args

Third-wave feminism is about misandry and has nothing to do with gender equality

I will reinstate the point that you have willfully ignored throughout the entire debate. THIRD-WAVE feminism is different from the viewpoints of traditional feminism and the movement has completely strayed from it's fundamentals about achieving fairness in society. Feminism is a movement and simply many of it's adherents support affirmative-action like policies. You can't just sweep them all under the rug and claim that these are not feminists. After pregnancy, the father will continue to work to supply the household with income which we can both agree is a responsible choice. Where we differ is what happens after, you talk about how women don't work as some kind of major sexist problem. But frankly, I don't see any problem that THIRD-WAVE feminism can fix. The men are not forcing women with threats of violence to stop them from returning to the workplace. And frankly how dare you DEMAND that both gender MUST provide incomes in order to not be "sexist". What gives you the moral obligation to tell the universe and the economy on how it should be run? (US has no maternity leave so, that is definitely not taken in consideration of the "vacation" statistic.) I am in a total state of disbelief after reading your statement: "...They made sure everyone had was a job, healthcare and education". Assuming you ignore the Purges(1.2 million), Soviet caused famine in Volga(5 million), Great Leap Forward (600 million) and their struggling economies that only survived due to Communist armies that quelled any thought of rebellion through military force, you might consider communism a success story. There is only one reason why Soviet women were in STEM and that was because they were forced to by the Soviet government at gunpoint. No feminism caused this involvement in the USSR as feminists were shot and killed by the USSR. As for your point against women and men simply having different interests and psychology, pointing fingers and screaming "SEXIST" does not debunk my point at all. I have already produced years of scientific research to back up a well-known fact about the differences in male and female interests. All you did was scream SEXISM and completely ignored scientific data so you could continue your delusion about how there is institutional sexism and that it secretly detracts women that have an equal skill and interest in STEM. You proclaim this delusion throughout your whole debate without even procuring a single statistic that even remotely backs up your claims. Screaming sexism at my data then going on to ignore my argument and continue to rephrase your argument for the 27th time is not a counterpoint. Your "point" about how women are detracted from STEM is because of how society tells women that they are inferior at mathematics is ridiculous. Not once in my life, has anyone even remotely hinted to me that I am terrible at acting however despite this lack of a negative force, I don't want to pursue an acting career. I don't want to pursue an acting career, not because society tells me that I don't have the ability the reason but, is that I simply have no interest. Just because women apply to STEM jobs at a slightly lower rate does not mean there is institutional sexism of any kind. Men do not have 50% of jobs in the field of nursing, that does not translate into sexism. Your idea of a gender-equal society is horrifying: "Make sure that in the future, applicants for jobs are 50/50 men and women.". I have proven on the preponderance on the evidence of which you have done little to nothing to refute, that women and men simply have different interests due to their brains. What you are demanding for is that society should force little girls to pick STEM jobs regardless of interests to fulfill your ignorant quota. You claim that you are against affirmative actions, but you turn right around and advocate for these similar policies. With your points about "personal experience" about women getting less masters and PhDs, frankly you are wrong. Years of statistics and studies show otherwise and your experiences are not reliable in the slightest. As for your point about how if there are equal opportunity for both genders then that would result in equal outcome is a laughable argument. Outcome is about decisions in life and while opportunity plays a role in where you start, it does not define where you end. In a previous round, I have presented a statistics that shows that income mobility in very high despite where you start. Using your logic: Monopoly, Chess, Checkers, Olympic games, etc. would all end in tie games. The result does not boil down to a specific gender/player rigging the system but, an individual's choices which leads to victory or defeat. Men make up majority of CEOs because, men are more likely to take risks in life. That is why majority of women are in the middle, and a majority of men are at the bottom. More risks can lead to greater gains and greater losses. That is why there is a majority of CEOS being male despite a majority of the male population at the bottom. At the end, it's the women's decisions that lead to the "wage gap", they avoid risks, take more vacations, avoid STEM and simply work less hours. With your supposed "refutation" about how the world does not completely follow probabilities, you just go right on and ignore it by claiming it was false without any evidence or arguments. Once again my opponent merely repeats the same strategy as last time. Just because you say my point is false, doesn't mean that it's false, I DEMAND that you provide evidence in your counter points as I do. And judging by some of the arguments you have made you clearly do not understand how to debate intelligently using evidence and reason. Your whole argument has degraded to the point where your "refutations" aren't even counterpoints but mere assaults on my character through unsupported allegations of misogyny and sexism. Name calling and ignoring opponent arguments don't win debates.