Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewcurrent state of feminism in first-world countries
To summarize my arguments, feminism is still a huge force for good in the modern world. Gender inequalities for both sexes exist in disturbing amounts. Despite many objectionable actions done in the name of feminism, the actions of a few do not outweigh the many. Feminists work not to punish sexists, but rather replace sexism with understanding and equality.
New Western Feminism is pointless and oppresive.
First, thanks for accepting. This is a topic that is seldom discussed, and very much needs to be. I should highlight, in case my opponent or the audience forgets, that your duty is to show how the Western Feminism of today is infutile has serves a real purpose in advocating gender equality- meaning financial, legal (or otherwise) equality for both men and women. My task, on the other hand, is to show evidence to the contrary, that it only focuses on the supremacy of women, and oppresses the right of Freedom Of Speech. On Pointlessness Since its prime, when Feminism actually focused on the real needs of women when their rights where obstructed from them, it has become an organisation of blathering bigots, taking to the most futile cases as Protesting Fashion Shows and reporting those who make penis jokes (No, I'm not joking, both cases can be found here:. http://www.independent.co.uk... + http://www.guardian.co.uk...) Is Modern, Western Feminism Oppressive? You don't have to look too far to see examples of what I mean. Feminism has taken to the abstuction of the Freedom Of speech of others in its modern era (view You tube links at the top-right of my argument). Just last week, in the University Of Toronto, a group of Feminists pulled a fire alarm in hope of silencing a group of critics. The group that the Feminists tried to silence where a Gender Equality group called Equality Canada. The ground for their protests where that Equality Canada held hidden misogynistic views and that those views where evident on their website. Well, ladies and gentlemen, if you are for truth I encourage you to look at the website yourselves - http://equalitycanada.com... The list of objections of Equality Canada, the group being abused and protested by the Feminists in the videos I'll provide at the top right hand side, reads like this (again, check the website for proof of this): 1. To advance education with discussion of equality-especially gender equality, reason and science. 2. To provide a platform for collaboration between groups that discuss gender equality. 3. To participate in consciousness raising activities, to do with equality, that are routinely ignored. 4. To utilise media so that we may discuss the taboo subjects of gender equality. If my opponent can point out any misogynistic nature in that, than she/he can offer a case. Until then, all the Feminists are doing is, once again, restricting Freedom Of Speech, and thus are oppressive.
Feminism is irrelevant, unjust and flawed. It should be stopped.
Forgive me for my shoddy grammar and the incorrect use of refute. I did not proof read my argument well enough obviously. You really have to understand what modern day mainstream-media feminism entails. If feminism was JUST about females being equal to men, then everyone would acknowledge its place in society. The truth is, females have been equal to men for a long time. There continues to be more and more laws and bills passed in favor of women over men; especially concerning birth and child custody rights. Among this, there are also bills which protect women experiencing domestic violence (yet surprisingly enough, there is no such bill for men). We live in a society today where both men and women are equal. While both may have different roles according to social norm, that does mean that the two genders are unequal. But I digress... Back to my main point, the mainstream media feminism of today is full of misandry. Go look at feminist blogs, feminism websites, etc. This has only occurred because While both may have different roles according to social norm, that does mean that the two genders are unequal. But I digress... Back to my main point, the mainstream media feminism of today is full of misandry. Go look at feminist blogs, feminism websites, etc. This has only occurred because feminism has no place anymore in society. Since women now have equality, privileged females, who know NOTHING of the true struggles of the women of the past, have nothing left to stand for. Now what's left is a large group of females who like to point the finger at men for every little inconvenience in their lives. Its idiotic, moronic, and is only poisoning the minds of young females such as yourself. Stop putting yourself in a box and trying to depict living a life without equality. You already have freedom and equality, reach for it and take it. Make something of yourself and leave this nonsense behind.
Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries
Thank you, Con. And on another note I would like to apologize for the inconvenient delay in my argument. (1) Feminism is in fact helping to progressively surge societies into gender equality. (1A) To first prove this contention, I will briefly define what feminism is: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." The very concept of feminism is relatively broad and covers a vast amount of different media outfits and historical/public figures. Feminism as a collective whole comes in many forms and many people speak out on the issue in the modern political world. Need I remind anyone that feminism - that being the advocacy of women's rights - has allowed women to serve in the military and to vote. This equality was not given from the beginning - this was a right that was fought for for more than a hundred years but really began to kickstart in America and such other countries when the major civil rights movements were beginning - both from the black populace and LGBTQAA populace. (1B) Feminism is also responsible for the social awareness of different double-standards that impact both men and women. Again, feminism is about equality for all genders. The Huffington Post even wrote an article on its website covering the story of a 25-year-old comic artist from Japan with the name "Rasenth". He had published a comic that demonstrated double-standards that impacted women. However the comic also described how coming together as a collective species of humans and understanding one another is the key to solving this problem of gender inequality. This is on an economic and political level, of course. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I would like Con, as well as the audience watching this debate take place, to look at the following article explaining 23 ways that feminism has better improved the lives of women. http://mic.com... And then to also take a close look at this next article explaining how feminism is truly an interest mutual to more than just woman - but to men - and how the idea of feminism becoming such a popular concept in society has definitely been a benefit to just more than women. http://thefbomb.org... (2) Con has made some points I would like to refute. (2A) "A total of 20% of Americans support feminism, despite this an overwhelming majority of 82% of Americans are in favor of equality between the sexes. The only logical explanation for this is people see feminist actions and they don't believe that feminism is for equality." I would like to address that in this very same article it is made clear that 82% of the U.S population believes in gender equality which is directly what feminism is. It just so happens, however, that feminism is more focused on the issue of women's rights and their systemic disadvantages. Whilst regarding the social standards that negatively affect men, feminists often address these problems in social media. However, feminism is also heavily dependent on the assimilation of men into the movement to band together with women and fight for this social equity as a collective whole. While these 82% of people may not align themselves with the feminist movement, they withhold the same progressive ideals. http://site.nomas.org... (how men are crucial to feminism) "In this video she talks about how in the movement of feminism the only issues that are talked about are women's issues, on the other hand men's issues are outright ignored." Con's perception of the feminist movement/ideology seems to be revolving around the concept that women are being given all of the benefits while men are thrown under the bus. Need I say again that feminism is quite literally equality for all genders? Many feminists will acknowledge men's problems but not necessarily protest them with picketing and such other methods. But does this mean the issue is not being addressed? Of course not. Simply speaking out on the issue is a good enough means of spreading it as it is. The detriment within this debate about Con's argument is the simple misconception between radical feminism (ethusing a matriarchy) and legitimate textbook-definition feminism (equality). http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Allow me to introduced the above article. This article talks about a well-known feminist public figure who stands up and addresses the issues that men face in societies. "The 64-year-old academic is the star of hit YouTube series The Factual Feminist, which doesn’t just stick up for men, but also calls-out the sisterhood on false stats, cruel comments and double-standards. You know, the stuff that alienates men from the gender equality debate in the first place." Again, growing to understand that true feminism advocates gender equality as a universal, moral right is imperative to this debate. Feminism as a movement and ideology encompasses economic, social and political equality for all. "Feminism is responsible for his death."
Feminism is a useless movement in the U.S. in todays political landscape
I am arguing that feminism is a dumb movement and serves no valuble purpose in the modern landscape. I am refering to the dictionary.com definition of feminism: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. My reasons are as follows: 1. There is NO legal right that women have over men 2. Women get full custody rights over a man in the case of a divorce 3. If a women steals a mans sperm, she can sue him for child support 4. Feminists shut down a male suicide convention 5. Feminism only helps women 6. 75% of suicides are male 7. 84% of homocides are male 8. 99% of war deaths are male 9. Serious issues women face are ignored by feminists (women not being able to show their face in public in some 3rd world countries is one) 10. The wage gap is a myth that has been debunked many times for the following reasons: men take less time off, competitiveness, ask for raises more often, work higher paying jobs (no this is not sexism, this is good life choices), hours in the office, etc. 11. The term "mansplaining" is a sexist term 12. The majority of body shaming is by women 13. Feminism endorses movements that are terrible (fat acceptance is one) 14. Feminism rejects facts 15. Feminists will complain about the STEM field even though women have a 2/3 acceptance over men 16. The 8% rape claims is false statistic is from a 1996 FBI paper that also says 33% have a lack of evidence (which means they are likely false) 17. Male children are mroe likely to be abused than females 18. Mothers are twice as likely to abuse children than fathers. If you do accept this debate, please, DO NOT say that I'm sexist or that I'm stupid. Win the debate with facts and statistics. That being said, hit me with all you've got.
Feminism
I feel like this is more of a discussion than a debate which I really like, debating feminism isn't as fun as talking about it. I can't really tell what side you're on but I think you should know is that feminists are not advocating for women to be the same as men. They are advocating for equality. Also, I think when it comes to being treated the same way, I don't see the problem with that. I think you should treat people differently based on their personality, not gender. If a woman doesn't like sports, then don't always talk about sports with her. Don't not talk about sports because she is a woman, do it because she doesn't like sports. If a woman does like sports, talk about it with her. Don't assume she hates sports because of her gender. Same thing vice versa. Obviously men are not superior, though people believe this. However, I think the real problem is that stereotypes and "gender roles" are what's holding us back. I can explain in the next round if you're interested. "If there are areas where men specialize in, then there are areas where females specialize in as well, rather than running after their position, why not see what females already have and work further to improve them?" The problem with this is that it assumes that females are naturally good at one thing while males are naturally good at other things. Generally, more women are stay-at-home moms than men. This doesn't mean we are necessarily better parents or that men are better at working, it's just the way society has framed it. And I see what you mean about physical work. Men are generally stronger and bigger than women but what feminists are saying is that if a woman is strong enough to do physical work, let her. And if a man doesn't want to do it or he can't, don't call him a wimp or bully him. However, also remember that women are not running after traditionally male roles just so they can be men. They are doing it because they actually want to. A woman running for public office isn't necessarily doing it because she wants to be "like a man". She wants to see change in her region. Feminists aren't trying to turn women into men. They are just advocating for equal opportunities and want to erase stereotypes and gender roles because they shouldn't really exist.
Feminism Should not be Encouraged
I appologize for foreiting the round. I have quite a few debates going on at the moment. You begin by giving the definiotion of feminism. To which I would argue, judge a movement based on its actions rather than its definition. In this debate I will argue that feminism should not be encouraged, as there is an equal amount of feminism on both sides. Feminism is the belief that we should equalize the genders by only focusing on one. Sexism Against Men: 1.Domestic violence cases, where a man is the victim of his girlfriend’s violence, make up 40% of reported domestic violence cases. When a MAN is the victim of domestic violence, the women does not face nearly as much jail time as a man that committed the same crime. http://www.theguardian.com...... 2.Only men are eligible for the draft. 3.The overwhelming majority of workers in dangerous jobs are men. 4.When a man gets rapes it "empowers women" but when a man rapes a women he is sent to prison for years on end. 5.In general, when a woman commits a crime, she is faced with a significantly less amount of jail time that a man who commits the same crime. 5.Men are also objectified by the media. They are told by society they have to be muscular, and tough. 6.In action movies, like Kill Bill, where there is a strong female protagonist, the men she fights against are stripped of their human traits and portrayed as nothing more than targets. When they are killed there is no emotional toll. This is objectification. Not only is female against male violence acceptable, it is encouraged, and a woman’s ability to kill many men in a movie is seen as a virtue. Now, given the numerous inequalities that men face, it doesn’t make sense for a gender equality movement to ignore such incidents. More sexism toward men: A few years ago there was an incident where a woman cut of her husbands penis, and then threw it into a blender. This incident was the subject to quite a bit of discussion, one of such discussions was on a women’s talk show. In this talk show, they repeatedly made jokes about this poor man who now has no penis. The media consistently reinforces the notion that women against man violence is acceptable. If the same incident were to happen to a women, where her husband cut her breasts off, do you really think anyone would be joking about it? If there was a talk show that joked about it, there would literally be an uproar. Here’s the video as well as many others:https://www.youtube.com...... Im am not denying the existence of women’s issues, however I am just saying that we should also focus on the other half of the human population. Most of the cases that you presented, where women are treaded unfairly are valid, except for one: the pay gap. Pay Gap: The statistics surrounding the pay gap have been repeatedly debunked. When the government conducted this study, they looked at the payments between men and women in general, not looking at each specific job and comparing wages accordingly. When you take into account that men on average actually choose higher paying jobs in fields such as science and engineering, and women choose lesser paying jobs such as education and nursing, the pay gap literally disappears. Men also on average work more hours. You also, must also take into account that women take years at a time off work for maternity leave. http://lockerroom.johnlocke.org...... I will now give a quote from your agrument "It will teach kids that descrimination is wrong" To which I would respond by agreeing with your first stament. That it would teach kids not to descriminate. It would however, teach kids the lie that women are oppressed and men are priveleged, a dillusion that I have debunked in my previous examples. The same would apply in jobs. Employees would be under the impression that women are oppressed, thus giving them reason to give women unfair advantages. They would give them an advantage above men when hiring. They would give them more frequent promotions etc... Conclusion: I have presented a valid list of inequalities that men are faced with. The fact that a gender equalizing campaign ignores such exmples of sexism, serves as evidence that it is a hypocritical movement. Thus, it shouldn't be encouraged. The very title "5.In general, when a woman commits a crime, she is faced with a significantly less amount of jail time that a man who commits the same crime. 5.Men are also objectified by the media. They are told by society they have to be muscular, and tough. 6.In action movies, like Kill Bill, where there is a strong female protagonist, the men she fights against are stripped of their human traits and portrayed as nothing more than targets. When they are killed there is no emotional toll. This is objectification. Not only is female against male violence acceptable, it is encouraged, and a woman’s ability to kill many men in a movie is seen as a virtue. Now, given the numerous inequalities that men face, it doesn’t make sense for a gender equality movement to ignore such incidents. More sexism toward men: A few years ago there was an incident where a woman cut of her husbands penis, and then threw it into a blender. This incident was the subject to quite a bit of discussion, one of such discussions was on a women’s talk show. In this talk show, they repeatedly made jokes about this poor man who now has no penis. The media consistently reinforces the notion that women against man violence is acceptable. If the same incident were to happen to a women, where her husband cut her breasts off, do you really think anyone would be joking about it? If there was a talk show that joked about it, there would literally be an uproar. Here’s the video as well as many others:https://www.youtube.com...... Im am not denying the existence of women’s issues, however I am just saying that we should also focus on the other half of the human population. Most of the cases that you presented, where women are treaded unfairly are valid, except for one: the pay gap. Pay Gap: The statistics surrounding the pay gap have been repeatedly debunked. When the government conducted this study, they looked at the payments between men and women in general, not looking at each specific job and comparing wages accordingly. When you take into account that men on average actually choose higher paying jobs in fields such as science and engineering, and women choose lesser paying jobs such as education and nursing, the pay gap literally disappears. Men also on average work more hours. You also, must also take into account that women take years at a time off work for maternity leave. http://lockerroom.johnlocke.org...... I will now give a quote from your agrument "It will teach kids that descrimination is wrong" To which I would respond by agreeing with your first stament. That it would teach kids not to descriminate. It would however, teach kids the lie that women are oppressed and men are priveleged, a dillusion that I have debunked in my previous examples. The same would apply in jobs. Employees would be under the impression that women are oppressed, thus giving them reason to give women unfair advantages. They would give them an advantage above men when hiring. They would give them more frequent promotions etc... Conclusion: I have presented a valid list of inequalities that men are faced with. The fact that a gender equalizing campaign ignores such exmples of sexism, serves as evidence that it is a hypocritical movement. Thus, it shouldn't be encouraged. The very title "Feminism" right off the bat, establishes it as a women's first campaign and,through every one of its actions, this is proven to be the case.
modern day feminism does more good than harm
Sorry for the confusion Ben, I meant you don't refute until the third round and only refute one round and then do your closing statement. I am making the claim that modern day feminism does more harm than good, when I mean modern day feminism I mean intersectional feminism which is more known online due to the fact many of them are online activist who create gofundme acocunts and raise awareness then doing sit ins. Modern day feminism, better known as intersectional feminism, is more than just equal rights it also fights for LGBT+ rights & racial rights. Intersectional feminism is more about the social double standards both woman and man face. With many men looking down-upon for being feminine or having feelings. While women in third world countries are still facing forced marriages, sexual abuse, being poinsned for speaking out against their sexual abuser. Even women in America, Canada, & The United Kingdom are facing social standards as far as free the nipple & even multiple sexism jokes. One thing that I shouldn't have to point out but the things intersectional feminism does for men. When Jaden Smith wore a skirt and was the headline of Louis Vuitton's womens clothing [http://www.thewrap.com...] many people dragged him but the intersectional feminist family was there to encourage him because we advocate for letting boys be feminine. Another thing intersectional feminism did for men was when the NFL cheeleader was evicted because she raped a 14-year-old boy the victim faced a lot of blacklash and comments like "I would've let her rape me", "I'd like to be raped by that", etc. The feminist family [modern day] advocats so much for rape and sexual abuse victims. One of my last claims is about what the intersectional feminism does for racism & for the people in third world countries espically in time of the middle east wars. The feminist family is one of the most involed people in #blacklivesmatter movement in the time of Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice, etc. We've also advocated for letting in the migrants understandgint that America itself was based off migrants. Although we have plenty of radical feminist who are referred to as 'white feminist' meaning inclusive to women, white, black, chiristian feminism. In conclusion, I believe modern day feminism, better know as intersectional feminism does more harm than good and I'm sorry for the short paragraphs I'm writing this in school. Bes of luck. defentions [Intersectionality] is a concept often used in critical theories to describe the ways in which oppressive institutions (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia, classism, etc.) are interconnected and cannot be examined separately from one another.
Feminism Isn't Actually for Women's Rights.
I am taking the side of pro. This means that I believe that feminism isn't for women's rights but rather an excuse for women to complain about their unhappy lives. First round is for acceptance. Rules: 1. No forfeiting 2. No trolls 3. Sources may be left in the comments.
Modern Feminism is culturally important
In the absence of such content, I am limited to merely quote samples from my sources: 1. "Feminism, in its most pure form, is an ideological movement for women's political, social, and economic equality," dismissing claims from anti-feminists that "activists for women's rights are intellectually and sexually naive, and should not be taken seriously when they speak in the classroom or of the bedroom." 2. "To be feminized means to be made extremely vulnerable; able to be disassembled, reassembled, exploited as a reserve labor force; seen less as workers than as servers; subjected to time arrangements on and off the paid job that makes a mockery of a limited work day; leading an existence that always borders on being obscene, out of place, and reducible to sex." 3. "Could there be a more damning proof of this than the calm acquiescence of men who see how women grow worn out In petty, monotonous household work, their strength and time dissipated and wasted, their minds growing narrow and stale, their hearts beating slowly, their will weakened! Of course, I am not speaking of the ladies of the bourgeoisie who shove on to servants the responsibility for all household work, including the care of children. What I am saying applies to the overwhelming majority of women, to the wives of workers and to those who stand all day in a factory." 4. "The proletarian woman, living in straitened circumstances if not bitter poverty and overburdened with work, continues to make the sacrifice of time and energy required by organisational activity; bravely she exposes herself to the legal consequences and accepts the penalties that hang over her head "in the name of the law."" 5. "For the majority of women of the proletariat, equal rights with men would mean only an equal share in inequality, but for the "chosen few", for the bourgeois women, it would indeed open doors to new and unprecedented rights and privileges that until now have been enjoyed by men of the bourgeois class alone. But each new concession won by the bourgeois woman would give her yet another weapon for the exploitation of her younger sister and would go on increasing the division between the women of the two opposite social camps. Their interests would be more sharply in conflict, their aspirations more obviously in contradiction." 6. "The demands affecting women were limited to general desires for the protection of female labour and the recognition of full political rights for adults, without, however, emphasising that this last demand applied to women too." 7. "In attempting to speak for women, feminism often seems to presuppose that it knows whatwomen truly are, butsuch an assumption is foolhardy given that every source of knowledge aboutwomen has been contaminated with misogyny and sexism." 8. "Cultural feminism is the belief that women will be freed via an alternate women's culture." 9. "Black women's work and family experiences and grounding in traditional African-American culture suggest that African-American women as a group experience a world different from that of those who are not Black and female. " 10. "Before looking at the recent development of Black feminism we would like to affirm that we find our origins in the historical reality of Afro-American women's continuous life-and-death struggle for survival and liberation." 11. "American feminist legal theory has identified prostitution as "A paradigm of degradation and as a practice of inequality" that underlies both a continuum of violence against women as well as the legal measures taken to control that violence." Note: "Intersectionality und Kritik" is the name of a journal in which this reference was published. The title of the paper is "Praise Be, Prostitutes as the Women We Are not:White Slavery and Human Trafficking "" an Intersectional Analysis" 12. "My findings include a need for advocacy that is not "top-down" but that is created and led by marginalized communities that are vulnerable to human trafficking and human rights abuses." 13. "I focus on the importance of allowing the prostitutes that lived in this time to have their own voice and represent themselves honestly, instead of losing sight of their desires and preferences in the political arguments that were made at the time." 14. "Rapidly evolving technological advances and ways in which sexual consumerism is increasingly knitted into mainstream capitalism are also transforming the organization of prostitution." 15. "Radical feminism not only holds the key to making sense of pornography and prostitution, it also enables us to radicalize our politics and to deepen the normative visions that would inform and enrich our work." 16. "The past two decades have witnessed an unprecedented expansion of the global sex industry . . . The consequences have been profound -- for the women whose bodies constitute the 'raw materials' of this trade and for relations between women and men more broadly. 17. "To break the vicious circle of women's low initial human capital endowments and inferior labor market outcomes compared to men's, the paper proposes greater access of girls to education and of women to training, enforceable equal pay and equal employment opportunities legislation, a taxation and benefits structure that treats reproduction as an economic activity and women as equal partners within households, and a better accounting of women's work to include invisible production." 18. "Women's learning must be understood and valued in its own right." 19. "Concern for 'marriageability' still plays a central role in women's educational choices and outcomes."
Feminism is ruining video games
I accept this challenge. As a gamer, I"d like to think feminism has heightened the stakes for female roles in video games. Because Pro initiated this debate, I"ll allow him to start and lay down any rules he wants. Let"s enjoy this remarkably unique topic!
feminism is marxism
"My use 'Marxism light' was to address that issue. It is true that we live in a representational democracy. It is also true we have in socialist policies in place. At what point do we say that we are a socialist country? When the government spends 50%? 75%? That I think is where some of our differences exist. I do not see feminist today espousing free market economics. Nor do I see a let the individual decide policy prescriptions. What is happening is, feminist are trying to push through more government control of not only regulations but economic resources. What is unavoidable is that they do promote in large part socialist policies." We are nowhere close to 50% socialist, and even if we do all the things that are relevant to the feminists we won't be all that closer, we will still be solid capitalists. "The second area I think you disagree is the notion I put forward that you can only have socialism if you have marxism. As pointed out in my previous post, one can only have a redistribution of economic resources if one identifies classes and uses collective action to force the redistribution. In this way, as pointed out by von Mises, Fascism is really no different from Socialism." Okay, but fascism is irrelevant, you didn't prove that socialism is Marxism. "All of these points have been addressed. I will expand on them. Production is not only items that are traded for currency. Other production can include labor in the family. Much of the economic conflict argued by feminist occur in the home. The division of labor where women produce economic output at home forgoing currency based imployment outside of the home, is considered 'slavery' by many feminist. Only true freedom is believed to be possible where the woman has equal income to the husband and home duties are shared equally. Specialization is considered a loss of 'power'." You dropped my rebuttals for 1-3, and even with your arguments, the major difference is that Nor do I see a let the individual decide policy prescriptions. What is happening is, feminist are trying to push through more government control of not only regulations but economic resources. What is unavoidable is that they do promote in large part socialist policies." We are nowhere close to 50% socialist, and even if we do all the things that are relevant to the feminists we won't be all that closer, we will still be solid capitalists. "The second area I think you disagree is the notion I put forward that you can only have socialism if you have marxism. As pointed out in my previous post, one can only have a redistribution of economic resources if one identifies classes and uses collective action to force the redistribution. In this way, as pointed out by von Mises, Fascism is really no different from Socialism." Okay, but fascism is irrelevant, you didn't prove that socialism is Marxism. "All of these points have been addressed. I will expand on them. Production is not only items that are traded for currency. Other production can include labor in the family. Much of the economic conflict argued by feminist occur in the home. The division of labor where women produce economic output at home forgoing currency based imployment outside of the home, is considered 'slavery' by many feminist. Only true freedom is believed to be possible where the woman has equal income to the husband and home duties are shared equally. Specialization is considered a loss of 'power'." You dropped my rebuttals for 1-3, and even with your arguments, the major difference is that feminism does not require the dismantling of capitalism permanently, they simply want gender to be irrelevant in capitalism. "I will agree with you that economic considerations are not the only area that feminist argue for. The fact 'patriarchy' is specified does not mean that they are not marxist/socialist, especially when they use Marxist methods to come to their positions. In both word and deed, it is clear feminist are Marxists." Marxist methods are effective revolutionary method, its not odd that they use them. The difference is that they feminism ideology is different than Marxist ideology, ergo they are not the same thing.
is feminism good for the world
Feminism seems to be only bad for the world as it spreads the idea that your personal failures are out of your control. Thinking in this way helps no one and lets people just work less and feel good about it. Also the "riots for equality" are almost always violent. Also we all know that the "great big bad patriarchy" just doesn't exist
THBT feminism has failed
Thank you for your point. "when we have to decide who has to stay home and look after the kids between the mother and the father, who will you choose? Mostly we choose the mother because we believe that the mother is inferior to the father, and she is not the dominant one. This concept proves that we do not consider women on the same level as men, and this is a very basic concept. But feminism still didn't change it after fighting a battle for 4 decades!" Sorry, but this is all wrong. First of all, as I stated before, feminists aren't looking for equality of outcome. As I stated, equality is about opportunity and treatment. You have no basis to prove that mostly we would chose women. There are 317,000,000 people living in America[1]. And only 5,100,000 are stay-at-home mothers[2]. Where is the inequality? Yes, there are 176,000 stay-at-home dads[3], but that is for one important reason. Tradition. Traditionally, it was the common belief that a women should stay at home. It was viewed as a good belief, the right belief and had very little negative connotations, after all, the bible, which has been predominant in setting traditions on multiple occasions, talks about the duties of a wife. See here: http://www.openbible.info... So if we establish that it was a common view, and only, as I take your word for it, up until fourty years ago, then this tradition would be very hard to break down. But hasn't it already? Remember, feminism is about equal opportunity, not equal outcome, because that doesn't include those who still agree with the tradition or those who want to be a housewife/househusband. So equal opportunity is what we're looking for. To break the tradition that a wife should stay at home, there has to be an equal chance for women to go out and get jobs themselves, and for that information, please refer to my previous post. There is an equal, or at least more equal opportunity for women to get jobs, so this belief that a women's role is in the kitchen has deteriorated. The outcome? Well it is for sure decreasing. In the 1940s, only 28% of ladies worked[4]. My figure for today has proved that something has changed and helped change this, to bring it back down, and that is partly due to feminism. A success. [1] http://www.census.gov... [2] http://www.infoplease.com... [3] http://www.infoplease.com... [4] The 1950s, by William H. Young
modern day feminism does more good than harm
Thank you to my opponent for their speech. Feminism. FEMINism. People fighting for WOMEN'S rights, for WOMEN'S higher pay, etc. Modern day feminism is not about the equality of the genders. It is about women becoming more powerful than men. And I have already proved this in my earlier speech. I would like to first say that 3 instagram screenshots of feminists liking Bernie Sanders is nowhere near a reasonable source when the claim is "99.9% of feminist are for Bernie Sanders". It's ridiculous, really, to say that anyone, even the government, knows the political views of all feminists in the world. Even my opponent themself says it. "radical feminist are of course harming". Voters, my opponent did not title this debate "intersectional feminism does more good than harm". They titled it with "modern day feminism" in mind, and that is why radical feminism is still valid throughout this debate. Radical feminism is the entirety of modern day feminism. It doesn't matter slightly if radical feminists are the minority, it just matters that they get their voice out more, and effect the general populace more, meaning that, to the general populace, they do more harm than good. This is why you should vote Con. Thank you.
Feminism is relevant in the 21st Century
I do not believe that nowadays, in Western culture, women are oppressed by men. The laws in most developed countries nowadays make it very fair for both genders and I have never seen any intention from males to discriminate against women. I invite anyone to argue for the idea of feminism is important currently against me. Normal debate.org rules apply Sources necessary and burden of proof is shared.
Feminism is no longer beneficial to our modern society
REBUTTALS: 1) [A] "I am not saying that gender equality is no longer at presence, but only that it doesn't really matter anymore." Why doesn't gender equality matter anymore? Women on average get paid about 81.2% of men [1], even accounting for a wide variety of factors [2][3]. Women on average are disadvantaged in numerous other ways, from sexual harassment to lack of contraceptive access to lack of reproductive rights, which males on average suffer disproportionately less. 1) [B] "If male truly have a significant advantage towards woman, if we really have control simply for being who we are, why would feminism even exist? And yes, you would ask me for evidence and I do have it, LOGIC. If man do have the upper hand wouldn't we want to control any outcry? Any voices? If not, wouldn't that mean we are NOT the sexist person feminism portrays us to be?" Pro seems to think that feminism is attacking an all-powerful male-controlled institution that seeks to suppress feminist views -- the patriarchy. Most feminists don't think that, or anything close to that. Instead, most feminists view the system as being unfair, not oppressive. Most feminists don't see a gigantic network out to reduce female pay and suppress feminist views, but instead see that societal norms prevent women from getting equal pay and force women to do more child care, elder care, etc. Basically, it's not Big Brother who's the problem -- it's society's mindset. 2) [A] Feminists fail to uphold gender equality. They are hating on men and developing into a supremacy or at least gender exclusivity. 1: There are some female supremacists in feminism; they are not a majority, not even close. If you'd like, say, some examples of the feminist support for gender equality rather than female supremacy, see the many examples of pro-equality quotes I prove here [4]. 2: Just because there are extremists in a movement does not mean the movement is bad. In the civil rights movement, the vast majority followed Dr. King and nonviolently protested for their rights. Some groups -- black supremacists, black isolationists, violent activists -- caused other people harm and brought shame to the movement. But the movement as a whole was a good thing -- it brought vastly greater levels of racial equality -- even though it had some bad apples. 2) [B] If both genders are supposed to be equal, how come in every Japanese train/subway there are one whole car reserved for woman? 1: This is a new thing to me. It appears that these cars are the result of rampant groping of women by men on Japanese subways [5]. Given that Japanese culture is extremely antifeminist, I think this is also a poor example -- the groping is a result of ongoing support of traditional gender roles, where women are submissive and must consent to sex. 2: Pro has yet to demonstrate that these train cars are a result of feminism. 2) [C] How come feminist Marilyn Frenc's quote saying all men are rapists are still such a popular ideology with feminists? 1: Is it? Consider, for example, a major feminist push to redefine rape in 2011, which ultimately changed the definition of rape from "vaginal penetration" to a much broader definition, which also now includes the rape of males, which previously was *not* rape, somehow [6]. 2) [D] How come Room to Read and many famous foundations alike only offer academic education to women and in fact have a ad saying "Transform a Girl's Life, send her to school" on the home page and noone says anything meanwhile boy only schools are considered sexist? (St. Mary's, classic example). 1: Such programs are being considered sexist, by people like you. The reason such programs were not considered sexist is that women had disproportionate educational disadvantages -- as the disadvantages disappear, statements like yours will become a majority. 2: Pro has yet to demonstrate that such programs are a result of feminism. 2) [E] How come the "sorry, it's a boy" commercial was passed on to the Superbowl and even considered "Not Sexist" and to date not a single person apologised? 1: Er. The commercial in question doesn't exactly paint the person who said "Sorry, it's a boy" in a positive light -- she's painted as a rich, stupid, arrogant person [7]. What's there to apologize for? 2) [F] I get it, you may think that these are just individual examples, and you may be right, however, without feminism this would be much harder to do. What I am insisting is that we simply drop feminism as an ideology in our world. 1: These things *might* be harder to do without feminism. But so would the ongoing liberation of women in actually-repressive third-world countries and the reduction of inequality in other nations. 2) [G] Or at least introduce some kind of Masculinism without being called sexist. 1: What does Pro mean by this? SUMMARY Feminism is still relevant, not least because of the gender gap. Feminism does not fit Pro's description. REFERENCES [1] bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2011.pdf (p. 52) [2] jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9118a9ef-0771-4777-9c1f-8232fe70a45c (p. 9-11) [3] gender-competence.eu/files/IntConf/5.pdf (p. 6-7, 11) [4] http://www.debate.org... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.feminist.org...
This Third Wave of Feminism is Unnecessary
There have been three waves of feminism in history throughout the last 100 years. This third wave crashing over the U. S. Is very unnecessary and is only causing pointless conflict between people, While also being factually incorrect and a spread of lies. I look forward to hearing the arguments of my opponent and thank anyone who participates.
Feminism is no longer about gender equality
The assumption made by Pro is that some negative discrimination against men is made by people who term themselves 'feminist', therefore all feminism is now about gender inequality and a female dominance in society. I challenge this on several levels. First of all, even in Western countries where discrimination against women appears on the surface to be vastly minimal, it is present. Women are underrepresented in government (http://www.independent.co.uk...) to the extent that a black man was made president before a woman was. Consider the proportions there. There are massive gaps in pay in the workplace and in vocations sought by women that cannot solely be explained by the 'women have babies and so don't concentrate on their careers' argument. Further to that, many subjects and/or vocations remain predominantly masculine-orientated (http://www.aip.org...). Further to this, I would contend that there is a deeper psychosexual discrimination at work (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...). A man is valued in society primarily based on academic and career achievements, or perhaps social achievements. A woman is valued based on her attractiveness as well, and often more so than against her intellect. Let us not forget the religious hang-over in Western society, which was until very recently predominantly Christian and unfortunately influenced by the misogynist St. Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org...). As an anecdote, I remember a highly intelligent friend of mine reminding me that 'woman should be subject to man' (http://bible.org...). I have also been told before that a decent woman should not seek knowledge, because it was Eve's curiousity that condemned humanity; all this in the last decade. The resultant psychological oppression remains relevant in the modern era. I will not go into the horrendous discrimination against women outside of Western society except through a single anecdote. Travelling in Egypt, I stayed with a Nubian family and was shown the community centre. The boys were playing on a playstation. "Where are the women?" I asked. "In the home, which is their place," I was told. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). To conclude; whilst sadly it is true that discrimination against men happens, it is by no means true that feminism is about superiority rather than aiming to reach equality. Misandry cannot be equated to feminism.
Feminism is for equal rights for all genders not just women.
Thank you, VoiceofEquality; wording things like this just takes practise :) I will use this last round to summarise the contentions and respond to what my opponent wrote. Negative Case Premise: The myth of gender equality My opponent has entirely ignored this, despite it being very relevant to the arguments being made in other areas. The fact is that women and men are different; they can never be equal in a real sense, hence attempts for gender equality are often sexist and ignore the real biological states of both or one of the sexes. A1: Unequal rights in STEM fields Completely dropped. This argument shows clear evidence of feminism being sexist against men. A2: Pay Gap Theory is inherently sexist against men Completely dropped. Again, this argument shows clear evidence of feminism being sexist against men. A3: Feminists show unbridled hatred for men Dropped, in the complete sense. I quoted half-a-dozen feminists espousing hatred for men; this is a clear example of feminists wanting nothing to do with equal rights for all genders, ESPECIALY none for men. Counter-arguments The faulty definition of feminism: equality of the sexes Since my opponent did not respond to this, it appears that we agree this definition should not be used. Eliminating stereotypes because we do not understand human psychology Short-hair: The objections of short-hair and make-up seem to be roughly the same, so I will address them at once. Make-up: The fact is, as explained next to this title in my last round, that men are attracted to women with clear skin more so than women with less-than-clear skin. Again, my opponent’s feminist argument fails to realise that societal recognition cannot change the biological imperatives. In other words, men will always be attracted to women with clear skin, regardless of what society or any external influence says. My opponent then continues to make the ridiculous assertion that women do not have to wear make-up to impress men. Well, as shown in my studies, which reference biological imperatives, yes, women do need to do that. If she wants to be less attractive, then by all means she does not have to wear make-up. But to say that she can be as attractive without at least modest make-up is to completely ignore the science of evolutionary psychology. As I underlined from my research: mechanisms involving evolutionary psychology are highly resistant to cultural modification, AND in regards to long-hair, long-hair is attractive across ALL cultures, despite the wild differences in cultures. Society cannot change evolutionary psychology by simply telling people to stop doing things, much like heart will not stop beating simply by wishing it would. Finally, my opponent runs a mitigation argument against my surveys. Whilst my surveys are not the absolute ideal in terms of research, they are far better than the zero research my opponent has given to support his/her theory that it is purely society dictating these trends (men liking long-hair and unblemished faces on women). In conjunction with the other references to evolutionary psychologists concluding upon research done in field, there is not simply my surveys that I rely upon to make my argument, too. Evidence for stereotypes: My opponent simply cites a few sources without explaining as to why they are relevant to this debate. Voters should not be required to read through sources in order to have an educated guess as to what the debater intended as argument. The debate happens on DDO, so everything should be explained on DDO, elsewise I could reference 250 sources and say “read these to understand why I have won”. Via reductio ad absurdum, I shown why my opponent’s conduct with source referencing is illogical [1]. But even if you were to take whatever argument made with these sources, my contention was never that stereotypes do not exist, rather that in the context of feminism, feminism often gets the fact wrong in blaming things on stereotypes, rather than evolutionary psychology. For example, women with short-hair are not stigmatised because of the patriarchy, rather because men find women more attractive with long-hair. My opponent’s list of bare assertions My opponent has decided to defend some of the bare assertions made last round. I will address those. Feminism changed the definition of rape: My opponent has provided evidence to show that the definition of rape has indeed changed. However, there is no link to this being a feminist initiative. Control+f the FBI document for “feminism” or something that is directly related to feminism, and you will see that whilst a change in terms did occur, there is simply no link to feminism. Employed fathers now entitled to at least two weeks’ paternity leave on the birth of their child: Again, whilst this did indeed occur, there is simply no link to feminism. Just because there are equal rights, it does not necessarily mean that feminism has pushed for this, and we certainly cannot say if there is no reference or mention of feminism. Conclusion: Why you should vote for me My opponent completely drops every aspect of my negative case. Since my arguments there clearly show that feminism is not about equal rights for the genders, and is rather about hatred or unequal rights for men, my opponent loses due to all of these contentions. In terms of negation from my end, I provided numerous scholarly work to show that it is evolutionary psychology largely at play, in regards to women with make-up and long-hair, not patriarchy or society being mean to women. My opponent could only run a mitigation argument against my surveys, dropping the rest of my scholarly work on this point. My opponent also tried to link some of his/her bare assertions to ways in which feminism has helped both men and women, but he/she failed to link this feminism. Thank you, VoiceofEquality, for this debate. Thank you, Mr/Ms reader for reading our debate =) Reference: [1] http://rationalwiki.org...
