args

Feminism is no longer beneficial in America

CONTENTION ONE: NO SOURCES It's fine, I'm just an impolite human anus who doesn't care about rules. CONTENTION TWO: INEQUALITY SUBPOINT A: Pro has not addressed any of the 4 studies I cited in Round 1; judges must now accept them as true. SUBPOINT B: The CONSAD study: A: CONSAD accepts that a wage gap exists: "There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent." Thus, even adjusting for Pro's variables, women still earn 4.8-7.1% less then men for comparable jobs. Using Pro's sources, Con has fulfilled their burden; as long as there is *any* non-inherent inequality that women face, feminism still has purpose in America. Vote Con. B: Let's look at how CONSAD "explains" 70% of the wage gap. First: "A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work." Pro has the burden to demonstrate that this difference is wholly inherent in being male/female, and not a product of how women are raised and treated in society. If this is a product of society, then feminism has a role in reforming society to treat and raise men and women equally. Also, look to [5] -- even in part-time jobs, women earn 58% of men. Second: "A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of children in the home." Again, Pro must prove this is inherent, not societal. Third: "Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” workplace policies more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly, the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation." Again, Pro must prove this is inherent, not societal. Further, look to [5], which proves that mothers with child earn 79% of fathers with child, showing unequal burdens in the home and in work [6]. And that's all the variables included: "[I]ncluding some additional variables ... is not feasible ... with available data bases." Thus, the CONSAD study provides Pro basically no reasons to win. Furthermore, the CONSAD study states: "Blau and DeVaro found that, all other things being equal, the promotion rates of men exceed the promotion rates of women by 2.2 to 3.1 percentage points. However, there was no discernible difference in the rate of growth of salaries between the genders." This supports my point that women are unfairly treated in promotion. In response, Pro states: "[W]omen are less likely to seek higher paying jobs, apply for promotions, work as many hours, and even request raises. .... As for the "promotion bias", just because men are more likely to be promoted, does not mean that there is a bias among employers; it is more likely that the men in question were simply more ambitious or prepared for the next rank up." Let me quote myself: "Females that more aggressively pursue better pay or career advancement are discriminated against [6]." Women *cannot* pursue promotion, or they get *less* promotion. Subservience is key! Furthermore, women who see female leaders are more likely to succeed [10], which helps correct promotion bias. Feminism provides this since it promotes women as leaders. Pro: "Many modern day feminists like to attribute this to the so called "patriarchy"; however, no such thing exists. Women are more likely to victimize themselves than men, which leads to the internal feeling of oppression." Yep, not gonna respond to this. It doesn't matter what women feel, because I don't care and I have never used women's feelings to show that women are discriminated against. Unless Pro can link feelings of oppression to something useful, it's null. CONTENTION TWO SUBPOINT A: LYNCH Pro describes feminism in the media as a "cyber-lynch mob" that "harasses" people, without citing evidence. On the other hand, I'll support the idea of a "cyber-lynch mob" called "Gamergate" that opposes feminism. To enforce this viewpoint, Gamergaters have harassed hundreds of persons, doxxed (revealed personal information, such as address and bank records of) dozens of men and women and driven more out of journalism and gaming. And in terms of being an actual lynch mob, Gamergate comes far closer. One of Gamergate's favorite tactics is SWATting -- calling the police and telling them that there's a hostage at the address of one of Gamergate's targets. Police are obligated to send in a SWAT team, which often ends in injury or potentially death. Thus, Gamergate *actually* tries to hurt people [8]. Feminism in the media just verbally harasses people for not being feminist, kind of like how capitalists disagree with communists. SUBPOINT B: CHECKLIST 1: Yep, that's fine. 2: Pro states: [Feminism] is spreading lies so efficiently, that even the POTUS has quoted the false wage gap statistic. Right. Feminism deceived the POTUS. It's not like he just didn't check his sources or anything -- no, it's an evil feminist conspiracy to spread LIES. Pro states: Critiquing feminism will lead to harassment and possibly violence - as soon as feminism garners an outspoken opponent, they are berated and shunned.[6][4] Both of Pro's "sources" come from YouTuber The Amazing Atheist. I'm just gonna drop a link here [9]; The Amazing Atheist has shown overt and insensitive misogyny and joked about rape in the past, making his claims of getting *unjustly* shunned pretty forking weak. 3: Pro states that it's impossible to criticize feminism in the media and this destroys freedom of speech. Right. There's a political party called the Republican Party, which opposes equal pay acts, seeks to reduce access to reproduction-related objects, and generally is anti-feminist. But yet, somehow, unless a Republican drops a "rape is God's will" line, they never get publicly castigated. It's almost like Pro's talking through his hat. 4: Pro has COMPLETELY DROPPED POINT FOUR: "Sample text". This is a crucial loss for Pro. My argument of "Sample text" COMPLETELY TURNS HIS CASE. "Sample text" is proof that not only is feminism necessary in the United States, but the entire galaxy. A loss of this magnitude sinks the ship of Pro's case. Wait, can you hear that? What's that sound? *blub blub blub* IT'S PRO, DROWNING IN DEFEAT! 5: Juggernauts can be criticized, from a safe distance. Like what if you had a dragon, but the dragon was stuck in a pit, and you told it yo mama jokes. WHAT THEN?! 6: Let me just quote Pro on this: "Feminism is not a unified group at all". A juggernaut, by definition, cannot be divided in on itself and not unified. Thus, feminism cannot be a media juggernaut. That's like saying that whites in America are a media juggernaut. Yeah, they have almost all the media power, but they aren't a monolithic, singular entity. 7: Maybe I'm blind and can't see 8: Pro proves that physical feminists might get slightly violent when a forking "Meninist" protest goes down. However, Pro has to prove that feminists in the media are actually causing this violence. SUMMARY Pro has no reasons to affirm, having failed to show that women are equal to or greater than men in current society. Con has multiple reasons. Vote Con. SIDE NOTE Why'd DDO filter all my forking profanities?! REFERENCES [8] http://rationalwiki.org... [9] http://rationalwiki.org... [10] http://digest.bps.org.uk...