever, and among animals similar to us. You seem to have this warped leftist view of marriage " that it is an idea made up by scheming, abusive men years ago, and must be eliminated or made useless. I cannot emphasize enough that marriage is not something that should be declining. Not to sound racist, but an example is the black family. Once equally employed and independent, now over 70% of African-American babies are born in out of wedlock relationships [5]. Welfare is at an all-time high, and black unemployment is much noticeably higher than white or Hispanic unemployment. The only solid answer achievable is the decline of the African american family. My opponents argument for economic growth being tied to feminism is a mere coincidence. The rates displayed in his source are very low in correlation, which shows that economic growth in South America is linked to the privatization of industries, the development of countries, and the less Socialist government style, which just so happens to be happening alongside feminism. No real or credible research actually suggests that feminism improves the economy. Let me remind you, since feminism has become dominant in North America, our economies have done anything but explode. My argument: to sum up my argument, I will again point to the rise in out of wedlock marriages, degration of women to objects, and the decline in marriage. Being born out of wedlock is not good for anyone. The parents are more likely to have been in prison, be poor, had multiple children with multiple partners, and suffer from depression. Children brought up in this situation, in turn, have a similar outlook ahead [6]. The degration of women is definitely a thing, and it is hard to deny. Can you not agree, especially at a young age, women are seen as objects and temporary bragging rights opposed to a person? We are not being taught to seek out long and prosperous relationships- instead told that quick sex and promiscuity is good. This encourages unstable marriages, which encourages unstable societies. Children cannot raise themselves, and if the 2 parent system is the best way, why not encourage that way? The decline of marriage is also linked to this. As marriage declines, so does the structure and order of society, and from that point it becomes a free fall to social prostitution and a life devoid of actual relationships. To the reader, if you got this far, I must ask why and how this type of orderless society could be supported, where equality by opportunity is not the norm, but instead equality by sameness takes root. And that, my friends, is the road to serfdom, otherwise known as socialism. [1]- http://www.bloomberg.com... [2]- http://www.randalolson.com... [3]- http://www.foryourmarriage.org... [4]- http://www.heritage.org... [5]- http://www.nationalreview.com... [6]- http://m.huffpost.com...