Feminism is beneficial to Western society.
Prologue Unfortunately, Pro has not been able to post her opening argument. However,
I will not refrain from arguing this round. I am not against the advocacy of equality;
if anything, refer to me as an egalitarian. However, the reasons why I am personally
against feminism will appear in this argument. This will mainly consist of how the feminist campaign
produce, and advocate false arguments to further their privileges. For this reason,
it is detrimental to society. Arguments Wage Gap A very popular argument among feminists
is the wage gap. This is however, not argued correctly. The argument normally assumes
the following form: P1: There is a gap from the average, overall earnings between
males and females P2: This is due to gender discrimination in the workplace C: The
wage gap is caused by gender discrimination in the workplace This may appear valid,
but it is impossible for feminists to deem premise two with decent veracity... To
keep this argument short, I will post a popular article posted by a feminist, and
I invite Pro to do the same. Nevertheless, all arguments that relate to the aforementioned
syllogism, boil down to the same falsity; no empirical evidence to assert the cogency
of premise two. This source was produced by Lisa M. Maatz, who is arguing the validity
of this syllogism. As a defense of premise one she states: "For the last decade, median
earnings for women working full time, year-round have been just 77% of men’s earnings"
(1) Despite this being a bare assertion, I will help her out with premise one: " 2010
the median income of FTYR workers was $42,800 for men, compared to $34,700 for women.
The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.81" (2) So, premise one is now valid. Alright,
now for the entire argument to be sound, premise two must be valid as well. As a defense
of premise two, she states: well... Nothing. Well, she did mention one case that happened
in 2003. However, this commits the anecdotal fallacy; just because one woman experienced
unequal pay, does not verify that the entire wage gap is due to discrimination. Since
premise two, lacks validity, the argument itself is not sound. I affirm that this
is the case for all of the arguments that assume the syllogism. I invite my adversary
to post as many sources she likes to corroborate premise two. All of the sources appear
to commit an unwarranted assumption fallacy. That being said, I will now provide sufficient
evidence to debunk the wage gap entirely: This source produced by CONSAD Research
Corporation, deduces that the wage gap is in fact due to: "Agreater percentage of
women than men tend towork part-time. Part-time work tends topay less than full-timework"
"Agreater percentage of women than men tend toleave the labor force for child birth,
childcare and elder care. Some of the wage gap isexplained by the percentage of womenwhowere
not in the labor force during previousyears, the age of women, and the number ofchildren
in the home. " "Women, especially working mothers, tend tovalue “family friendly”
workplace policiesmore than men. Someof the wage gap is explained by industry and
occupation, particularly,the percentage of women who workin the industry and occupation."
(3) And this doesn't even mention all variables. That source is also corroborated
by (4)(5)(6)(7) This pertains to the resolution, since it is unreasonable just to
look at the definition and deduce that "equality is good, and since feminism wants equality, then feminism ought to be good". It's like looking at what the IRA sought for ( a united Ireland) and then deducing
that the IRA must be good as well, despite them using violent forces to try and achieve
what they wanted. For this reason, Pro cannot say that feminism cannot be detrimental to society just because of what feminism denotes; we ought to argue for, or against the feminist campaign. Rape Culture We
all see the feminist campaign argue for rape. Another reason for feminism being detrimental to society is that, they seem to feed women false ammunition. They
feed women the victim card, by extensively telling them how they are treated unfairly.
Rape culture is one of these things. Yes, rape is bad. But, feminism seems to make it a thing, that women are the victims and men are the big bag wolfs.
The real statistics are: "Along the CDC's report, the US census has recorded in 2011,
in the United States, .052% of US women are forcibly raped annually". (8) This is
far less then what feminism commonly asserts. In fact, from the same article, we can see men are the vast majority
of homicide victims: "[Based on Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports
Supplementary Homicide Reports.]" It appears very apparent to me, that the severity
of murder supersedes the severity of rape. And, if one were to factor in prison rapes,
there is a clear indicator that men can be raped more than women. (9)(10) Feminists,
nor the feminist campaign advocate for less "male homicides"; this is a double standered
that seems to go unnoticed... Gender Roles Men and women all had their own stations...
Women were generally the care takers, and men did the food-getting, the working etc.
Feminism advocates that basic gender roles are sexist to females, because they assert women
are just as capable of doing the jobs as males. Albeit, some women were able to do
the tasks that men could, but naturally, sexual dimorphism dictates that men are the
"stronger" gender. (11) If we were to apply this feminist logic to literally any other
topic, we can deduce that male ducks are sexist, because they are more colourful than
female ducks. Because men are genetically stronger than females, they were the more
suitable gender to part take in the more muscle-demanding tasks. Gender roles isn't
sexist; it is basic biology. In fact, the same logic can be reversed - gender roles
are also against men, because they are not as suitable to take the caring tasks. The
argument is moot and completely unecessary. All laws constitute that gender is not
a factor when determining who gets the job, pay, privileges etc. (12)(13) Unnecessary
Advocation of an Increased Amount of Rights and Privileges I postulate that women
have more legal rights, and social privileges than their male counterparts (14). This
source proposes 5 rights that women have, that men don't. Men are systematically circumcised
in many countries without consent, whereas, women can keep their genital integrity.
To vote, men must give their life to the draft if needed. A woman can have abortions,
and a man cannot without her consent. Women are assumed caregivers for children, because
they are women. Women can cry "rape" falsely, with infinitesimally small legal repercussions.
Not to mention numerous privileges (15). My fiftheenth source cites around 60 major
privileges that women have over their male counterparts. And after all this, feminism still claims that women need more rights than males. There is equality; feminism is unnecessary; women do not need any more rights, nor privileges. How I Fulfilled
my Burden of Proof 1. The feminist campaign produces false statistics 2. The feminists
feed women false ammunition 3. The feminist campaign make situations problematic for
no apparent reason 4. Women have all necessary rights and privileges The first point
is axiomatic in terms of detrimental effects on society. They produce false arguments
about the wage gap, to affirm that women are treated unfairly. The second point is
that they extensively tell women there is inequality when there isn't. They are told
that they are constantly that they are the vast majority of victims of rape etc. whilst
they ignore statistics about the detriments of males. The third point is apparent
when you consider the gender roles argument. There isn't a prolem with gender roles,
yet they twist it around to make it seem like there is a problem - it is simple biology
- sexual dimorphism. The fourth and final point is that women have all the necessary
rights as males - even more rights than males, yet still expect more. This is in turn,
detrimental and unneccesary in society. If I, as Con, fulfill my burden of proof,
I negate the resolution. Therefore, I win the argument. Closing Statements I would
post more arguments, but I have ran out of characters. Hopefully Pro can appear for
round three, and we can have a decent argument. Good luck to you Pro for the next
round and the remainder of the argument, and thanks for instigating this topic. My
spell checker is buggy, so if there are any spelling mistakes, I apologize. Citations (1) http://www.forbes.com... (2) http://www.bls.gov... (3) http://www.consad.com... (4)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (5) http://www.forbes.com... (6) http://www.cbsnews.com...
(7) http://billmoyers.com... (8) http://www.census.gov... (9) https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com...
(10) http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (11) http://en.wikipedia.org... (12) http://www.equalityhumanrights.com...
(13) http://www.eeoc.gov... (14) http://thoughtcatalog.com... (15) https://mensresistance.wordpress.com...
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
