Pro vs. con view
1031 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    One world famous study was carried out in 1968 by Jane...

    Feminism is for equal rights for all genders not just women.

    "The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... This is the definition of feminism, which states it is about equality of the sexes. Counter Arguments. "A poll, reported in The Telegraph, showed that “men prefer women with long wavy hair” [9]. When women cut their hair short, it is insanity to think that people will not think that there is something wrong with her." This is exactly the thing we want to eliminate. Stereotypes can be harmful and can reduce self confidence. "The devastating effect that negative stereotyping can have on people’s sense of themselves and their abilities has been known for decades now. One world famous study was carried out in 1968 by Jane Elliott who had been greatly affected by the assassination of Martin Luther King. She wanted to teach her 8 and 9 year olds about the damaging effects of stereotypes. She told them that scientists had discovered that blue-eyed people were much more intelligent and hard-working than brown-eyed people who were lazier and tended to be stupid. She then divided the class into the two eye colours and gave more praise and attention to the blue-eyed children. Within hours she could see that this classification was affecting performance in class. The blue-eye children were working harder and achieving higher grades of work; for brown eyes the opposite was true. There were also effects out of the classroom. The blue eyed youngsters adopted superior ways and were taunting their brown-eyed peers. Jane Elliott then told the class that she had made a mistake – it was brown eyed people who were clever and hard-working. The effects on the children then reversed in line with the stereotypes she had given them." This experiment proves that stereotypes can be harmful. So when people stereotype girls to be stupid and boys to be smarter it can reduce their self confidence and they may start conforming to these stereotypes. "Your wants are pure abstraction that do not fit reality" Society has told us who to be and how to fit in , this is another thing we are trying to battle. The reason why people believe things like boys wearing makeup is wrong and girls having short hair is wrong is because the views that society has placed and opinions that have been passed down through generations. However equally we don't want people being shamed for wanting to be what society calls the perfect girl/boy. "In practice, feminism advocates for unequal rights, " Like i stated in my previous argument feminism is about equality and i think this image describes what feminism is all about. s://41.media.tumblr.com...; alt="" width="180" height="810" data-pin-url="http://loganl517.tumblr.com...; data-pin-description="🔊Loganl517🔊" /> I am going to end my argument with ways feminism has helped both men and women today: Feminism brought women out of the household — if they so chose. Feminism broke barriers for little girls with presidential aspirations. Feminism triggered the FBI to change the definition of rape to include men. Feminism enabled men to spend more time with their children. Feminism demanded that the media change its representation of men. Sources: http://mic.com... http://mic.com... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

  • PRO

    You do not need a unbalanced diversion to solve an...

    Feminism should not have been created in the beginning.

    Had it not been for feminism the status quo for women would have been maintained. What exactly is the status quo. You do not need a unbalanced diversion to solve an unbalanced way of life. Look at martin Luther king junior for example. He did not believe it was about blacks but he believed it was about blacks and whites. So what is stopping us today with racism. The fact that people believe it's one side. Feminism did a lot that I do not take for granted but gender equality would have done more. The issue of feminism might say it is about power structure in the beginning but in many first world countries you can see it's about more so sexism. A unhealthy view of equality between men and women. When you start with something the best way to end with the best results is to tackle all of the issues instead of one. Of course there might be some issues at that time that are more important but does it really need to be pointed out or just solved? It's possible for feminism to be replaced with a more gender neutral definition and view of equality. It would have still made me people aware unequal differences between men and women. Unequal rights. I'm not saying feminism is horrible but I'm saying it is to concentrated on women. As in the definition and the word itself. Women had no equal rights but is feminism the best solution or just a solution that got popular?

  • PRO

    There are both men and women who are against abortion,...

    Humanism is a better ideology then Feminism

    Yes, and animals are important to human beings, for the reasons I had already mentioned. And yes, it does cover all animals pretty much. Even if it didn't my argument would still be valid, due to having it cover to the ones we just use as pets or food and other necessities. I am going to go over and argue against your reasons by each individual one, just so you know the order of events in this next paragraph. 1. The wage gap. The problem the entire wage gap argument in my eyes that basically, a bunch of statistics are gathered up, averaged out, and people say "Oh look, women are payed less." (Bear in mind, I am implying the truth, not saying it is. You can find hundreds of statistics that go all over the place, but I am going to assume that this is true, just because it doesn't hold up even so.) And feminists who observe that women are payed less, like you, instantly assume "Oh look, patriarchy!" without even taking other factors into account. Such as women having periods, having different values, different spending habits, having pregnancies. There are plenty of ways in which women behave differently then men. Maybe even, women are less ambitious in the work place. Have you considered also its the fear of maternity leave that has employers not wanting to move women into higher positions in a company? I'm not saying these are all true, but there is other factors that need to be considered other then making a rapid, instant assumption. There's nuance very present, and I know that everyone hates ambiguity at times, but it is here, and it must be confronted as to understand the truth without making a flawed, quick assumption just to try to support a viewpoint. 2. Congress male percentage: Your point is? I can pretty much use my last argument here too, there is ambiguity and nuance present, and instead of making a rapid, quick-to-judge assumption, you need to dig deeper. 3. Body Regulation: Now, that's less of a patriarchal ordeal and more of a political party ordeal. There are both men and women who are against abortion, and both men and women who are for it. It isn't a gender thing at all. 4. Rape Chance: I could use this argument for males too, claiming there is a female dominance in this country too at that statistic, clearly, that is wrong. 5. Clothing: That viewpoint is very, very unpopular, and its not even within politics. It just is rooted within some civilians minds as an idea, and that is it. Feminism's action has not supported both genders, and yes, that is true I suppose. In this next argument, you straw man my argument entirely, a logical fallacy. For that was not meant to show disrespect. Modern-day feminism became popular again and earned some stance in the political world via social networks that feminists are popular on, such as Twitter and Tumblr. To see a group originated from those places is rare, so that is why I say they are lucky, and why, they still, do not have much buck to their kick. And it's good you bring places like Africa, because you may be right there is patriarchy in Africa (Even though Feminism isn't armed to deal with it) it's good to acknowledge it may exist.) You contradict your argument when you said this: " Men's Rights Activists are literally ONLY for men but they are so much more legit?" In the comments section didn't you say: "Uh, the reason they disagree (and it seems you buy into MRA being more legit than feminists, give me a break) is because MRA, wait for it, ADVOCATE FOR MEN'S RIGHTS AND FEMINISM ADVOCATES FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS! Wow, it's almost like we could look at the definitions for these two ideologies and see the difference!" So does that go to show that feminism is less "Legit" as well? My opponent seems to be contradicting what he says. And sure, not all feminists hate men, I am certain. But recent actions by feminists such as the T-shirt I had shown you and how it spawned have that question be asked. I already mentioned the difference. Feminists became the enemy of the M.R.A., the M.R.A. never made enemies of feminists. If you actually had watched the videos I linked (Which I recommend doing so you are not being ignorant to a segment of my argument) the M.R.A. representatives were rather tame and negotiable, however, the Feminists, again, were rude, cussing and crude. And you can be passionate about something while remaining calm. And yes, being calm does get points across. Look at political speeches, and tell me otherwise. You realize he's a comedian, right? The superiority complex is put on for the humor, as is his excessive swearing, mockery, et cetera. But that is irrelevant, and frankly, you do not invalidate the quote. But I do agree with you about gender, my apologies. The word "sex" should be more suiting then. But no, actions of feminism have showed that it quite does not. Humanism covers such things, it covers it all, and with a positive and innovative manner. Feminism, does not. Actions speak louder then words. Good day.

  • PRO

    No, not really. ... -TJ Kirk AKA The Amazing Atheist

    Humanism is a better ideology then Feminism

    Well, no. My definition of humanism does not contradict what I say, because you see, humans are animals just as much as the other animals which occupy this world. Also, even if that weren't the case, (Which, I don't know what we would be then.) animals are still an occupant of this planet, and we share it with them by domesticating animals such as dogs, cats, snakes, and many other animals you can think of. Other domesticated animals have been used for food as well, such as cows, chickens and pigs. I agree with your third paragraph pretty much, those within a patriarchy mindset would probably see males acting feminine as problematic, and men getting molested and such would probably be seen by patriarchs as silly. But you seem to think that there is a patriarchy in America, which there most definitely is not. Is there gender stereotypes? Hell yes. But patriarchy? That's not even close to true. In this next paragraph, I am going to assume that what you say is true. Alright, so those are problems that woman have today. But you would imply that humanism would not be "enough" to fix those problems. If the world's governments and leaders all were under the mindset of merely being for the good of the human species in general, the not only would the problems of woman be covered, but also men, which there are men's rights issues. If asked, I can tell you them. So sure, I agree with you, humanism may not nearly be enough to have much of an impact on the world to get rid of those issues, but really, Feminism isn't equipped to deal with problems like the supposed issues in Africa relating to women's rights. It's lucky Feminists have gained ANY ground in politics, really. Also, I am going to assume that what you mean by "our continent" is referring to the western world, right? America? Please elaborate on that next round. Anyways, if so, ours is a continent for men? No, not really. Considering that we have plenty of women living and having successful lives here, that simply isn't true. By men? Technically true, the founding fathers did not have a female in their ranks, but so what? To men? Again, not true. At men? Not true. With men? Yeah, that's accurate. All about men? No, absolutely not. Now, is the capitalization of the world "man" meant to express patriarchal values? If not, I don't know why that's off concern. If so, I'd like to see a link of proof if you would give that. Now, you are correct here. Feminist ideals did earn women rights back in there day. Back in day, feminism did genuinely fight for equality within the genders. Women did fight to get things like being able to gain education, being able to vote, et cetera. But you know what? They didn't hate men in the process, they didn't make clothing mocking the suicides of men, they fought for equality between the genders just like the M.R.A. does today. And if you were to tell me that Feminism still does that today, I'd have the hardest time believing you. Yes, I will back this up. If you read through this article shown here, it tells you the goal of the M.R.A. and frankly, it sounds reasonable. It sounds like they are pushing for equality, and they do say that there opponents are feminists politically, but its not hateful, its not meant to arouse anger. http://mensrightsmovement.net... On the other hand however, let's go find a feminist organization and see their goals. Ah, Feminist Majority Foundation. Here is there goals as well. http://www.feminist.org... Now, I would say that sounds incredibly reasonable from what I read. It sounds good on paper and I frankly don't pose a problem with it. But then, we get things like this: and this... also this (What happened after my second link.) And suddenly, after I see things like that happen and more modern-day feminism loses its credibility saying it fights for equality, if it fought for equality, them and the M.R.A. would be able to get along. Notice in the first video the man speaking is quiet and calm and the woman is cussing and being rather rude to the man. Humanism is an ideology that covers everyone, that is for the benefit and health and goodness of human beings despite what's between your legs, what the pigment of your skin is, or what orientation you are, and so much more. What modern day feminism does today actually gives a different definition in my eyes, and this is off feminist action, a little observation if you will, quoted from one of my favorite You-tubers, and I will be ending this round here on that note. "Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal by focusing soley on the issues of one of them." -TJ Kirk AKA The Amazing Atheist

  • PRO

    But if everyone is given liberty, there would also be...

    Feminism Does Not Equate to Equality

    Equal rights do not equate to equal treatment, and many ignorant feminists such as you refuse to accept they are different. Yes, women are being oppressed. But not just women. Feminism makes us all see humanity as a divided hierarchy, which is really not what we"re going for here. We strive for equality so as to unite us. Does feminism do that? Definitely not. Oh, please, get your facts straight. Slaves and servants have many differences, even though they both serve their masters. Were servants bought? No, they weren't. They offered themselves as services to their masters as an employment, as a job. They had their rights too. They weren"t even paid for being a slave themselves. All the money went to the person who sold them. People literally owned slaves. Servants did not. But back to the point of gender equality. Yes, gender equality has been a tough nut to crack, but because of our more advanced world, rights are equal to all men and women. What do you mean they are not allowed in leadership roles? In terms of politics? If so, I really am shocked at your ignorance. What are the certain jobs that society would prevent women from having? You"re being vague here. Please elaborate on his women will not be paid fairly if they become a professional sports player or have a job. If you"re talking about the gender pay gap, yes, it does exist. But you have to dig deeper. Don"t just look at the issue at a surface level. There are many reasons why women have supposedly lower incomes (ex. they have to take care of their children, etc.) But statistics and studies prove that unmarried women are paid higher than unmarried men. Now, how is that equality? Another sad fact about most feminists is that they never stop to check the consequences of their actions. What will equal treatment result in? We would be treated the same as men. We would be expected to be more masculine (which is not at all bad, but other feminists would be pushing other "weaker" women to be more masculine and just come off as stronger), which is, let"s face it, our opposite traits, as we are feminine creatures. Yes, it is good that feminists fight for society to change their views of women, but if feminism makes society look at women as man-hating fools, then why bother? Other feminists admit that they do not fight for equality but rather liberty. But if everyone is given liberty, there would also be limitations imposed on the other party. Yes, and so are all the other citizens of this world such as I. Let me reiterate that feminism is far from fighting for equality. They are rather fighting for what women have been denied of all these years. If you have already forgotten the definition of "equality" it is "the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities." (Please, also, work on your grammar as I cannot for the life of me comprehend what you are trying to say in this statement.) Well, no, I don"t live in America. Yes, I am glad that you have understood that equality is for everyone, which is true. But women are the ones that fall out? Only women? I don"t think so. Many feminists (like other extremist thinking people) dive into false ideologies, thinking that it is only women who are oppressed. It"s women who always suffer. Wrong. How about the fact that men are always chosen to do more dangerous jobs, such being a construction worker? How about the fact that only men are able to go to war while women live relatively easier lives at home taking care of their children (both are difficult tasks but, for men, there"s a higher chance of getting shot dead). You actually have a point there. Yes, equality is all about having equal rights, equal opportunities and equal status. Discrimination does inherently lower the status of women. Both have recurring concepts of both injustice and inequality. In the past, yes, men have been congratulated for being players. But in our more developed and evolved world, it is shunned by society (which consists of mostly morally upright people) that both man and woman gets a lot of girls or guys. It"s either that or society just has a neutral outlook towards it. My opponent makes the mistake of mistaking that I said the abuse of women is not at all gender discrimination. I did not say it wasn"t, but it is not the only major factor. It"s also the social hierarchy we live in. I find it rather bogus of feminists who say they fight for equality, when in actuality they do not. Sure, there is gender discrimination, but it seems that only women are being discriminated. How about the other poor, innocent men who have done nothing in their lives but try to be and do good? They are expected to earn enough to support a family and to serve in military service. Domestic violence committed by women against men is an almost invisible crime. Men are forced to pay child support under almost every scenario; even when they're victims of statuary rape. Men aren't supposed to show emotion or cry. Men aren't supposed to enjoy "feminine" things, although it's okay for women to enjoy "masculine" things. It"s obvious that feminists strive not for equal treatment but to also warp society"s image of men. Stop doing that. You seem to be only arguing about the relevance of feminism and deliberately avoiding the topic of how feminism does not strive for either equality or justice (although both are different, they have a close interrelationship). My opponent fails to see that feminism from the start is not about striving for equality or justice, but for what women have been denied of from the past. In all your ignorance, you state that feminism is relevant today because (according to me) I blamed (by the way, I am a female myself if you haven"t noticed my use of the pronoun "we"). Social hierarchy is the opposite of inequality, the opposite of which feminism is not about. I hope you understand what I"m saying. But yes, I am glad that we both have a common viewpoint that discrimination in all forms is a shallow part of man that although is virtually impossible can be eradicated if we put conscious effort into it. Again, I have to reiterate that one example of men being discriminated is that they are expected to not cry or show any emotions as it would not be "manly". Another is that while it is socially acceptable for women of this age to enjoy sports and roughhousing, you call a man gay because of wanting to do more feminine stuff, such as painting your nails. Yes. It is It is feminists themselves who do not want to become women themselves. They are already implying that if a man is more feminine, he is weaker, and by that they are implying that they themselves are weak just because of their feminine traits. Oh, the irony of you feminists. You see, both genders are constrained by stereotypes, not just women. That"s why men are uncomfortable with women fighting for their rights at this age. You feminists are such hypocrites. I've more to say but there isn't enough word space.

  • PRO

    While it does happen, the employer can get sued if they...

    The west doesn't need feminism, it needs to move

    While it does happen, the employer can get sued if they are paid unequally based on sexism http://fortune.com... You say that men being in more crimes is not an argument against feminism, it actually is because feminism always claims that men are privileged and free compared to women

  • PRO

    Does feminism mean men-hating? ... FEMINIST: a person who...

    Do We Need Feminism? YES We Do

    Do women only use feminism as an excuse? Does feminism mean men-hating? Is it just a waste of time or do women need to fight for their own rights? FEMINIST: a person who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes.

  • PRO

    In the UK, one in four women suffers domestic violence,...

    Feminism Has Plenty More To Achieve

    Feminism is still of relevance today, and is indeed needed. In the UK, one in four women suffers domestic violence, and an increase in the reporting of rape in the last thirty years has gone alongside a threefold drop in conviction rates. In countries such as Ireland and Malta abortion is still not legal for all women, this can be seen as an important part of equality for woman that has not been achieved yet and needs to be fought for.  If we take feminism as a global movement then the movement is still of huge importance. That's because U.S. women still earned only 77 cents on the male dollar in 2008, according to the latest census statistics. (That number drops to 68% for African-American women and 58% for Latinas.) [1] These are all real problems, on which feminists continue to campaign - as they should. [1] http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1983185,00.html#ixzz1TtHZOvXp  

  • PRO

    Taking up 1.5 seats or 2 might be a little less...

    Feminism

    I totally agree with the thing about domestic abuse. While domestic abuse victims are more commonly women, it can happen to men too. People often feel this sort of things is impossible and this relates back to the stereotypes I was talking about that are holding us back. People say that since men are the stronger sex, they could never be overpowered by a woman. However, these views are not views shared by feminists. These are views shared by people with patriarchal thinking. Feminists have been advocating for total equality and there are many movements that focus on domestic abuse against men. There is one in England that I heard of, i think 40% of men there suffer from domestic violence. They did an experiment where they had a guy abuse his girlfriend in public and people stepped in immediately. But when they had a woman abuse her boyfriend in public, people just laughed. It was disgusting. I think man-spreading and man-splaining are complex issues, so I apologize if what I say makes little sense... Man-spreading: Dictionary defines manspread as this: Word Origin verb (used without object), Informal. 1. (of a man) to sit with one's legs far apart, taking up too much space on a seat shared with other people: Some people say that man-spreading is simply because of biology but to be honest, I don't think that matters because I think it is rude, regardless if a man or woman does it. I know from experience how annoying it is when someone takes up more than the space necessary. Yes, spreading their legs might make them more comfortable but it can't be that uncomfortable. In restaurant, men sit in chairs with their legs closed. In school too. They don't seem to be terribly uncomfortable. They don't usually spread their legs. In public transport, people (men and women) just need to be more considerate of space. If you search up man-spreading, you'll see pictures of men taking up 2, even 3 seats which is a little extreme if you ask me. Taking up 1.5 seats or 2 might be a little less anointing/justifiable, but 3?? The reason it is called man-spreading is because generally women don't it. Women are taught to cross their legs and studies have shown that women generally take up less space than men (for a variety of reasons). Also, Mic did a study and found that women who man-spread were glared/stared at and even filmed while no one noticed when a man did it. I think since women don't manspread nearly as often as men, it is called manspreading. The whole manspreading police, I am not too sure about that. I think if you sit next to someone who is taking too much space, you should tell them. We don't need "police" haha. http://www.independent.co.uk... Mansplaining: Merriem-Webster defines it as the following: Mansplaining is, at its core, a very specific thing. It's what occurs when a man talks condescendingly to someone (especially a woman) about something he has incomplete knowledge of, with the mistaken assumption that he knows more about it than the person he's talking to does. Empirically men have thought themselves to be smarter/better than women. Especially in the past, nowadays it is more implicit I think. Obviously not every man thinks "Wow, I am smarter than a woman." but we do many things unconsciously. We all have implicit bias, whether we know it or not. I have it. You have it. It isn't out fault, it is how we have been raised. This implicit bias makes us do things that we don't even think about. Like seeing a woman and explaining a topic to her, in a condescending tone, even if we don't know it very well. I understand that not all men see a women and think she is not knowledgeable, but it is called mansplaining because it is usually men that do it to women. A woman could do it to a man but it is not as common. A lot of people make the mistake that feminists are claiming that ALL men suck, we aren't. Feminists are saying we all do things like that and it is holding us back as a society. And we want to work on that. Things like man-splaining and man-spreading have very gray areas. Is the man doing it because she is a woman? Is he sexist? Or is he just explaining something to someone (that he knows little about) and the person happens to be a woman? Is the guy sexist or is he just kind of rude? It's hard to tell. I know. I think we just need to stop behavior like this regardless of the person's reasons for doing it. It is rude behavior regardless of whether the man is sexist or doesn't realize he is being kind of annoying. These names only have "man" in them because it usually (not always but usually) men who do them. I fell like you are grouping feminists in with a group of people who are radical and insane. Feminists have not said men cannot be abused. If they have, they are radical feminists (feminazis) who I don't count as feminists to be honest. Any person who claims women are better than men are just as bad as people who say men are better than women. Don't let a few crazies fool you cause they're just crazy. "There have been cases where male domestic abuse help centers have been closed due to pressure, where are they supposed to go for help? if feminism supports equality then why are male shelters being shut down?" This is awful and I oppose this but again, I feel like you are blaming feminists for the inequality in our society when in actuality, they are trying to stop it. It is not feminists' fault that we have inequality, it is centuries of living in a pattern but when you try to break an old habit, it's hard. It's a slow process. In society, females are seen as the weaker sex, thus are seen as harmless. In court cases, judges usually give custody to women because they are "better mothers' and men are incarcerated at higher rates than women because women couldn't possibly be harmless, right? This is ridiculous but that's society for you (funny because I am in society...). Feminists are trying to get rid of silly, old-school thinking like this. "Another thing I would like to ask that if feminists claim that females are just as capable in ability as men then why do they back away from the flaws? If females can be just as good as men then females can just as bad as men. Likewise, why does no one work on the fact that their claim, that females are 'good', then (according to being equal) that men are just as 'good'?" Anyone who says something like that is not a feminist. They are a misandrist (sexism against men). Feminism is about lifting each other up to equality. Not about bringing each other down. It's unfortunate that people with incorrect views are driving people away form feminism. When I say I'm a feminist, people treat me different because they think I stand for a matriarchal society when in fact I stand for an egalitarian society.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism/27/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.17
      feminism: 20.17
      conclusion: 13.44 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.50)
      premises: 4.87 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 0.83)
      sourceText: 1.86 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 1.99)
  • PRO

    Saying that woman can NEVER be oppressive because they...

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

    To start with, your definition of Feminism is incorrect which makes me wonder who I am debating with. Feminism is; "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." There is no definition for Feminism outside of the scope of, directly relating to gaining rights for woman or to gain grounds for woman in some regard. Starting off your debate with thats total nonsense is not an argument. In fact my argument makes sense, it just does not seem to make sense to you personally.. why? I will further analyze your understanding of my argument, trying, as I might not to get sucked in to your satellite arguments and propositions - such as Christianity, which bears no relevance to a group fighting for more rights as apposed to a group that has dominated humanity for over 2000 years. You suppose that third wave feminism is more inclined to challenge gender norms, reproductive rights, celebrating sexuality as a means of female empowerment. language as in "he" (are you kidding me?) and so on. That is your definition of Third Wave Feminism - great so that draws us back to the argument I already put to you which is why is it necessary in a world where feminism has reached its goals in equality in Western civilized worlds? Moving forward; "some TWFs are oppressive - the extreme types", to which you refer me once again to religion, and denounce the prospect of religions being judged based on extremist activities... however, if you take a quick glance around the world you can see that the Catholic Church has been severely discredited due to sexual abuse within the church, and Muslims are pretty much seen as terrorists due to the actions of "a few extremists". But I wont let that hurt your argument I will continue on and maybe I will get some facts out of this debate. However, you are looking for references to why I believe the modern movement of Feminists is more about control and manipulation rather than about progress towards equality. 1) Anita Sarkeesian - manipulated 150,000 from the public in order to start a video campaign against the gaming industry - she received the money and is yet to follow through- however, deems it necessary to condemn the gaming industry for following a simple supply and demand model for their business. 2) Further to this, the wage gap of woman receiving 77% to a mans dollar is based on a fallacy, by using ratios and the average wage of females compared to the average wage of males, without servicing any further research into, yet it is one of the main focuses. "In 2013, women made 22% less than men in almost every occupation (source: http://www.iwpr.org...... )." This is a well spelled out version of how the "Wage Gap" truly exists without emotional bullying of the facts. http://www.buzzfeed.com... 3) Further more, any argument put forward that asks for facts within feminism is immediately hostile, in almost every public interaction. 4) The introduction of the professional victim, makes it impossible for men to even say anything at all without being accused of being hushed by a male who is blinded by his own sexist perception of the world. Saying that woman can NEVER be oppressive because they are oppressed..?! http://www.dailymail.co.uk... This is separate to the debate, it is just my opinion - I believe the concept of gender neutrality is based on the idea that some men are insensitive to woman, and the concept of the boys club makes woman feel rejected. This is because boys aren't willing to be more sensitive (name calling, bullying, being violent etc). In my honest opinion, gender neutrality should be named people who take pleasure in being sensitive and people who take pleasure in being positive. Because I know a lot of woman who are tough and more masculine than a lot of the men who believe in gender neutrality. Its psychological, some people like to talk about how they feel, like feminists and some people don't care about feelings because they just want to enjoy the moment - people who enjoy the moment will pick on people who are busy reflecting on how they feel - because in the moment people see that behavior as totally selfish, so they will call them sissy's or girls or gay etc... which is inappropriate, however it is the only description that has been made available to them over the last few millenniums. If you're out riding dirt bikes and have to stop because someone feels something, its pretty damn boring. Its generally why insensitive people stay away from sensitive people. Moving forward, the idea of gender neutrality, totally strips away any man liking that he is a man/tough. I would love to know why this is OK, and I would love to know why saying "he" or "she" is offensive... I am starting to believe that some TWFs really don't like being woman because womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/ shows a lot of woman that love being woman and men being men. You say I have only heard these things from feminists, because they are the ones who bring it up, and ignoring it wont make it go away. So, should I be looking for Bigfoot, the lauchness monster and aliens? Because conspiracy guys brought that to my attention? Really is that the argument you want to go with? Without proof that stands up, we are supposed to just take it, because TWFs are upset over something we have seen no evidence of? There has not been any real privilege for men over woman since the development of feminism and that is what I am debating. So far I have seen no proof of these privileges in this debate, furthermore legislation wont allow ANY oppression without 50,000 lawyers jumping for gold. Men showing skin and not being stigmatized? Have you seen all the celebrities who are nude lately? I don't think many men wanted to stop that behavior, I think they generally loved.. and love naked woman, for 1 reason. Guys pick on chicks the a same as they do with other men, if you cant handle it "leave the group". I for one give girls I know a hard time for sleeping around, but I do the same with guys - its called ribbing, and its a choice about who you associate with. The double standard I think is about sensitivity, and guys have less to be sensitive about and I think that is where TWF is coming from, making men feel and empathize with sensitivity. But when men hang around men they will try to find a common ground to be friends like who they had sex with, who they want to have sex with, who they beat at (whatever). It takes a specific type of person to discuss what toys children should play with to make them "feel" a certain way. "Women have asked to be able to do what they want before. And men have stopped them doing it." I would like to see evidence of this, and why it took thousands of years for woman to finally push it over the line in 1960s, the pill was invented thats why, not having kids changed the dynamic and allowed woman to be free of having kids and to pursue further ambitions.... male ambitions and the destruction of male influence. Using "facts from the last 40 years wasn't really what I was looking for when I said "did they ask before?" And "if men were so bad to woman, why would we even pass a bill to allow woman to do what they finally asked to be able to do?" I wasn't talking only about voting, I was speaking of an overall allowance for womans rights. But I have to ask, what is it that TWFs believe woman haven't gotten? Is it because they have rights now and now, TWF's just think they should be given everything and by everything I mean the world? Egalitarianism is not feminism, they are not the same things. But this still doesn't explain why feminists still exist, and why everyone isn't fighting for equal opportunity

CON

  • CON

    The racial group with the lowest average annual salary...

    Feminism: Equality of the Sexes

    feminism [1] noun 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. 2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women. 3. feminine character. The definition alone separates men and women into two binary categories, with men assumed to be in a position superior to women, because if this was not true, the advocacy of women's rights would be pointless. However, this is too simple a generalization. If we are sticking to definition-specific feminism, then it does not take into account racism or classism both women and men face in addition to sexism. Race and economic class complicate the matter of equality, so simply advocating gender equality is not actually advocating true equality of the sexes. Allow me to explain what I am trying to say, using the wage gap as an example. The racial group with the lowest average annual salary are African-Americans, as it has been for the entirety of American history [2]. Second lowest are Latino people, then white people, and finally, the highest-earning racial group are Asians. The average white salary is nearly double that of the average black salary, at $57,009 and $33,321, respectively. Women's salaries as a percentage of white men's salaries also varies as well [3]. Latina women earn a meager 53% of a white man's average annual income, then black women at 64%, then white women at 78%, and finally, Asian women at 87%. The gender wage gap, if all races are taken into account, is that women earn 85 cents for every man's dollar. While this information is presented, please keep in mind that the average white and Asian person, regardless of their gender, *always* earns more than the average Latino or black person. Feminism applied in this instance is confusing. Equal pay is a hot issue among feminists, but even if you were to equalize all the gender earnings--Latina women were earning the same as Latino men, white women the same as white men--you would still have the issue that Asians are making twice as much as African-Americans, so there's no possible way that the sexes are equal then, because you still a whole heap of racial differences holding minorities back. You might argue that feminism *would* work to equalize races as well, but it does not seem to be paying any attention to it currently, and the definition is to vague to say that the "definition-perfect" feminists would pay attention to it either. You have probably heard the common myth that women make a mere 77 cents to every man's dollar. Not only is this not true--for any of the races, though whites and Asians come close--but it is also, once again, taking the racial component of the wage gap away from it. Black and Latina women both earn approximately 90 cents for every dollar earned by men of their race, but earn around 80 cents for every white woman's dollar. Advocating women's rights in this situation leaves the question: which group's rights are we actually trying to get? What I am trying to say is, saying ALL women are economically worse-off than ALL men is leaving out important class and racial nuances that skew the data into all kinds of different directions, making feminism ("the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men") not actually equalizing women to men. In summation, though feminism is, by definition, equality of the sexes, the reality of the movement and how this equality is being attained is not going to achieve what it advocates. As you can see, dealing with only one issue provides a lot of variables and idiosyncrasies in the data, all caused by class and consequently, race. Simply separating the population into two groups, male and female, and then trying to equalize one to the other is not going to garner the intended results. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com... [3] http://www.aauw.org... (If I had a nickel for every time I said "race" or "advocate" or any of its derivatives...)

  • CON

    But they're not allowed to be in leadership roles, nor...

    Feminism Does Not Equate to Equality

    Feminism is still relevant today. Whether my opponent realizes it or not, women are still being oppressed. The definition for feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social an economic equality to men." And so far women are still not treated equal to men. Therefore feminism is still relevant today. When slavery was declared illegal in the US was it suddenly stopped? No, slavery continued but under the pretence that now your slaves were "servants". It took a long time until slavery was actually stopped and this is the same with gender equality. So now some women are allowed to vote, allowed to go to school, allowed to play sports, etc. But they're not allowed to be in leadership roles, nor are they allowed to have certain jobs, nor are they going to be paid fairly if they become a professional sports player or have a job. How is that equality? Yes I do believe that feminists fight for equal treatment and for society to change their views. Isn't that the point? My opponent seems to find the fact that women are still fighting for equality annoying. Well sorry for the inconvenience, they're trying to change the world. If society had never changed their views, if you were living in America, you'd still have a slave if you were well off. Equality is for everyone as my opponent states and so far in the context of gender equality, women are the ones that fallout. Then my opponent states generally that that rape is injustice. Yes rape is injustice but then my opponent goes on to say that catcalling is injustice. Catcalling discriminates whoever is receiving it therefore putting the person on a lower lever than that of the person who made the catcall. That is not equality and since my opponent refers to men doing all the catcalling, that is discrimination against women and not equality. This is the same as if a man goes around and gets a lot of girls he is called a "player" and congratulated for it. But if a women did the same, she would be called some derogatory names and would probably be made fun of. How is that fair? Therefore feminism is relevant to catcalling. Then my opponent makes the mistake of saying "the abuse of women" is not gender discrimination. So if it weren't gender discrimination, then what is it? That's practically like saying, being racist against black people is not actually being racist. Gender discrimination is based off of a persons gender, therefore the abuse of women is gender discrimination. The fact that some people can't even label what women's abuse is actually quite frightening. My opponent then blames women's abuse on social hierarchy. Social hierarchy is a ranking of people based on status. This is exactly why feminism is still relevant today. My opponent basically implied that women are inferior to men because he/she blamed women's abuse on social hierarchy. The fact that a human being could consider a person inferior based on something that they didn't choose to have is saddening. And I'm not just talking about gender equality now. This is exactly the issue. People think it's ok to judge other just because of their gender, or just because of their ethnicity, or just because of their skin colour. Then my opponent says that both genders are being discriminated. To that I say "are men fight for their rights?" No, and why is that? Because they don't have to. They already have all their rights. For thousands of years women have been told that they are to shut up and look pretty in the corner. They have been told that they actually aren't a person and are just an object for men to fancy looking at. And all because women fighting for their rights, suddenly men feel uncomfortable because of what? The fact that women may actually be right? The fact that women actually may be just as intelligent as a man? Women all around the world are being oppressed. Just the other day I heard a testimony from a woman who wanted to have a leadership role in a church. But she was refused all based on the fact that she was a woman. And this was in Canada. My opponent refuses the fact that woman's equality is still an issue today. You know the saying that goes "Whatever women must do, they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good." Well it's true. Otherwise the saying wouldn't exist. My opponent claims that women's rights are equal to men's but has nothing to back that up. Feminism are still relevant today even though some may choose to ignore the fact that the problem still exists.

  • CON

    If this debate were to be taking place in the 1800's then...

    Feminism is still necessary today

    Alright just gonna point this out here, you did not give any sort of difference between rights, power, and opportunities that women don't have as men. You failed to point out something like the wage gap, completely bogus, which says that women are payed differently in their work field than their male counter parts. Before you attack me and say something about the wage gap and how it's true, you might wanna do some research first for the wage gap has been created because women say that they earn 77 to 78 cents compared to every dollar man earns. This is false for the wage gap is only determined due to the job choices selected by any given person as you need to consider: 1. Hours worked 2. Field in which someone works 3. Is the selected field high paying or low paying The wage gap has been used by feminists in an attempt to making a point rather than randomly saying things in hopes that they make a point across and even though its been busted many times before, it is still being used by feminists today. "Therefore feminism is still necessary today because women and men do not have the same right, power, and opportunities as men." I agree, men don't have the same opportunities as men, but women do. If this debate were to be taking place in the 1800's then I could see why you would actually say this but this is the 21st century. Women are able to vote, go to College/University, and a woman can actually work outside of the house now. An example, in 2013 a little research was put into a University that had a higher percentage of female students graduate in a 6 year graduation plan. According to the research, the 6 year graduation rate was 56 percent for males and 62 percent in female and it was higher for females in both public (60% V. 55%) and private non-profit institutions (68% V. 62%). This shows that women have the same opportunities in education as men do. Moving on to rights, women are allowed to vote, get a divorce, own a bank account, equal pay, stand for an election, work, religious office, and quite possibly the biggest of all, women can join the army. Women were not able to vote which was one of the key motives behind the start of feminism, no wage gap, no army, no divorce, voting was the number one cause of feminism and under the 19th amendment that was ratified on August 18, 1920, all women have the right to vote. Let's jump forward to when women wanted to begin joining the army, women were outraged by the fact that they were not able to join the army which led to another reason why women wanted feminism. Let me just show you the timeline of events that led to the introduction of women into the military, 1973 - The all male military draft ends and more opportunities arise for women to join the army, 1976 - Some of the first women are admitted to the service academics 1978 - Women in Navy and Marines are allowed to serve on non-combat ships 1991-1992 - 41,000 women are sent to serve in the Persian Gulf War where 2 women are captured 1991 - Congress authorizes women to fly in combat zones 1993 - Congress allows women to serve on combat ships 2000 - Captain Kathleen McGrath becomes the first woman to command a U.S. Navy war ship 2008 - 16,000 women are sent to fight in the middle eastern countries such as Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq and other countries such as Germany and Japan This timeline shows and puts an end to another reason women claim that they "need feminism" and that women do not have the same rights as men. Women also have the same power as men as many women have been members of the supreme court (Sandra Day O'Conner, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg just to name a few), some women are state governors, and some women are even running for president as we speak (God please not Hillary Clinton). Face it, due to the history and changing of America's times, more and more groups of people are gaining rights, feminists are just another apple in the basket that are begging for the attention even though they no longer have anything to fight for. So in conclusion, we do not need feminism in the American society for the rights and differences that have been discussed here have been proven either false or have been fixed over the years and feminists no longer have anything to fight for. Thank you for the wonderful debate even though you never claimed what you were fighting for and with that being said, here are my final citations: https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.history.org... http://lifestyle.allwomenstalk.com... https://nces.ed.gov... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...

  • CON

    Patriarchal values are where masculine ideals are seen as...

    Humanism is a better ideology then Feminism

    I am a sir. I want to get this out of the way because, and I am not going to say that you were going to do this, some people think feminists are "crazy, man-hating bitches." So, I am not crazy to my knowledge, I don't hate men (that'd be a horrible existence, right?) and I am not what the theoretical speaker means by bitches. Your definition of humanism contradicts with what you say humanism is in your last paragraph. Humanism advocates for the "attachment of prime importance to human rather than divine matters". Nowhere in here do we see how animals fall under this scope. Unless you would say that animals are human matters, and I am sure most vegans and vegetarians would disagree. I don't really have a problem with your definition, but it is rather simplistic. Just like how you can give a definition for Christianity, but this doesn't really explain what a person means when they call themselves Christian. I'd say that definition is more of a mission statement, and how it is achieved is by dismantling systematic patriarchal values, where men can also be damaged as well. Patriarchal values are where masculine ideals are seen as more valid in many ways from feminine characteristics. A way this can hurt men is that a certain shame is placed on men that are victims of rape (saying they should have fought back, should have enjoyed it, can't be raped, etc.) and molestation, especially by an elder (saying they should have enjoyed it, what's the problem, etc.). It sounds like feminism and humanism are compatible, and with such a negative connotation of feminists, why would people choose to be considered a feminist and not a humanist? I'd like to point you to an excerpt from an article[1]: "In a perfect world that prospect [humanism] would be enough and we could declare feminism redundant but that would also be a world in which women were running circa half the countries and institutions. It would be a world where violence against women wasn’t of epidemic proportions. It would be a world where women occupied an equal amount of Fortune 500 jobs or had an equal chance at some of the world’s biggest honours such as the Nobel- or the “Man” Booker Prizes. Alas, we are light-years from such a world. Especially in Africa. And it is often in dispute of feminism's appropriateness to African traditions that the irritating question, “Why feminism, why not just humanism?” is posed to me. In truth, ours is a continent for men by men to men at men with men ALL about men. In fact it bemuses me that while in many other parts of the world the word ‘man’ is being increasingly replaced with ‘man and woman’ or simply with ‘people’ when actually speaking of human beings of both genders, in Africa, oh no no no, Man is capitalised. Man eats, Man breathes, Man thinks, Man shits. Man na Person! Woman, well she picked the incomparably short end of the stick. Tough luck? Well, yes, but, you see, thanks to feminism she no longer has to hope that men, however humanist they may be, shall some dazzling day fight for all women to have equal access to basic human rights such as education, anti-discrimination or inheritance laws. Instead she can use feminist tools – and she has done – to be able to vote, get a bank account, even – if she is lucky – to wear a mini skirt (yippie!), let alone to fight for access to powerful positions in society." You say that MRAs fight for equality, and feminists "claim to", giving the impression that Men's Rights Activists are more legit than feminists. Other than you bold assertion that you are right, can you back this up? As for why they are opposed, I'll just borrow from what I said in the comments. "Uh, the reason they disagree (and it seems you buy into MRA being more legit than feminists, give me a break) is because MRA, wait for it, ADVOCATE FOR MEN'S RIGHTS AND FEMINISM ADVOCATES FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS! Wow, it's almost like we could look at the definitions for these two ideologies and see the difference!" Before I sign off, may I say that the burden of proof is on you to show that Humanism is better than feminism, and all I have to do is negate you. Good day. Sources: [1] http://www.msafropolitan.com...

  • CON

    You mean the videos of total length 45:00? ... [11]...

    Feminism is no longer beneficial in America

    CONTENTION ONE: SUBPOINT A: Pro: "My CONRAD study made addressing your first 4 sources obsolete." Well, then I guess didn't even need to respond to CONRAD -- because my studies all offered evidence against Pro's conclusion. Pro: "The judges do not have to accept them as true. I'm new to this site, but I've never seen any sort of a debate where one of the debaters tells the judges what they have to do." This is standard debate practice in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and Public Forum Debate. When one side fails to respond to ("drops") one of the other side's arguments, that argument becomes "true". SUBPOINT B: Pro: "I do not have the burden of proving that there are biological differences that result in men working more full time jobs than women, this burden of proof relies on "Con". Er, Pro has the burden to prove that men are equally privileged to women. Not Con. The fact is, if society is messed up, then feminism is useful. The only way Pro can get around this is some inherent difference between males and females -- such as genetics. Since Pro has not done so, you must vote Neg. Pro: "As for your second point, it seems like you are asking me to prove that having a child is a biological action - I'll let that question answer itself." Pro doesn't seem to get it. Child birth is genetic, which I accepted and accept. But this part of CONRAD's study also included "child care and elder care", neither of which is genetic. A man can care just as well for kids as a woman. The only reason women do more child care and elder care is societal inequality, which feminism seeks to redress. I mean, come on, isn't this one of the big MRA talking points Pro: "Third, the CONRAD study answers the question of why mothers work less while they have a child, as does my previous source." Pro asserts this, without showing us where. I have shown that women are unfairly treated compared to men when they have a kid: Even excluding for pregnancy, mothers get only 79% of what fathers get [5]. This is societal injustice, and must be corrected for; thus, feminism is relevant. Pro: "The CONRAD study does not support Con's point that women are "unfairly treated in promotion"; you cannot prove unfair promotion bias unless you examine the resumes of every applicant." Right. Which is why, even though women attain equal or slightly higher levels of education, men get promoted 3 *times* as often. I guess men are just *inherently* 3 times better at, well, everything. Pro: "Con failed to investigate my source for my assertion that women are biologically disposed to not seek higher paying jobs." Pro's "source" was to assert that women turn themselves into victims of a nonexistent patriarchy. Pro also failed to investigate my evidence that pointed out that there's nothing women can do to get ahead. I quote myself: "Females that more aggressively pursue better pay or career advancement are discriminated against [6]." CONTENTION TWO: SUBPOINT A: Pro: "Gamergate can be summed up in one video." Pro: "If Con had taken the time to view my videos, they would have seen the blatant examples of violence committed by feminists." You mean the videos of total length 45:00? This is why videos are a bad source -- they waste people's time. By the way, everyone, just watch this video [13] and you'll SEE that feminism is true! You have to watch the whole thing though, it's only 10 hours or so Pro: "Also, Con is using "rationalwiki" as a source; using rationalwiki as a source is akin to using conservapedia." Con provides no evidence that RationalWiki is a bad source, merely asserting that it is comparable to another bad source, Conservapedia. RationalWiki and Conservapedia have pretty forking different viewpoints: Conservapedia bans literally everyone they disagree with; RationalWiki bans those who spam. RationalWiki has been cited directly over 50 times in published works [11][12]; Conservapedia has been cited only as an example of a "Conservative" Wikipedia, almost never as a useful source of knowledge. Furthermore, my opponent might have a point if the RationalWiki article I've cited here wasn't a ridiculously well-cited piece, using over 360 different sources [8]. Pretty much no statement in that article isn't backed up by, y'know, reality. SUBPOINT B: 1. k at your k 2. Pro: "Strawman. I never said that there was a feminist conspiracy." Just a lie dissemination network, right? Pro: "As for The Amazing Atheist's rape jokes, they are just that. Jokes." When a joke degrades sexual assault for the purposes of weak humor, I think we can safely hate on the jokemaker. 3. Pro: "I am not an advocate for the Republican party." And nor did I say so! My point is that the Republican party does criticize feminism, without media censorship. 4. MY OPPONENT CONTINUES TO IGNORE THE CRUCIAL ARGUMENT OF SAMPLE TEXT [5][17][2]. VOTE CON ALL THE WAY [9]. 5. Prefer my Gamergate source over his [9]. It's forking ridiculously well-cited and I've summarized it here for those who can't bother to read it. His is just some annoyingly long video, which he doesn't actually summarize in-round. 6. Pro: "Critiquing the word "feminism" is impossible, because even though they don't agree with each other, the majority respond to criticism in the same way." See 3. 7. Pro: "I'm quite sorry" A is the interp: Debaters must not be exclusionary. B is the violation: Pro can't undo the exclusionary harms of anti-blindism. C is the standards: Exclusionary rhetoric shuts out debaters from debate, which destroys it as an educational activity and removes its fairness. D is the voters: Gotta be fair & educational mang 8. Pro: "Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if it had been two feminists protesting, and a man slapped one of them? It is a total double standard. That video highlights the hypocrisy of feminism." OH NOES SOME FEMINISTS ARE HYPOCRITES I guess that means feminism is hypocritical Oh. Wait. That's not how broad political movements work [14]. SUMMARY Pro: "Am I being trolled?" Trolls don't exist. Only lulz. Pro: "You also made your opening statement a rebuttal, which was quite unfair. .... Also, I'd like to repeat that I didn't know I was supposed to open with a full on argument, and someone in the comments even reprimanded Con for doing so." Next time, say "first round acceptance". The rules don't exist unless you state 'em in your 1st round. Them's the rules about rules. VOTING ISSUES Conduct: Nobody's at fault here. All fun and games. Grammar: i hav liek 1000% bettar grammer then h3 duz, vot mi yp plz Arguments: Solid Con vote. A gender gap has been proven to exist, and it's the only major issue in this debate. Even Pro's sources agree with Con about this. The only other issue is the "feminist juggernaut", which was such a messy debate that I think nobody wins there. Thus, the only issue you can vote on is a gender pay gap, which is clear Con ground. Sources: Solid Con vote. Con has provided numerous published studies to back up Con's points; Pro has tended towards YouTube videos and blogposts. Furthermore, Con has 14 sources, compared to Pro's 13, of which many were effectively different videos of the same thing. THE ONE THING YOU NEED TO READ BEFORE VOTING A gender pay gap exists. CONRAD agrees; the Bureau of Labor Statistics agrees; the Joint Economic Committee agrees; the Government Accountability Office agrees. Pro has never proven that the gender pay gap is 0% -- instead, Pro has merely proven that the gender pay gap might be more like 5%. As long as the gender pay gap isn't 0%, feminism is relevant. [11] https://en.wikipedia.org... [12] https://en.wikipedia.org... [13] [14] https://en.wikipedia.org...

  • CON

    Your premise is that Humanism is better. ... Sources: [1]...

    Humanism is a better ideology then Feminism

    Wage Gap Response: Wage gap is women getting paid less for doing the same job. The factors you listed were for reasons why women might not get hired. There is a difference. You give reasons like maternity leave, but the person who's video I linked was young and someone less qualified, and a male, was getting paid more. I'd look up which shade of grey this is but that book is sexist too. 2. Lack of Representation: Ma... maternity leaves? Periods??? Women shouldn't be allowed to hold office because of periods and maternity leave? Not to mention fathers, in some countries, also go on leave and you are also assuming all women want to have a child, is a sexist argument in my eyes. 3. Laws on the Bodies of Women: Here's the thing you aren't getting. These are bills that control women bodies. You know bodily autonomy? These rules go against that. If there were 700 bills proposed to regulate the bodies of men, even if it was only relating to pregnancy (which I'm pretty sure they aren't all about pregnancy, but okay), and 80% of the people voting on this stuff were female, I would assume some matriarchy stuff going on there. However, it's the opposite, and the idea that "Oh, well, if we lived in a system that systematically favored men over women then all of democracy would collapse because reasons." We do still live in a democratic republic, you know? There are rules that are in place so you can't just go "You know what? Women can't have abortions. Make it illegal!" Pretty weak argument. 4. "Strawman" and Humanism: When saying such a broad statement as "Feminists are lucky to gain ANY (especially when feminists had already had a place in politics, so kind of confusing) ground in politics" there may be confusion. You didn't specify "gain ground in today's politics" or "modern-day feminists". You say blanket statements as "ANY" and "feminists." Your inability to explain is not my strawman. On the humanism topic, what I see here is you admitting humanism can't fix Africa. So what you are saying is that you claim Humanism is just as ineffectual as feminism. Your premise is that Humanism is better. Sounds like you just negated your own premise. 5. Men are victims too. Notice how I have said many times before that men can be victims of sexism but women are victims to it in more areas. 1 in 4 women are victims of domestic abuse[1]. I already stated rape statistics. It sounds like you are misconstruing my argument here. I even listed the dismissal of male victims in rape and domestic violence situation, so preaching to the choir, mate. To say that men are victimized to the same extent by women from sexism is wrong. You then talk about how MRAs are truly the knights in shining armor for men everywhere. Not women, though. You haven't shown that they are for equality between the sexes. Your quote about feminists by TJ "High School Dropout" Amazing Atheist applies more for MRAs than feminists. 6. The Exceptions and Rules: Oh. I see. You don't see it that way so I'm wrong. I'm glad your subjective reading on the facts is enough to apply to an objective truth. It'd be cool to, you know, see the facts so we could all make sense of them. No? Okay. By the way, you did contradict yourself, you just clarified later. 7. TJ "HSDO" AA. You misunderstood. He is qualified to speak about these issues. He is not qualified to be an authority on these issues on his word alone. George Carlin was insightful on issues. Was he an authority? No. TJ can offer insight. He is not an authority. You don't really offer anything here to defend your premise in this round, which is that Humanism is better than feminism. Thinking about that now, it is not really a specific resolution. Are we arguing whether or not humanism has better ideas for humans than feminism, or that humanism is more effective than feminism? You didn't say anything about new arguments in the fourth round, so let me launch into why the debate is itself a logical fallacy. It is called a false dilemma. It suggests one cannot be both a humanist and a feminist, and supports an either/or but not an and/both choice. The point of feminism to combat misogyny and promote equality of the genders. You mention somewhere (it's late and I don't want to find an exact quote) but you imply that being a humanist would solve these issues because humanism promotes well being of both genders. Actually, humanism promotes the well beings of humans in general. Feminism addresses a different but just as deadly foe to humanity that humanism does; humanism addresses well being, feminism addresses inequality. Men's rights activism is a backlash against equality, it is a backlash against feminism. Because these men aren't trying to fix the issues, they are trying to defend their privilege. Sure, there are legitimate issues they can bring up. But who is hurt more, the person hit by the recoil, or the person hit by the bullet? Besides, you aren't supposed to be defending MRAs (which I assume if you are against a "one sided and *heavy sarcasm* sexist movement like feminism, surely you'd be against the response to that), you should be defending humanism. So let's talk about humanism. Here's an excerpt from an article about its origins. "But humanism’s foundations were lain during the European Enlightenment, which attempted to remake the humans of the New World (and the Old) in the image of its own “enlightened” crusaders: privileged white European men. Contemporary humanism is touted as the “outcome of a long tradition of free thought,” but this grand tradition is not free from bias. As Judith Butler explains, humanism “supposes that there is just one single idea of what it is to be human.” Humanism turns away from difference and diversity. Equality in humanist terms means equal our way.[2]" Maybe that whole making the exception the rule argument is looking more valid, right? Sources: [1] http://www.ncadv.org...(National).pdf [2] http://thefeministwire.com...

  • CON

    This debate is specifically about America feminism...

    Resolved: Modern American Feminism is Both Correct and Needed

    I will be taking the position that modern American feminism is basically incorrect in it's worldview and counterproductive. This debate is specifically about America feminism dealing with women in America. Oppression of women abroad is not therefore relevant in this debate. This is about women in America. Since I am con on this, my opponent will be pro and the first arguments will be pro stating their case for modern american feminism in round one. Since I will be arguing against them, I will begin by putting my own arguments and responding to them in round two. That is how this debate will go.

  • CON

    In Mauritania, women are not paid equally for equal work....

    Third Wave Feminism Isn't Needed

    "Nowadays that women have equal rights, there is no need for feminism anymore" Women have equal rights, do they? How about in the Middle East where women are forced to stay concealed and quiet? In Mauritania, women are not paid equally for equal work. Egypt does not have laws banning non-discrimination nor does it have laws mandating pay equality. Granted, these are not countries modern third and fourth wave feminism seem to be concerned with; however, the state of many countries does give support that a third wave was/is needed, even if the effective wave did not do what it should have. While the third wave as we have it isn't needed, a third wave was and is needed.

  • CON

    I see your points about the differences in wages and...

    current state of feminism in first-world countries

    Hello, Pro, and thank you for accepting my topic. I see your points about the differences in wages and "rape culture", and mostly agree, but my point still stands: I see your points about the differences in wages and "rape culture", and mostly agree, but my point still stands: feminism, in its current state, is obsolete. For starters, let's look at the wage issue. There is one major difference in paying wages to a man and a woman - the possibility of the latter getting pregnant. That means that, for at least half a year (the last trimester and newborn care) the woman is unable to work, and stays home with her child, while still getting her wages. And, if the goal of the employer is to maximize profits, that is an issue and can lead to losses. So, the option of the employer is either to not employ women (an even bigger inequality) or pay a smaller wage than to male employees. This is not a question of sexism and disrespect towards women. It is a question of economics. While this is obviously unfair, it is, by far, the most efficient solution. I cannot say much about the rape issue, and mostly agree with you. Good point, pro. Also, I would like to defend my representation of feminism. While the shirt issue might not be what feminism stands for, things like this is what feminism is known for in modern countries, and the most common association that people have with the word "feminism" is "angry women that dress up like vaginas" (http://proteinwisdom.com...). I know that this is wrong, and is a misrepresentation, but that's mostly what happens. The FEMEN movement is a textbook example. And let's not forget P***y Riot, the girls who danced in balaclavas in the main temple of Russia. They claimed what they did was "a social protest for equality". The feminist movement itself is noble, and has a good goal, but how they choose to portray themselves in public just shows what they are truly like. In a recent TIME vote over which word should be banned in 2015, the word "feminism" takes the cake, which just shows how tired people are of the condition of it in today's society. And, lastly, in the tangled mess of customs, standards, traditions and social rules in the society that is, women, while they may not know it, have more privileges than men. For example, in Russia (I'm Russian myself, that's why I refer to it more), all men over 18 are conscripted to the army, while women are not, which doesn't mean they are not free to join. People tend to trust women more and most civilized men are raised with a notion that all men and women should be treated and respected equally. The court issue is, too, an example. This is, too, an inequality that feminism claims to fight for, but lately feminist are just concerned with women's rights, and some even want to diminish the rights of men.

  • CON

    Second of all, my opponent says that I am talking about...

    modern day feminism does more good than harm

    First of all, my opponent provided no source for their 99.99% of feminists voting for Bernie Sanders claim, which makes it completely irrelevant within this debate. Second of all, my opponent says that I am talking about radical feminism, but no, in this debate we are talking about modern day feminism, and I am describing it for what it is. People like Malala are for EQUALITY, feminism is just a word sometimes used to describe that, but in actuality, it's called equalism. If feminism was for equality, then why is it called feminism, a word derivative of FEMALE? In my opponent's speech, they mention that feminists are good because they raise awareness for things like LGBT, but this isn't just feminists. Many people who aren't feminists do this also, so it isn't limited to feminism, and thus has no relevancy in this debate. Feminism is harming our society because of the hating on man, and that is why it does more harm than good.