args

CON

• CON

  Rather, in this instance, it shifts the balance of power...

  Show full argument

  Feminism is about equality.

  I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I hope it will be an enlightening and challenging one for both of us. Moving forward, I believe it to be prudent to address the issue of the definitions of “Feminism”. As it stands now, there are two separate definitions; as such, it will prove difficult for my opponent and myself to continue debating if we are using “Feminism” in differing contexts. Given this, I believe combining the definitions will allow this debate to be more insightful, enlightening, and challenging. The definition I propose is as follows: Feminism: organized activity, on behalf of women’s rights and issues, aimed at the political, social and economic equality of the sexes, or approval thereof. This definition does not include the intricacies of feminist theory, however, it does encompass the overall goal of Feminism, in that it strives to make men and women equals on all applicable fronts. The clause “approval thereof” allows for those who are not active, outspoken advocates in the feminist movement to be included in the definition, as they are, most likely, not against what other feminists strive to put into effect. The clause “organized activity” specifically references any attempts at making a tangible difference in the lives of women, from legal reform to organizations. From this point forward, I will use “Feminism” as it is defined above. In keeping with this definition, and considering the history of the women’s movement as a spectrum of activism, I will be referring to federal benefit laws, current domestic violence laws, as well as current rape laws. Federal Benefits In the US, certain federal benefits are derived from US citizenship. One key difference in women’s federal benefits and men’s federal benefits is the fact that men are required to sign up for Selective service in order to receive student financial aid or work federal jobs and receive federal job training. Even men who are not born in the US, and seek citizenship, if they are under 26 years of age, are required to sign up for selective service in order to receive citizenship. Any male 26 years of age or younger who has not registered is liable to be tried and convicted of a felony offense. Convicted felons in 11 states permanently lose their voting rights. As it stands, I have found no evidence of attempts by those who would be described as feminists towards advocating for this to be changed. As this is indicative of inequality between the sexes, it follows that it should a feminist issue. Assuming a man does not sign up for Selective Service, and does lose the aforementioned federal benefits of citizenship, he is liable to lose federal aid in his push for a college education, should he want one. This is an economic inequity, based solely upon the fact that he did not sign up for the draft. If feminism is to be about equality, this is something that must be worked on, at least to some degree. Advocating for women’s right to vote, as the Suffragettes did, but not ensuring that right came with a compulsory obligation, shows a willingness to promote inequality, which is in direct contradiction of the definition of feminism stated above. Source for the above: https://www.sss.gov... http://felonvoting.procon.org... Domestic Violence And Rape Laws The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is based upon the Duluth Model, which suggests that domestic violence (DV) is a tool used by men to exert control over their spouse. This act changed intimate partner violence into a sexually directional offense, making it more likely that a man will be arrested for retaliating to his spouse’s abuse than his spouse being arrested for abusing him. While the VAWA does ensure that female victims of DV are protected, it has the negative consequence of preventing the protection of male victims. In this instance, a women’s right to equal and fair treatment under the law is not being applied. In keeping with the above definition of Feminism, and what “equality” would entail in this instance, a male abuser and female abuser would be held to the same standard. This would be a major piece of what feminism should take into account. While this may advocate for women’s interests, avoiding domestic violence, it does not provide equality for the sexes. Rather, in this instance, it shifts the balance of power in such a way that, even if he retaliates, a man is more likely to be arrested that a woman, in keeping with the Duluth Model. Ideally, advocating for women’s rights and interests would entail pushing for recognition under the law as a fully capable citizen, meaning a female abuser is recognized as an abuser, as much as a male victim is recognized as a victim. A program that holds women in “victim” status dehumanizes them because it makes the assumption that not only is abuse sexually direction, but also that women are wholly incapable of abuse, and solely capable of self-defense. As it stands, women are recognized as capable of the “positive” human characteristics (leadership, strength, intellect, compassion, etc.) but not recognized as capable of the “negative” human characteristics (aggression, ferocity, etc.) under the law. Whereas a man can be charged with sexual harassment for speaking inappropriately, a woman cannot be charged with rape, even after drugging and forcing a man to engage in sexual intercourse with her. While the dictionary definition of rape entails non-consensual intercourse, the legal definition entails penetration, making it impossible for a woman to rape a man through vaginal intercourse, regardless of his ability to consent to intercourse. Bringing alcohol, or other mind altering substances, adjusts the ability of an individual to consent. However, it is current law that if a drunk man has sex with a drunk woman, he can be charged with rape, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the encounter. If she initiates intercourse with him, it can be considered rape. Both individuals are drunk, both incapable of consent, and yet he can be charged with rape. There have been no pushes to change this. In fact, VAWA is the main reason the current situation exists. VAWA is the epitome of feminist legislation. “Women” is part of the title, so that suggest that these things are Women’s issues. Once again, there is the issue of equal recognition under law, the “equality of the sexes” is being adjusted by “organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests”. Even beyond this, it would be an intelligent inference to believe that being recognized as a full human, capable of good AND evil, is a part of feminism. http://www.theduluthmodel.org... http://www.whitehouse.gov... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.justice.gov... http://online.wsj.com... Conclusion Given the current status of United State laws, and considering the focuses that should be core to feminism, I assert that feminism is not about equality. From the definition above, we can infer that any person who approves of, or supports what feminism stands for is to be considered a feminist. From that, we can further infer that any acts committed and laws created by those people would be a feminist acts and laws. Given the definition of feminism that I constructed from the two definitions provided by Merriam-webster.com, I would further assert that putting the ideology of feminism into action results in a direct contradiction of its definition. As such the “organized activity” on behalf of women’s rights and interests directly ends in further inequality of the sexes, in the social and political arenas. I look forward to reading and learning from my opponents Opening Statement.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-about-equality./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 21.76

    feminism: 21.76

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 9.74 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.65)

    sourceText: 2.00 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.14)
• CON

  However, I believe masculism is wrong in the same way...

  Show full argument

  Feminism

  Masculism is the group dedicated to men's rights, and the members are called MRA's(Mens' Rights Activists). However, I believe masculism is wrong in the same way feminism is wrong: It focuses on gender, rather than the individual, which is why I am a humanist. We are not talking about history, where, as you have said, men have been dominant, though, we are talking about the present. Give me evidence that there is a pay gap, and it is not, indeed, women simply choosing jobs that pay less. I want to be proven wrong. Statistics are proven, words are just, well... words. Yes, there is more domestic violence against women than men. However, look up PSA's for domestic violence. I am willing to bet that no where near 20% of the PSA's will portray women being abused, let alone 40%. Personally, I have seen more males being made fun of for weight problems than females, but thank you for acknowledging that men face this problem. If men try to make their problems known, they will be insulted for it. If a man hits a woman, he's a monster. If a woman hits a man, he's weak. Some men do make their problems known, however.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism/6/
  • score

    BM25 score: 21.72

    feminism: 21.72

    conclusion: 13.44 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.50)

    premises: 6.33 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.07)

    sourceText: 1.95 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.08)
• CON

  But like I said before, then where does it lie? ......

  Show full argument

  Feminism Does Not Equate to Equality

  The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the instigator. As the opponent, my job is to refute any claims that the instigator claims. If I refute them all successfully I win. My opponent has generalized every feminist in the world to being one's that hated men and want women to dominate the world. That's like generalizing that every Christian hates gay people and wants them to die which is obviously not true. My opponent has a very big misconception of what feminism is and hasn't looked very deep into the issue. Obviously as you can see from her points, she is basing them all purely off of the stereotyped crazy feminist lady. And that's the problem with today, so many people think that feminism is the crazy lady screaming that men are monsters when in reality feminism is the unnoticed passerby who wants to make a statement but is too scared that they'll be painted in the same way as the screaming lady. It is people like my opponent who fall into these stereotype traps and then they try and drag others into the trap as well. To that I say, please do not fall for it. So many woman all around the world are being oppressed. My opponent first concedes that women are being oppressed. This basically just cancels out everything that my opponent says later on. Women are being oppressed and therefore feminism is relevant in today. To bring women who have been oppressed out of oppression. My opponent claims then that all men and women have equal rights. "rights are equal to all men and women" is what my opponent said. To that I say, "what earth do you live on?" So that means that every single girl who was aborted in China just because they were a girl is actually secretly still alive? Because the whole reason to abort your child in China was because of the fact that they were a girl and you could only have one child. And girls in China did not have the same opportunities as boys did. And not having the same opportunities is exactly the opposite of what the definition of feminism is. My opponent is obviously a very ignorant girl considering that her back round is Asian. (I checked her profile) You should feel blessed that you're actually alive. A whole generation of girls went missing (aka they were killed) in China all because they would not have the same opportunities as boys did. And yet my opponent neglects that very fact. Then my opponent asks about women and leadership roles? To that I say, has there ever been a female president before that stayed for the whole term? Hillary Clinton has beaten all odds and may actually become the first female president if she wins. There was only one female prime minister for Canada and she didn't even get the full term. Society looks down upon women doing any sort of manual work for a job like construction working. Why else was the pink truck fad created? As for unequal pay, Serena Williams gets paid $450,000 and Roger Federer gets paid $700,000. And the interesting thing is that most people prefer to watch women's tennis because women return the serves more often. Both Roger and Serena are one of the top athletes in the sport. Why aren't they paid the same? This is about as fair as it gets in sports players being paid. My opponent can't deny the obvious wage gap here. http://www.wbur.org... Then my opponent claims that the wage gap does exist which practically makes her point useless. Then my opponent claims that treating everyone equally will result in bad things. Like women would literally be treated like a man, therefore having to act like one. I'd like to remind my opponent what feminism is. Feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social an economic equality to men." Does any of those three things state that women have to literally be a man? No, we as women are allowed to be feminists without having to be forced to act like men which is what my opponent is advocating for. Then my opponent states that giving liberty to everyone is bad. So what, only a select few chosen ones get liberty? Is that what my opponent wants because that's basically what she implied. How do you choose those select few special ones? On gender? Because it certainly seems like my opponent is implying that. The definition of liberty is "the state of being free in a society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life". So now my opponent had basically implied that some people should live in oppression because its somehow beneficial for those not living in oppression. Then my opponent goes on to blame the stereotype that men don't have feelings on feminism without any knowledge to back up that claim. That stereotype was created by the world wars. The war was very demoralizing for the men on the front lines and countries worried that men might not sign up because they had emotions that would stop them from killing so they created an image of a man who had no emotions and could get through anything because of that. As for rape, one in six women will be sexually assaulted. And those numbers are too small because more than half the number of raped that happen are not reported. The ratio of rapes from women to men are 85:12. And yet my opponent disregards the facts yet again. She tries to belittle the abuse women have gone through and blame it on the woman. One of the worst things you can do to a rape victim is tell them that its their own fault. And that's basically what my opponent has claimed. Men are suppose to pay child support because in most cases they're the ones who raped the woman. I do feel bad for the men who have been abused and don't want to get help for fear of not being seen as "macho" but putting the blame on feminism is completely wrong. Stereotypes are something that we need to get rid of because they hurt society in very big ways. Then my opponent tries to say she didn't say that the abuse of women was not gender discrimination without looking to prior rounds. Here is exactly what she said "The abuse of women do not lie in gender discrimination". But like I said before, then where does it lie? Then my opponent points out that all I've been doing is refuting points. But that's exactly my job. As the instigator, the burden of proof lies upon your shoulders and it is my job to refute your points. If I prove you wrong, then I win. But just to make you happy I will make a point. The definition of equality is "the state of being equal in status, rights and opportunities." The definition of feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social an economic equality to men." Being equal to men in society is the same as status. Being equal to men on political and economic standings is the same as having equal opportunities. And the advocacy of women's rights is the same as the rights spoken of in equality. Therefore feminism does equate to equality. Then my opponent blames men's discrimination on feminism and then says that feminism is ironic and feminists are hypocrites. Firstly have you ever heard the term "like a girl"? Yes? And was it spoken by a feminist or a an person? Probably just a person right? And it was referring to a boy who probably had done something "like a girl", right? Pretty much everyone has heard and probably said that term. That's exactly the reason why boys grow up to think that feelings are wrong and girls grow up thinking that doing things "like a girl" is bad. People like you and I use terms that we think are absolutely normal but in reality those little things all add up. Feminism isn't the cause of men's discrimination in this context. It's us. Society and the way we think either gender should behave. Now I shall comment on how ironic my opponent is. If I said "Go back to the kitchen" you would probably be angry right. Well, my opponent is practically saying that to herself. She has fallen into the stereotype trap and had tangled her self so deep that she is actually now against the very idea of feminism which is absolutely ridiculous. My opponent would not be writing this debate let alone going to school to learn how to write without feminism. Then my opponent says that feminists are hypocrites. How is believing that I deserve the same opportunities that a man gets hypocrisy. I feel privileged to be living in a place where I actually get education even though I'm a girl and my opponent should too. Some girls in Africa don't even get education all because their a girl. Girls in China were killed all because they were a girl. And you say that feminists in China don't want equality? It's quite sad to see a person so warped against the thought of feminism all because of a stereotype. We need to get rid of stereotypes because then men will be allowed to express their feelings without having to fear shame and women would be allowed to speak for their rights without getting hated on by people who believe in stereotypes. Feminism is relevant to today. Many women all around the world have had their rights denied. Feminism does equate to equality.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-Does-Not-Equate-to-Equality/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 21.69

    feminism: 21.69

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 9.70 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.64)

    sourceText: 1.98 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.12)
• CON

  Marriage shouldn't limit husbands and wives according to...

  Show full argument

  Feminism is and has achieved equality. 3rd wave feminism is oppressive.

  Your dictionary definition of "feminism" is a limited definition. There are different ideas within feminism (different ideas of what "equality" means and different ideas of what "women" mean). Feminism can't be defined so simply. You misunderstand my point about Christianity. It was to illustrate my point. A title like "feminism" or "Christianity" can be an umbrella title for different views. No one would say "All Christians believe the Eucharist IS the body and blood of Christ" because each denomination has different beliefs and practices. Similarly, not all feminists believe the same things. Why are we now talking about the Western world? That wasn't in the question. Even when limiting it to the Western world, feminism hasn't achieved its aims. It may have achieved a FEW aims, but not all. So you think all Catholics are paedophiles and all Muslims are terrorists because of a few? That's clearly wrong. Similarly, not all TWFs are oppressive. A few might be, but the majority are not. (I have given you facts. You chose to ignore them.) You're aware that your buzzfeed article actually argues that the wage gap IS a problem? Did you even read it? It also highlights how black and Hispanic women get an even worse deal. Black women earn 64%, Hispanic/Latina women earn 54% of that of a man. Download this and look at page two in particular: http://www.iwpr.org... Regarding your YouTube videos: Again, these are one person. Generalisation is a fallacy. You wouldn't say all Americans are black because Barack Obama is black. Besides, the first video's been taken out of context. She tried to argue against a group of Christians being anti-gay at a gay pride march. Your videos don't actually support your point. That's not what gender neutrality is. Gender neutrality is the idea that policies, language and other social institutions should avoid distinguishing roles because of someone's sex or gender. ( https://en.wikipedia.org... ). It's got nothing to do with insensitivity. Why should a woman HAVE to stay at home/man be the worker? If you're against gender neutrality, that's what you're arguing. It's about not having to abide by certain gendered stereotypes. I'm male but I shouldn't HAVE to be attracted to females. I shouldn't HAVE to pay for the meal if I go out with my wife. Gender neutrality says no gender should have to act in any certain, specified, gendered way. Everyone should be free to be able to act how they like. No one should have any pre-determined rules for how to act. Same-sex marriage is an example of gender neutrality. Marriage shouldn't limit husbands and wives according to gender. If I acted feminine people would tell me to "man up". If a woman acted manly people would call her a "dyke". Under gender neutrality men can be sensitive and feminine while women can be insensitive and masculine. At the same time, a woman can be feminine/a man can be masculine. It"s your choice to be who you want to be. TWF doesn't consign anyone to any gender norms. It DOESN'T say men HAVE to be feminine/women HAVE to be masculine. Your link to tumblr merely shows how people understand little about feminism or how much feminism has achieved. In fact, some of them may agree with TWF and not know it. The point is that feminism HASN'T achieved everything it wants to achieve. Saying "he" or "she" isn't offensive. It IS wrong to use the masculine "he" as a way of referring to gender neutral things. E.G.: "The population of the US consume a lot of BBQ. On average, he prefers Texas BBQ to Carolina BBQ." The use of "he" here is wrong; it should rather be "they". The use of gendered pronouns for non-gendered things is another thing TWF challenges. There IS evidence to support feminist claims, unlike the Loch Ness Monster. There IS a pay gap. See the above links. Look at your own links. Gendered pay gaps exist. ("Feminism" was coined around the 1830s by Charles Fourier. So the development of feminism under the name of feminism has been since then.) There's been plenty of real privileges men have received over women. One e.g: The Representation of the People's Act 1918 allowed men over 21 and women over 30 to vote. That's a 9 year male privilege. The pay gap is another. Husbands were legally allowed to rape their wives until 1991 in the UK. That's a male privilege. Women couldn't serve on submarines in the US until 2010. That's a long time that men have had a privilege over women. Between 1994 and 2013 women in the US military couldn't see combat. Again, another male privilege. Women can only get an abortion in Ireland under VERY strict rules. These aren't distant history, either. These are lots of real examples that prove that men have had a real privilege over women. If that is what you're debating about, this may as well be the end of the debate. These are only Western countries. How about countries where women can't legally drive/are abused and sent death threats for driving? (see Sara Bahai). Or FGM? Arranged marriages? Breast ironing? Acid throwing in South Asia? Kofi Annan (previous Secretary General of the UN) said 1 out of 3 women in the world have been "beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused". These are areas where feminism CLEARLY hasn't achieved its aims. It's trying to. TWF is about removing the double standard. It's about being free to make choices without being socially stigmatised for it. At the moment, you seem to be ignoring facts. What facts do you want if not from the last 40 years? TWF is a modern thing. It's not interchangeable with feminism generally. YOUR question asks about Third Wave Feminism. You wrote it. Stick to it. Women weren't suddenly oppressed after they got the pill. They have been oppressed throughout history. Until mid 1800s, it was UK law that a woman who owned land had to surrender it to her husband if she got married. These are problems that have blighted women across the history. Women couldn't hold public office until fairly recently in the UK meaning that at no point in the past 1000 years could women hold public office. Women couldn't be priests 1000 years ago and they're still not allowed to be priests in many denominations. I've told you some areas that TWF are asking for, like reproductive rights - e.g. the right to have an abortion. Plenty of places don't have that right (e.g. most African countries). I've given you lots of examples that TWF still has a long way to go. TWF is not only focusing on women and their liberation. TWF is trying to get liberation for all. For example, TWF wants to liberate feminine men who feel ashamed of being feminine. Society tells men they must be masculine. Rather, TWF wants a feminine man to feel comfortable being feminine. Similarly, TWF wants men to be comfortable being masculine if they CHOOSE to be so. Same for LGBT. TWF wants people to be true to themselves and not have to conform to societal norms, such as gender norms and gender stereotypes. It's about autonomy for individuals, which at the moment society doesn't give us. Society doesn't allow us to be who we truly are because society perpetuates a stereotype of the ideal man or woman. Men MUST be a "tough guy", must be masculine. Women MUST be feminine, wear make-up and shave their legs. Why? Because society says so. Just because there's no legislation telling women to shave their legs doesn't mean women aren't free not to. Just because there's no law telling me to do something, doesn't mean I'm free to do it. Society has its own norms and regulations. Sometimes people have internalised such norms to the point that they regulate themselves (for further discussion, read Sandra Bartky's "Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power"). Feminism - particularly TWF - has not achieved all its aims. THAT'S why feminism still exists. There are different problems that different feminist movements focus on.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-and-has-achieved-equality.-3rd-wave-feminism-is-oppressive./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 21.69

    feminism: 21.69

    conclusion: 9.83 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.10)

    premises: 9.89 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.68)

    sourceText: 1.97 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.11)
• CON

  Just because there is a "fem" in the term feminist...

  Show full argument

  Feminism is cancer of contemporary society

  Well, I don"t really agree with this, feminism has never been about advocating the rights of one gender over another. Just because there is a "fem" in the term feminist doesn"t make it so, you can call it anything you want, it"s still means equality. Feminism to me is a movement that seeks to empower women to take control of their lives. The goal is for both men and women in society to understand that anachronistic restriction on the male and female roles have no standing in modern society and to work towards a more equal society.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-cancer-of-contemporary-society/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 21.68

    feminism: 21.68

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 9.68 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.64)

    sourceText: 1.99 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.13)
• CON

  I accept the challenge and will be arguing that feminism...

  Show full argument

  Feminism Does Not Equate to Equality

  I accept the challenge and will be arguing that feminism is relevant.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-Does-Not-Equate-to-Equality/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 21.63

    feminism: 21.63

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 9.64 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.63)

    sourceText: 1.98 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.12)
• CON

  Let me quote myself: "Females that more aggressively...

  Show full argument

  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...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-no-longer-beneficial-in-America/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 21.56

    feminism: 21.56

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 9.57 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.62)

    sourceText: 1.97 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.11)
• CON

  The pro argues that feminism should not have been created...

  Show full argument

  Feminism should not have been created in the beginning.

  The pro argues that feminism should not have been created in the first place, however since Feminism was first established in the 1830s, the movement has brought about many positive changes, many of which we may take for granted today. Prior to the inception of Feminism, women had very little rights, personal, social, political or economic. Women were not allowed to vote, own property, inherit money or divorce their husbands. Feminism first arose to address these and many other issues and with great success. Had it not been for feminism the status quo for women would have been maintained. As Fredrick Douglas said "Power concedes nothing without a demand", and in the case of women's rights feminism was the demand. The issue with the pro's argument is that she argues that Feminism focuses on the issues of women and this does not lead to balance and gender equality, however this means that there must be equality, to begin with, however as I pointed out, prior to the dawn of feminism, women were in no way equal to men and were in every way subservient to men. The Pro thinks that sexism will always exist because there are two sexes, however, the issue with this is that feminism is not about resolving individual prejudices, but about power structures which create inequality. http://people.howstuffworks.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-should-not-have-been-created-in-the-beginning./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 21.55

    feminism: 21.55

    conclusion: 7.92 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 11.62 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.97)

    sourceText: 2.01 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.15)
• CON

  While Martin Luther King is more widely celebrated,...

  Show full argument

  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...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-world-needs-more-feminism/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 21.54

    feminism: 21.54

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 9.57 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.62)

    sourceText: 1.96 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.09)
• CON

  This is unfortunately not true, and should not be taught....

  Show full argument

  Modern Feminism is Necessary

  Well it's unfortunate that this debate is coming to an end, but I had fun. Finally a decent debate with a feminist. So thanks :) But let's get back to business. Gender Roles I hate this term, and I hate how people want it abolished even more. Men and women are biologically different, and tend to do things that most of their gender tend to do. Nobody is "forcing" men or women to do something that most men or women, respectively, do. The reason we slightly encourage it is because that's what makes everybody happy. Almost every single woman I know would rather stay home and raise her child than continue working and stay away from her child, while it's the exact opposite with almost every man I know. Now I know this is anecdotal, so here's a graph from a feminist blog [1] that tries to spin this into something else, but the numbers don't lie. Women would rather stay at home or work part time even if money weren't an issue, whereas men would rather work full time. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. It just shows that women PREFER one thing, while men PREFER another. I understand that this is a little bit off-topic, but it's still a non-issue that feminists like to bring up and claim they're being mistreated, while it's simply women's choices to do something over men. Feminism is attempting to stop women from doing something they want to do, because they're terrified of the term "gender role." Nobody can do what the majority of their gender does because... well, no good reason. Alright, back to sports. You don't want to stop pushing boys to be athletic. That's great, neither do I. I'd like to take this a step further and say that boys and girls are equally represented in physical education classes, and neither one is currently being pushed harder than another. Although men tend to be biologically more athletic than women, this isn't even looked at anymore. So if anything, there are no gender roles when it comes to school and physical education. In addition, I see that you accept the fact that boys are picked on when they aren't athletic enough. So I have a solution. Instead of throwing feminism at it, and expecting every single person on Earth to "find the error in their ways," how about as well as teaching people to be nice (something that doesn't require feminism), we ensure boys (and girls) are athletic enough to either a) not be picked on, or b) stand up for themselves if they are. To say "with feminism, everyone is happy" is unfortunately an incredibly unrealistic and impossible-to-achieve goal. Again, one more reason I believe feminism to be detrimental. Much like my argument about the slutwalk being detrimental to the safety of women by taking all responsibility off women, feminism (as you'd like to see it) is detrimental to boys, by taking all responsibility off them to stay in shape and be able to defend themselves. Feminists assume that by saying "hey, read about feminism," all bad people in the world will magically disappear. This is unfortunately not true, and should not be taught. "Not All Feminists" Have you heard of the hashtag #NotAllMen? The hashtag is feminists' way of making fun of men who simply point out that not every man acts the way some women and feminists believe they do, which is a valid point. But feminists have decided to chastise men for simply pointing out that the woman/feminist is wrong when she makes a generalization about men. And now you're doing the same. Let me take an excerpt from a feminist article saying how ridiculous saying "not all men" is, and replace that phrase with "not all feminists." [2] It's defensive bullsh*t that doesn't really do anything but prove the bearer of Not All Feminists is more concerned with saving face for themselves than, you know, actually acknowledging the concern that another person is expressing. I understand that not every feminist hates men, or not every feminist doesn't understand the statistics of average earnings or sexual assaults or typical education by gender etc. I understand that not all feminists are the same, and not all are bad. However... the face of feminism is what is most commonly seen. So when your (possibly your) good friend Julie Bindel, who is pretty popular in the feminist community, with 13,000 followers on Twitter [4], claims men should be put in concentration camps [3], it says something. And it doesn't matter that not all feminists agree with her, what matters is there are a large number of feminists (and normal people) do agree with her, and non-feminists take note of that. You can say "not all feminists," and I'd happily agree with you, but keep in mind, when men did the same thing, about their gender even, not even their ideology, they were ridiculed and chastised by the very people you share an ideology with for doing so. "All those women are radicals" It's very easy to just say "see all those examples you provided of feminists doing detrimental things to the whole of society? Yeah they don't count." Unfortunately though, we are talking about the necessity of feminism, and when those women are a huge part of feminism, I can't do anything but bring them up to explain how unnecessary feminism is, or at the very least, how poorly tens of thousands of feminists represent the movement. With all that being said, why is it so hard to not call yourself an egalitarian? When you agree with me that there are a lot of feminists who are just bad people, for lack of better words, wouldn't it make more sense to associate yourself with a group that is not known for having radicals, and is known for helping women and men equally? Just a thought. "There will always be men who rape." This is true. And you, one feminist, disagreeing with practically the foundation of the entire current feminist movement (the slut walk), unfortunately has very little impact on the entire feminist movement and the necessity of it. Feminists only help women I'm glad you can see that there aren't any feminist groups that try to help men. So this contradicts what you said earlier to a degree, although you did say helped and not helping, so that's fair enough. However I have a big problem with your next statement. "...the examples you gave were not very good ones and not really issues that need protesting for." The examples I gave are as follows, word for word: "Men are more likely to be murdered, assaulted, robbed, homeless, commit suicide, get injured at work, and many more." If you think rape is an issue that needs addressing, and getting killed isn't, then you fall into the category of why feminism is detrimental to society. Because you're doing two things. You're a) saying a problem that primarily affects women is more important to address than an issue that affects both men and women, and b) you're saying rape is the most serious type of crime. Now I'm not doubting the severity of rape, but my main point is that you (and almost every other feminist) claims they're for equality, yet only protests against the issue that primarily affects women. Not the issues that equally affect both men and women. But like you said, feminism is feminism for a reason, and does only combat issues that primarily affect women. However like I've said before, feminism and feminists are doing this in the wrong way. Female Privilege So because this is my last round, I'd like to bring up female privilege. I'm not doing this because I want to show that women have it better than men, I'd like to simply show that there is no need for feminism, as women aren't treated worse than men, aren't oppressed, aren't held back, etc. I don't have a hell of a lot of room left, so I'll bring up some major points and provide links and pictures so support the ones I haven't covered. From an early age, men will be told to never hit a woman, yet if a woman were to hit a man, she would not receive even close to the social penalties that a man would if he were to hit her. Women are not required by law to join the military draft if the country were to go to war. Women will receive more help when they are in need, or even when they are not, than men. If a disaster were to strike, women would be among the first to be saved, giving the impression that a woman's life is more valuable than a man's. The social pressure is on a man to pay for the majority of things a couple does together. Any accusation a woman makes on a man will be taken seriously right off the bat and will, at the very least, be investigated. The qualifications for women to join the military is less than that of men - something arguably detrimental to women's safety. If a woman doesn't get a job, it's not because she isn't good enough, it's because of sexism. If a man doesn't get a job, it's because he isn't good enough. A woman will most likely not be charged with or accused of sexual harassment if she were to act inappropriately toward a man, whereas a man could easily lose his job and reputation if he were simply accused of doing the same toward a woman. Here's a few more - [5], [6] And you're trying to say that feminism, a movement suggesting that women aren't treated as well as men, and is trying to "grant women equality," is necessary? I'm sorry, but looking at the above lists, and taking into account the lack of evidence supporting any feminist claims, it's pretty hard to say women aren't treated equally to men. It's pretty hard to say a movement is needed to provide equal treatment for women. It's pretty hard to say women are at a disadvantage. It's pretty hard to say feminism is necessary. Thanks! Sources [1] http://sites.psu.edu... [2] http://jezebel.com... [3] http://www.infowars.com... [4] https://twitter.com... [5] https://mensresistance.wordpress.com... [6] http://www.feministcritics.org...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Modern-Feminism-is-Necessary/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 21.53

    feminism: 21.53

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 9.57 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.62)

    sourceText: 1.95 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.09)