args

The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

I am not not sure what your argument is here exactly. It seems you have eluded us to the fact that a "culture" is made up of the people"s collective attitude"s and value"s. This is of-course true but does not challenge my argument. Your point at the end is that culture doesn"t affect behaviour that much, so my initial premise that feminism has a negative impact cannot be accurate because feminism does not have an impact; or an significant impact. Your argument for this is that people have free-will whatever their situation and so culture does not effect relationships enough for the influences of feminism to have the negative impact I am referring to. I have made the argument twice now for culture effecting relationships but my opponent remains unconvinced. I will make two more attempts to get this point across: What my opponenent misses out in his analysis of culture is the influence of technological, social and interlectual factors. These exist outside the individual and significantly impact the individuals decisions. This may be by affecting the social and economic structures in place, such as the change from farming to industry changed the availability of work and the structure of the family; or it may be philosophical/interlectual, for instance the belief that women could go to school significantly effected womens choices and perception of themselves. Another philosophical change has been the adaptation to secularism, in which it has become acceptable for people to engage in non-religious practices and relationships. You highlightred the current economical need for women to engage in work, to be a factor in influencing women to engage in paid work, which then leads to change in perception of women. Many of these changes are separate from the collective individual I struggle with your oversimplification of this matter by highlighting the fact that people can theoretically do what they want even if it means social exclusion and even criminal charges. This brings me on to point two: your argument may be relevant when referring to a specific individual and referring to that individual. However my premis refers to society as a whole and so individual freedom is less relevant. I argue relationships have been negatively effected as a whole so your or my freedom to choose differently is irellevant; I am not arguing that it effects my relationship (though it does) and that I cannot change it. In which case you would be justified in highlighting my power over the situation. However the fact that certain attitudes, encouraged by feminism, lead to more confrontational and shorter relationships in a significantly large portion of the population is not disputed by the fact that I (Tom) have some power to resist that ideology. I have left myself no time to finish this argument I apologize I will try and summerise. You keep saying that society has no influence then referring to things like social constructionism. You also state that "My opponent argues that certain branches of feminism encourage women to reject the role of "housewife" and that men and women are the same. First off, it's a bit superfluous for a feminist to encourage women to reject the role of "housewife", because most of western society has already rejected it" So if society has rejected it, then is that not society and values effecting relationships? I don"t get what you cannot see here. So that"s your argument against the first premise. I feel that that is all you have offered. You seem to have merely repeated your first point that people have free-will and there is an individualistic factor contributing to relationship satisfaction. I feel as though I have addressed this point thoroughly. You have offered no rebuttal to my other statements about the effect of egalitarian attitudes on relationship satisfaction and the natural order of things. Women are generally better suited to childcare and small-time care work than males, and males are generally more adept to bigger business ventures/career paths; is it right to discourage women from the role that most of them would be happier in?