PRO

  • PRO

    VAWA implies, through it"s title alone, that men are the...

    Feminism fights to harm men.

    Opening statement: Most may argue that my arguments only apply to the radical feminists, but the radical feminists are the famous and widely-known feminists that taint feminism. Feminism in countries like Iraq (or Islamic nations), where women are actually oppressed. In countries like the USA, women have it much better thanks to laws like affirmative action or VAMA. (which is very unneeded and sexist) 1. Today's society is feminist. Feminism blames men and the false patriarchy for every societal problem. I have been the victim of feminists, only because I said, "there isn't a patriarchy and women can be blamed just as much as men." I was called "a woman hater." They said "I was most likely a man, because all men hate women." If this is not a burden of proof, I still have more. 2. Feminists victimize women, and assume all men are predators . If this is not misandry, then I honestly don't know what is! This is the most falsified claim feminism has made. There are many women who get let off free for raping a child, or a man. Just because men can't get pregnant, doesn't automatically make them rapists and unable to be raped. 3. If you're a convicted criminal, the best thing you can have going for you might be your gender. A new study by Sonja Starr, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan, found that men are given much higher sentences than women convicted of the same crimes in federal court. The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts. Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.[1] This is also misandry caused by our feminist society. 4. Have a look at the second-wave feminist view of men for an example. Valerie Solanas, the radical feminist who shot Andy Warhol in 1968, provides a famous example of misandry in her self-published SCUM Manifesto. In case you"re wondering, SCUM is an acronym for "Society for Cutting Up Men", practically a call for gendercide, the culling of men. Quite literally, Solanas expressed her desire to "institute complete automation and destroy the male sex."[2] 5. The next time you switch on the television, count how many programs have the token "stupid boyfriend" or "abusive husband" or "pedophilic father" figure. Switch over to a children"s channel / time window and watch how many cartoons or programs reflect "silly daddy" characters or "bullying big brother". Don"t forget, of course, nearly all the women in these same programs will be smart, sexy, sassy and full of beans, capable of juggling a career lifestyle with children, a husband and a social circle " let"s not forget that she"s undoubtedly a wonderful cook and always remembers everybody"s birthdays. If these images are being constantly spread out over our airwaves, what does that tell our children who are growing up watching & learning daily, hourly, that men are just so stupid, abusive and " well, useless?[2] 6.Think "Violence Against Women Act" " notice something wrong in that? Notice how violence against men or children is not mentioned? VAWA implies, through it"s title alone, that men are the primary perpetrators of violence " despite 30 years of research and in excess of 130 scientific studies proving that intimate partner violence is roughly mutual. Time and time again, the results say the same "men and women are equally violent towards one another". And yet, when feminists demand preferential treatment or additional "rights", the government promptly delivers, like a good boy."[2] 7. This claim is from a source that tied all of this info together for easy use and I will source most of the available sources I use, but I will also source the main website. This is proof that feminism ignores men's problems completely. Men are: 76% of homicide victims " DOJ 80% of Suicide victims " CDC "The other most common suicide victims are divorced and/or estranged fathers like Derrick Miller. In fact, a divorced father is ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced mother, and three times more likely to commit suicide than a married father."Men are the overwhelming majority of rape victims Male rape has been called "The most closely guarded secret of American prisons." (Weiss and Friar 1974) There are estimated to be over 300,000 male rapes per year in American prisons and jails. Father"s rights group want shared parenting (equal custody) to be the default if both parents want custody and neither parent is unfit. They feel that men should not be punished for being men, and that women should not be awarded custody to their kids simply for being women. Currently women are awarded primary custody almost all the time, even if the husband was the stay-at-home Dad and the woman was the breadwinner. Feminists fought against this. You can read NOW"s own statement here. Also note their usage of anti-male lies, i.e. "fathers are abusive, don"t give them custody." That is from 1997, but still remains valid today. Men want protection against false rape allegations. They feel that a man"s life should not be ruined simply on the allegation of a woman who may be a vindictive liar. Currently, a woman can accuse a man of rape for no reason, and the man"s name is splashed in the paper and his life is ruined. So, they fought for laws granting men anonymity until charged with the crime of rape"not convicted, just charged. Feminists fought against this, causing it to fail. Also see here, the London Feminist Network campaigning to defeat the proposal. "The London Feminist Network is a campaigning organisation uniting London based feminist groups and individuals in activism." Men want an end to the justice system favouring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men. Feminists fought against this, arguing that no woman should be sent to jail, even women who had murdered multiple people. Men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of "being male" under primary aggressor policies. Feminists fought against this by trying to suppress evidence showing that half of domestic violence is done by women, by threatening the researchers with bomb threats, death threats, etc. Modern, younger feminists are doing it as well. And sadly, they were successful in this effort of propaganda. For decades, and continuing today, violent men are (rightfully) convicted and punished by the state, while violent women are left to freely terrorize and harm their partners. The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting primarily in having only male batterers criminally pursued. Men want female rapists to be arrested, charged, and convicted with rape. In Western countries, women are rarely punished when raping men, due to the biased legal system. In some countries, women cannot be punished when raping men, since rape is defined as a male-perpetrated crime. Feminists fought against this in India, arguing that "there is a physicality [in] rape" and that it would make things "more complicated for judges." Feminists fought against this in Israel, claiming that changing the law would result in men filing false rape claims. Men don"t want to be thrown in jail because they lost their jobs and temporarily cannot pay child support. Feminists fought against this, trying to lower the amount to $5000 before a man is guilty of a felony for not paying child support. If a man loses a decent-paying job, he will now be a felon, go to jail, lose his right to vote, AND be unable to find future jobs"if he cannot regain an equal-paying job within a few months. Men want equal economic support and help from the government. When the recession hit, male-dominated fields like construction lost millions of jobs, while female-fields like education and healthcare gained jobs. So the government proposed an economic stimulus for those fields. Feminists successfully fought against this, arguing that it was discrimination to support men, and caused the government to give money to women who didn"t deserve it. Hundreds of professional feminists complained against the "sexism" of helping men (who had lost jobs) and not women (who had gained jobs). A representative of the Michigan National Organization for Women testified in opposition to the Revocation of Paternity Act, which stopped the old law which stated that if a woman was married and cheated on her husband, the resulting child is considered to be legally the husband"s and the biological father had no legal rights to fight for custody or parenting time with his biological child. As you can see, the claim that feminism fight for men"s rights is a blatant lie. Don"t believe any feminists that say that. Feminists fight for women"s rights. That is a good thing. Feminists also are happy to harm men"s rights, as shown above. That is a bad thing. Feminism is about female privilege, not equality. Some may argue that these cases of feminists harming men is not "representative" of feminism. I ask you: Are there any cases of feminists helping men? No. Yet, there are many cases of feminists harming men. It is reasonable to conclude from these facts that feminism fights to harm men. http://tinyurl.com...

  • PRO

    On the other side many feminists are beautiful women who...

    Is feminism an equality or women superiority

    On one side many men consider feminism to be a "religion" of fat lesbians whom men don't want. They think that feminists hate man, etc, etc. On the other side many feminists are beautiful women who have compassion for girl and women all over the world who don't have basic human rights - right not to be used as an object, not to be sold in slavery, right to freedom, etc. Women should have all those rights, yet they don't. So technically this is equality but a women equality with men.

  • PRO

    Many issues revolving around modern woman-ness include...

    CMV: Feminism is wildly misinterpreted by its opponents

    I always hear from opponents of feminism that toxic masculinity shreds up the essence of manliness, casts masculinity into some evil, etc. I hear counterpoints that men have their problems too (which is not a counterpoint as feminism embraces that). I think people do not understand that modern feminism is a social movement borne out of critical gender theory, which is a branch of critical theory that examines the social construction of gender. For instance, what makes a man, a ?man, or a woman, a ?woman?, and the non discrete relationship between their performative elements. Many issues revolving around modern woman-ness include the subjugation through reproductive obligations, division of labor within the family and society, access to capital and intergenerational wealth, political agency, etc. Of course modern feminists (who know what they are talking about) do not dispute the reality that mostly men are in the prison system, they endure harsher penalties from the state, have higher suicide rates, are employed in more dangerous work conditions, lose custody battles at higher rates, etc. But feminists include these issues in the construction of man-ness too, and academics actively study root societal causes for these issues. They advocate against them! So in my mind, there is no reason to not be a feminist other than avoiding a label that has been propagandized by its political opponents.

  • PRO

    While the first and second wave focused on general...

    Tird wave Feminism has gone too far.

    In this debate I will support the opinion that Third wave feminism has gone too far. While the first and second wave focused on general equality issues. Third wave feminism has halted and has begun to look for ways to give advantages to one half of the population while attacking the second half. This Marxist ideology has stopped looking for actual cases of injustice and inequality throughout the world. Feminism once having achieved its goals of equality in the western world has continued to argue for those same policies. Since the ideologies goals have already come to fruition this can only create inequality. The biggest arguments I will address are equal pay, healthcare and the attack on men's behavior. I will do this in a unique way by citing Beauvoir one of the most prominent feminists. To do this I will address how this ideology objectifies men while maintaining that they are the victims. Good luck and my the best rhetoric win.

  • PRO

    But while median earnings for men in 2011 were just over...

    On balance modern Feminism is beneficial to the modern United States.

    For those who comment I ask that you be respectful to both sides of this debate. This topic can be heated. Mister_man is someone I have seen around the website and respect as a well-reasoned individual. I like to think of my-self in the same way. There is no need for ad hominem attacks in the comments, as I imagine them not to be present in the debate either. For this debate I intend to show convincingly the benefit that Feminism can and is providing to the U.S. today. My outline is very simple. I will… 1: Establish proof that men and women do not currently have equal rights and opportunities. 2: Present how Feminism can help and produce positive results in relation to this problem. In so doing I will affirm the resolution that “on balance modern Feminism is beneficial to the modern United States.” 1: Establish proof that men and women do not currently have equal rights and opportunities. A: Economic Injustice: This issue is also referred to as the pay gap. “In 2012, the median earnings of American women working full time year-round were $37,791. American men earned a median income of $49,398. The gender wage gap has hovered at about 77 cents on the dollar since 2007.” (1) This shows that generally men are paid more than women in the U.S. The typical response to this is to ask are women paid less because they choose lower-paying jobs? The answer is no as the following shows. “Earnings are high for both women and men who work as computer and information systems managers. But while median earnings for men in 2011 were just over $98,000, median earnings for women were around $86,000. Likewise, aerospace engineers tend to earn a good living. But while a typical male aerospace engineer took home just over $100,000 in 2011, his female counterpart was paid $83,000.”(2) This shows that Higher income occupations pay men more than women on average for the same work. “Median earnings for male engineering technicians in 2011 were just over $56,000 compared with median earnings of $43,000 for female engineering technicians. Among drafters, typical earnings for men were just over $51,000 while typical earnings for women were just over $45,000.” (2) This shows that median income occupations pay men more than women on average for the same work. Let us Move on to how poverty affects men and women. “one in three Americans lives at or below the poverty line, and almost 70% are women and children.” Or that “Women represent nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers, concentrated in jobs that tend to be labor-intensive. They go without paid sick days or access to affordable child care. Moreover, women across the spectrum continue to earn less than men no matter the education level, profession or position” (3) “Add to this picture that 40% of our nation's households with children rely on women as a primary or sole source of income,”(3) Clearly the pay gap is empirically evident and as such is indisputable. Just as evident is that poverty affects women significantly more so than men. It can then be concluded that men and women do not have an equal rights or opportunity in the U.S. economy. B: Domestic violence: I recognize that this is not solely a women’s issue. However, as I will show, it is empirically evident that women are, on balance, affected significantly more than men. “Nearly one in five women surveyed said they had been raped or had experienced an attempted rape at some point, and one in four reported having been beaten by an intimate partner. One in six women have been stalked, according to the report.” (4) compare that to men, “One in seven men have experienced severe violence at the hands of an intimate partner, the survey found, and one in 71 men — between 1 percent and 2 percent — have been raped, many when they were younger than 11.” (4) Clearly domestic violence targets women significantly more than men. As this is a sad reality that 1 in 4 women deal with in our nation, it limits the opportunity and rights of women in a way not as true for men. 2: Present how Feminism can help and produce positive results in relation to this problem. Despite only 1/5 of Americans define themselves as feminists, (5) the Feminist movement has, and will continue to help bring equality to the USA. Historically, feminism helped bring the right to vote to women. The 60’s saw the Women’s rights movement, which brought up issues as equal rights and pay. It is true the U.S. has come a long way, but as is evident by the still present inequality, there is more to do. Feminism continues to bring these issues to light. Feminism continues to expose inequality. Feminism continues to lobby for justice. Feminism continues to be a positive force in the United States. The following link provides “23 Ways Feminism Has Made the World a Better Place for Men” (6) No I do not intend this to be a comprehensive addition to my argument as it would be beyond my character limit, nor should any expect my opponent to have to refute any of the 23 ways listed herein. I wanted to include this for those reading who would like a broader look at the impact of feminism today. As well as show the vastness of material that exists to show the positive impact feminism has today. Conclusion: Men and women do not currently have equal rights and opportunities. This is empirically evident by the stats that I have provided. Women are not paid equally, or afforded the same opportunity in the U.S. economy. Women are affected significantly more than men by domestic violence, as this has become a common issue (1 in 4) it limits the opportunity and rights of women in a way that does not generally affect men. Feminism has been, and will continue to be a force for good in the U.S. as it brings to light these injustices and lobbies for change. Therefore we are lead to conclude that “on balance modern Feminism is beneficial to the modern United States.” (1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (2) http://www.aauw.org... (3) http://www.cnn.com... (4) http://www.nytimes.com...; (5) http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com... (6) http://mic.com...

  • PRO

    Con ignores the reality that these movements were not...

    3rd wave feminism has made notable progress for civil rights

    Before I begin my rebuttal, I would like to thank Con for engaging in this debate, and offering a rebuttal to my assertions. First, Con neglected to acknowledge where I stressed the significance of the contributions toward Third Wave Feminism which were championed by less accepted, earlier feminist thinkers who were divergent from 2nd wave feminism. Such as sex positive Feminism, which was not accepted as mainstream until the Third Wave arose. "Sex Positive Feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org......) began in the 1980s and the Free-Love movement is from the 1960's however Third wave is presented as a 90's movement," Con makes this statement as if the three movements are mutually exclusive. The fact remains that sex-positive feminism was not an accepted widely until Third Wave feminism arose. Con's own source highlights this reality. " Some became involved in the sex-positive feminist movement in response to efforts by anti-pornography feminists, such as Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, Robin Morgan and Dorchen Leidholdt," (each of the examples given are 2nd wave feminists) (1) Further, it was not until the 90's that these movements gained the momentum needed to continue the progressive discourse. This time is often referred to as the "Feminist Sex Wars", and it is the crucible from which the third wave was born. Also considered part of the third wave is sex-positivity, a celebration of sexuality as a positive aspect of life, with broader definitions of what sex means and what oppression and empowerment may imply in the context of sex. For example, many third-wave feminists have reconsidered the opposition to pornography and sex work of the second wave, and challenge existing beliefs that participants in pornography and sex work are always being exploited. (2) To say sex positivity hasn't seen notable progress in the last 20 years is to ignore observable, documented facts to the contrary. "Rebecca Walker coined the term "third-wave feminism" in a 1992 essay." In order to label a group of movements which were influential, yet separate from the second wave movement. Con also assumes that the movement only began upon the creation of the "term" rather than the term having been created to help define a series of similar movements. "The roots of the third wave began, however, in the mid-1980s. Feminist leaders rooted in the second wave called for a new subjectivity in feminist voice. They sought to negotiate prominent space within feminist thought for consideration of race-related subjectivities." (3) In the essay, Walker, a black woman, explained how second wave feminism continued the marginalization of non heterosexual women and black women. "For many second-wave feminists, non-heterosexual women were seen as an embarrassment to the movement. The great feminist activist Betty Friedan, for example, coined the term "lavender menace" in 1969 to refer to what she considered the harmful perception that feminists are lesbians. She later apologized for the remark, but it accurately reflected the insecurities of a movement that was still very heteronormative in many ways." (4) As the above quote and source illustrate, issues facing women of color and transsexual, transgender and non-binary orientations, were not well represented until the third wave arose in the early 90's. Con claims - "The sex positive aspect of third wave feminism has resulted in the mellinial generation becoming the most accepting of other sexual orientations and genders." is unsupported... Because "other major occurrences and movements that happened prior to the birth of 3rd wave feminism." Con ignores the reality that these movements were not accepted or practiced until the rise of third wave feminism. Con's own arguments against the Third Wave's influence have been used against the emergence of the second wave, over a century ago. "The "new" feminism that emerged among the citified, educated daughters of the 1910s embraced the modernist impulse to leave the past behind. "Women, if you want to realize yourselves," Mina Loy wrote in her 1914 Feminist Manifesto, "the lies of centuries have got to be discarded. . . . Nothing short of Absolute Demolition will bring about reform." (5) This rather detailed essay explores how second wave feminism formed, despite the resistance of those who supported the status quo. "The new consumer culture substituted sexual liberation for political power, promoted shopping "choices" over real-life options, and promised young women the "freedom" to display their bodies, smoke and drink with the boys, and adopt the male perspective. As the New York Times noted approvingly in 1922, the modern girl "take[s] a man"s view as her mother never could." (5) By this analysis, the emergence of second wave feminism was marred by the consumerism and the adoption of "male" traits by flappers, in order to become "equal". Third wave feminism rejects the "male and female" roles, and instead allows each individual to choose their own gender role. I include this essay to show how 1st wave feminism evolved into second wave, with significant growing pains, just as second wave later evolved into third wave during the late 80's, thought it was not defined and labeled until the early 90's. Con claims Third Wave feminist beliefs predate the existence of Third wave feminism, which is entirely true, however Con is incorrect when they assume those movements did not evolve into Third Wave Feminism. America was a Capitalist nation long before Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels coined the term in the late 1860s. By Con's logic, America wasn't a capitalist nation until the early 1900s. It is far more often that social movements "begin" before they are "defined". This is the only argument Con has provided on any issue, including the below: "Transgenderism (http://en.wikipedia.org......) has been active for years long prior to the inception of 3rd Wave Feminism" 1. Con again argues that because the term "third wave" came after these movements began in theory, that these movements are not part of the third wave. 2. Con provides no sources, aside from a wiki definition of transgenderism, to support these claims. Con ignores the reality that the transgender feminism movement was rejected by the second wave, and was only accepted and widely discussed when the third wave arose. "Though second-wave feminism argued for the sex and gender distinction, some feminists believed there was a conflict between transgender identity and the feminist cause; e.g., they believed that male-to-female transition abandoned or devalued female identity, and that trangender people embraced traditional gender roles and stereotypes. Many transgender feminists, however, viewed themselves as contributing to feminism by questioning and subverting gender norms. Third wave and contemporary feminism more greatly accepts transgender people." (6) There have been conflicts with second wave feminist organizations which do not accept transgender individuals or the movement. "Perhaps the most visible site of conflict between feminists and trans women has been the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. The festival ejected a transsexual woman, Nancy Burkholder, in the early 1990s.The activist group Camp Trans formed to protest the "womyn-born-womyn" policy and to advocate for greater acceptance of trans women within the feminist community" (7) To pretend second wave feminism accepted these ideas is contrary to the facts. Third wave, however, embraced them and brought them to the forefront of public discourse. For the small list of achievements: 1. "This is a 2nd wave battle and this is a continuation of that molding instead of a "victory"." Con chooses not to include the date of the newer legislation, which was finished in the early 90's, Con ignored the fact that third wave feminism was instrumental in getting it passed. Con offers no sources to refute this fact, aside from statistics indicating the effort worked. 2. "It is not a product of 3rd wave thinking" It directly bans gender-role stereotyping in the classroom, which is a third wave thought. Con also admits the example "Gender Equality Duty of 2007" fits the BOP. Con offers mostlywiki sources. SOURCES: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Johnson, Merri Lisa, ed. (2002). Jane Sexes It Up: True Confessions of Feminist Desire. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows. 3. Hayes Taylor, Kimberly (March 8, 1995). "Feminism reaches the next generation " Walker underscores need for inclusion, change in 'third wave' 4. http://civilliberty.about.com... 5. http://susanfaludi.com... 6. Hines, Sally. TransForming gender: transgender practices of identity, intimacy and care. The Policy Press, 2007. 7. Hand, Michael and Sreedhar, Susanne (2006). "The Ethics of Exclusion: Gender and Politics at the Michigan Womyn's Music Festi

  • PRO

    I had personal issues i needed to take care of, and thus...

    Feminism is bad for society

    Sorry. I had personal issues i needed to take care of, and thus could not get to the internet. Here is my first (and only argument.) Again, sincere apologies. Modern I had personal issues i needed to take care of, and thus could not get to the internet. Here is my first (and only argument.) Again, sincere apologies. Modern feminism is harmful for many reasons. The first hint at this is the prefix "Fem", or about women. Not about men, because feminism doesn't care about inequality towards men. (Child support, divorce issues, lack of attention to male issues, gender stereotypes (Be a man, don't cry, etc.) Now, I would like to address the issue of the "wage gap". The wage gap of 77% was a statistic measured many years ago. This is just assuming this statistic is true, which it probably isn't anyways, because when you factor in the fact that women take jobs that pay less anyways, this issue goes away. (It has been proven that women take jobs involving social sciences more, which pay less than hard science jobs that men are more interested in.) Next I would like to address the issue of domestic violence. Is domestic violence against women a problem? Yes. Of course it is. However, statistics have pointed out that close to 40% of domestic violence victims are men. Little to no attention has been given to this issue, because of feminist double standards. Finally, I would like to address body image. Are women pressured to stay thin? As with domestic violence, yes. They are. But, again, so are men. Men are also subject to the "body norms" of society. This is an undeniable fact. (Not saying this is a good thing, standards for beauty need to be eliminated for both sexes, and the fact that they are still in place proves what a shallow society we are.) If you took the time to read this, thank you. I don't expect you to respond, but very much welcome one.

  • PRO

    The very idea of feminism is now becoming an excuse to...

    Modern Feminism Is Pointless

    Okay, it is now Round 4 and let me sum up your argument in this debate. The whole time you have MOSTLY given only pro-feminist opinions as the thesis for your argument. EVERYONE has an opinion so it is therefore useless in a debate like this. MY thesis has been based off past current events, historical events, and personal experiences to show that the Feminist Movement is not only pointless but it is also hurting people. It is painting a bad image on both men and women that is doing a lot of damage and is contributing to the division of society. The very idea of feminism is now becoming an excuse to get away with outrageous things. Jodi Arias tried to play the I'm just an innocent woman who was defending herself role and it was proven she was lying and that she stalked that man and murdered him in cold blood. She actually had the nerve to say that this man tried to rape her. Now that she is guilty she is trying to avoid the death penalty by trying to convince everyone she is crazy when she is completely sane according to experts. You are defending a so-called "movement" that you claim fights against injustice, but they are actually creating injustice. Like I said a lot of men are losing property and things they love because the feminist movement is putting the idea into people's minds that they are the victims. You say that this is an image just projected in people's minds, but the fact that you go along with looking like a victim all the time only strengthens that image. The Feminist Movement has proven that they have a strict agenda of getting more things that could benefit them and throwing out things that could harm them physically. Stop giving me pointless opinions that I have literally heard from EVERY pro-feminist and give me actual facts and events that suggest that The very idea of feminism is now becoming an excuse to get away with outrageous things. Jodi Arias tried to play the I'm just an innocent woman who was defending herself role and it was proven she was lying and that she stalked that man and murdered him in cold blood. She actually had the nerve to say that this man tried to rape her. Now that she is guilty she is trying to avoid the death penalty by trying to convince everyone she is crazy when she is completely sane according to experts. You are defending a so-called "movement" that you claim fights against injustice, but they are actually creating injustice. Like I said a lot of men are losing property and things they love because the feminist movement is putting the idea into people's minds that they are the victims. You say that this is an image just projected in people's minds, but the fact that you go along with looking like a victim all the time only strengthens that image. The Feminist Movement has proven that they have a strict agenda of getting more things that could benefit them and throwing out things that could harm them physically. Stop giving me pointless opinions that I have literally heard from EVERY pro-feminist and give me actual facts and events that suggest that feminism has been good for our society in the last 20 years.

  • PRO

    I'm not trash talking the first feminists who actually...

    Modern feminism is cancer.

    For the sake of separation of rounds I request that you refrain from addressing any of my arguments in this round (2). This round is solely for building up your arguments. Before I begin, I'd like to define what I mean by modern feminism. Modern feminism refers to the third and fourth wave feminist movements. I'm not trash talking the first feminists who actually strove to achieve equal constitutional rights for men and women, but now it has turned into something else. Every feminist you see on the news or media these days seem hell-bent on "destroying the patriarchy". They blame all the problems they have on men. They say the wage gap that exists is because men are discriminating against women, when they completely ignore that the entire wage gap is the result of individual women's choices. They say women are discouraged from going into STEM fields, when females are even more encouraged than men to pursue these careers. The modern feminist movements try to portray women as victims of society that need special treatment over men. These feminists advocate "equality of the sexes" but when mens' issues are brought up, they disregard them. Also, men and women aren't the same. Feminists sometimes say, "Why are men so afraid to show their feelings?" or "Why do men try so hard to be masculine?" (Try the Buzzfeed video "26 questions women have for men") These feminists try to make men less masculine for the sake of "gender equality" but then go after the masculine guys (because that's how nature works). Obviously this round was a little rushed (sorry for the late response), but I'll have a lot more to say in the upcoming rounds.

CON

  • CON

    Outside of round 2, my opponent has failed to provide...

    The feminism movement should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts

    Closing Statements: 1. On feminism. The irony of this debate is that, Christianity could be said to be one of the earliest proponents of feminism, in that, despite the cultural perspectives on women, Galatians 3:28 [53] epitomizes the view in Christianity that women are spiritually of equal worth to men. Whilst, conversely, in "Politics", Aristotle states that, "The same holds good of animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a better nature than wild [...] Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior" [68], in which he reflects the Greco-Roman attitude of the inherent inferiority of the female sex, in comparing them to animals, in a section of the book wherein he is justifying slavery of those who are inherently inferior – coincidently to this debate, the American slave industry used similar justifications for their treatment of black slaves [69]. Which brings me back to round 2, in which my opponent suggests that economic prosperity is an indication of goodness, which is a weak argument, since once again, similar arguments would have justified the transatlantic slave trade, as slavery was a vital part of the economic system at the time [70]. And, one has to scrutinize the destination of the feminist movement, wherein feminists openly acknowledge the fact that feminism has not made women happy, rather it has caused a negative impact on women's happiness, with the justification being that unhappiness was to price paid for freedom [71]. However, the question arises on whether society has gone from an Orwellian pre-Suffrage system of oppression, to a Huxleyan system of oppression which gives women an illusion of freedom and choice, within the three waves of feminism [72]; which as Peter Hitchens wonderfully illustrates started forming during the second wave of feminism in the 60s, leading to a society in which women are encouraged into wage slavery to be exploited by the corporate machine [73], in the name of freedom, with the benefit of increasing taxable persons and state influence on children, by destabilizing the family unit – all of which has only progressively worsened with 3rd wave feminism. My opponent also off-handedly mentions that poverty and lack of sexual equality seem to be linked, whilst he himself admits that causation does not equate to correlation, he also misses the possibility that this situation may be explained by the fact that developing societies require male-dominated systems to progress, which unless we are provided with contrary evidence we can assume it to be so, seeing as no societies have developed with a female-dominated system [74]. Outside of round 2, my opponent has failed to provide arguments for his resolution in relation to feminism, and why it should not be impeded, whilst I have throughout this debate provided sufficient support for a case against my opponents resolution, in my criticisms of feminism; in fact my opponent has conceded to my argument against the feminist ideology holding any transcendental nature from other ideologies, rather he has simply denied and later ignored my conclusion in round 2. 2. On Bronze Age texts. On the case of Bronze Age texts, I have not only provided the basic argument against Bronze Age texts inherently lacking value and consequently the right to be used to impede feminism, by confronting ideologies that may arise out of feminism, with the ideologies that may be contained within Bronze Age texts, but I have given an example for a case wherein a piece of Bronze Age literature should be used to impede feminism. Once again, in this case, my opponent has not only failed to provide any sufficient refutation against my basic argument against my opponents resolution in regards to Bronze Age texts, but he has also failed to provide sufficient arguments against specific examples of Bronze Age texts, to length of ignoring many of my rebuttals of his claims against Bronze Age texts, namely Biblical texts, despite the fact that some of the original arguments from my opponent were not even of the strictest relevance. Not only has my opponent failed to meet his resolution or refute my arguments, but he has consistently made baseless claims that Bronze Age texts are outdated in their ideological content without providing any arguments or citations for such claims, in a means to argue against the validity of Bronze Age texts; that is, to the point of repeating the same generalized claims, despite the fact that I had previously refuted said claims, such claiming that women were universally only perceived as property, and in particular incubators, in Bronze Age societies, despite my refutation of this claim in my 6th rebuttal, in 4th round. He has also continually made the claim that due to sociological and technological differences in modern and ancient societies, that Bronze Age texts are somehow invalid, without actually making the link between the two things, let alone providing citations to support his argument. Also, my opponent, has stated that Christian (or Jewish/Muslim) texts should, along with feminism, not be above scrutiny, something which I'd obviously agree with on extra-Biblical Jewish/Muslim texts; in fact, I'd agree with him on Biblical texts also, since without careful examination of the Bible, aberrant and heretical doctrines can become manifest as seen in many religious communities, or seen in my opponents provided passages, which out of context supported his arguments, but scrutinized within their entire context were shown to reasonable. 3. On conclusions. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to meet the BoP of his resolution given my arguments in round 2, as clearly illustrated throughout this debate, and furthermore, he has failed to give sufficient rebuttals against my arguments for my assertion that feminism should be impeded on the basis of Bronze Age texts, in specific regards to abortion rights. I have given sufficient arguments to support the position that morally, open access to abortion should not be legal, with Biblical foundation, which would impede feminist movement in regards to the woman's right to choice in abortion; to which, my opponent has failed to provide any refutations, but rather he has simply chosen to ignore my arguments because "in [his] opinion", my arguments were not strong enough, without actually justifying his position. To sum up, my opponent has failed to provide any sufficient argument for his case, and has generally failed to refute my arguments, and has ignored my rebuttals, especially so in regards to the arguments which I provided in round 4, in support of Biblical texts. I would like to close with a verse from the Bible, Psalm 51:5 [75], "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.", which once again affirms the personhood of a fetus in the Bible, which in relation to Exodus 20:13 [10], would provide a Biblical argument against abortion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Due to unforeseen circumstances [76] my previous round was forfeited, however I had posted it online externally [77], and mentioned it in the comments section.

  • CON

    Not every feminist applies these ideologies effectively,...

    Feminism is a flawed ideology and has made women much more miserable

    The problem here is you're just making a broad statement about all feminists. There are at least 3 mainstream versions of feminism. Not every feminist subscribes to a specific version. Most feminists have their own views on what their tenants should be. You specifically say that the ideology of feminism is flawed. The ideology behind feminism is equality for woman. Do you have a problem with equality for woman? The tenants of modern feminism are simply drawn from this ideology. Not every feminist applies these ideologies effectively, But many do. Overall, Your argument is far too vague and unless you're in favor of woman being unequal to men, Then your argument won't even get off the ground, Let alone fly. Your floor.

  • CON

    I don't see where the confusion is? ... Sources: [1]...

    Humanism is a better ideology then Feminism

    You seem to be confused what the wage gap actually means. It means that a man and a woman working at the same position are paid less. This isn't about spending habits, or maternity leave. This ambiguity isn't present, and this whole maternity leave and periods being factors against hiring a person is stupid. The US has the one of the shortest periods for maternity leave, and there is no national program for mother's on this leave[1]. Uh, the point is that females make up at least half the population but have a fifth the representation in it's governing body. You claim there to be a grey area here my rapid, instantly assuming feminist brain is looking over, but unless you expect for me to open my heart and gain this information, I'm going to need an examples. Uh, no, that's a patriarchal ordeal. I don't know if actually read my argument, but there were SEVEN HUNDRED bills proposed to regulate the bodies of women. Now, I know republicans are persistent, but are you saying there were 700 bills on abortion alone? And the idea that because there are men and women that disagree/agree with abortion makes this NOT a gender issue is laughable at best and a poor attempt to sweep this under the rug at worst. Do you know what makes this a gender issue? There were 700 bills about the bodies of women, and none about men! I don't see where the confusion is? What did you even say here? Are you saying females dominate rape? You could back up your position with facts and resources but I guess you couldn't be asked. The point was that victims are blamed when they shouldn't be. Uh, you said feminists are lucky to have any ground in politics. You never say modern feminists, or extreme feminists, you just say feminists. From such a vague statement I thought you mean past feminism that got women's rights. So there wasn't a strawman there. It was you failing to specify which feminism, probably because you couldn't be asked. You can disagree with feminists, but to say they are lucky because they found a foothold in the modern day is plain disrespectful and dishonest. You say feminists aren't equipped to handle issues in Africa (not even sure what that means), though I'm assuming you got this information from one of the voices in your head because you don't even try to back this up. You even admitted in some round that humanism probably can't solve issues in Africa either, so what is even the point in saying this? I didn't contradict myself. Feminism is a movement for gender equality and to stop sexism. Women are often the victims of sexism, so women's rights are often what is fought for. I'd like to point out again that you seem to really dislike feminists but MRAs are cool in your book because the voices, I guess. Again, you are taking the exception and making it the rule. So your next paragraph can be summed up with, again, taking the exception and making it the rule. Being calm can get one's point across, but it isn't the only way. Also, you contradicted yourself here. You say feminists made enemies of the MRAs, not the other way around. However, go back to the second round, and you admit the MRAs say feminists are their enemies. Which is it, bud? You quoted him as if he was an authority on the subject. He's not, and he's definitely not qualified to be talking about such issues. May I also point out here that you are getting your ideas on gender politics... from a comedian? Sources: [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...

  • CON

    Victories such as gaining the vote, the right to an...

    Feminism Has Plenty More To Achieve

    Feminism has no more battles left to fight. Victories such as gaining the vote, the right to an abortion(in most of the northern hemisphere) and the right to equal pay were important and worth winning. But given that sexual equality is now - rightly - enshrined and protected in law, there is nothing left for the feminist movement to do in most western countries. It may still be useful in parts of the world where women still lack basic democratic and other rights. However, in western society the feminist cause in no longer needed.

  • CON

    This is because each movement of unequaled people has...

    Humanism > Feminism

    When we view these two terms in the same light and context as you describe, feminism seems to be exclusionary. It focuses solely on women, and in it's attempt at empowering women so they don't feel like the victims, turns around and makes them the victims of a supposed "Patriarchy". Within these boundaries, it would seem that feminism is a circular argument with selfish goals. But this is only due to the way inequality is handled within the United States and, possibly, the world as a whole. It is equivalent to the way laws are handled, we don't have a way of dealing with a situation until we are faced with that situation, so if you do something that isn't against the law, but it should be, you won't be punished for it. Racism, for the longest time, was considered a holy and correct thing to do. Even when slavery ended, black hatred stayed around because it was commonly accepted that blacks were lower class citizens, and some even believed that blacks were lower forms of humans. Today, for the most part, these ideas would be shockingly racist and hateful, especially now that America has a black president. However, these ideas would likely have never been scrutinized if black people never rose up to defend themselves. It would still be a perfectly normal thing to do to throw rocks into their house windows or beat them up in the street simply because racist parents where teaching their children to think like them, and the children seeing the way blacks are treated, accept this way of thinking as a fact of life. Now, not all children of the times grew up to hate blacks and some even joined the black marches and defended blacks whenever they could, but those types of people were rare compared to the amount of racists on the opposition side. The need to maintain a "status quo" and not get ridiculed by their fellow peers kept far too many secret anti-racists from speaking out, mostly because they didn't know they could. Now, I could have been talking about any type of inequality topic with a few replacement of words. This is because each movement of unequaled people has followed a similar path that was originally blazed by blacks (talking mostly about America right now). Women's rights, Gay rights, Religious rights, Black rights, etc. Each of these groups have had their own extremist sections, such as the blacks Black Panthers, but those groups have done almost nothing to slow down the equalizing of the original movement. They were mostly ignored and treated as outliers by the more moderate activists, often saying, "These people don't represent our cause". Muslims is another example of extremists within their community being the most outspoken and violent of the Islamic cause, making some people have distorted views about what Islam is for and what Muslims's want. The same can be said for Christianity when viewing Fundamentalist Christians as the extreme section of the belief. The impact each of the extremist sections has on the views of the people they supposedly represent is entirely on the person who is trying to make an opinion about them. If everyone viewed the Black Panthers as the face of the civil rights movement, MLK Jr would have been waved off and forgotten about as an extremist idealist, but because there were enough people willing to listen to what he had to say, it was clear to most what the original intention of the movement was and that it was an issue that needed to be addressed peacefully. The point I'm making here is that change doesn't happen over night. Not everyone is aware that there is a problem to be sorted out simply because it isn't a factor in their daily lives. Meat processing is a newish issue that was never thought about as an actual problem until people started looking at the way the cows were being treated and that they, shockingly enough, had to be slaughtered to garner their meat. Now it's in everyone's lives that we mass produce meat to keep up with demand to the detriment of the cows and Vegans have sprung up from that information. It wasn't a problem before because no one thought about it. Someone had to say something, to make a video or documentary, someone had to stand up for animal rights and bring the issue to the public eye. We can say all day how everyone should be treated equally and no one should be excluded from this, but we don't actually know what the problems are until they are pointed out. In the Islamic religion, women are subjugated by men simply because their book tells them it's what their supposed to do. Now, the Muslim women have a problem; continue to be subjugated and keep their religion, or be free women and lose their faith. Anytime you see a Muslim woman with her head covered, no matter how free she looks, she has chosen to continue with her religion and to accept that her head should be covered, because she is a woman. She has chosen religious freedom over her right to wear whatever she wants because that is how her priorities have been set. There is no middle ground she can reach to be equal in both aspects because her beliefs prevent it. Feminism, non-extremist feminism, is simply women standing up and saying, "We have been mistreated by men and we demand equality". Now that the feminist movement has started, people are now aware that there is a problem within the status quo. The only way the public will ever see that men are also being mistreated by women, on occasion because it certainly isn't that often, is by standing up and speaking out about it. Men actually have a harder time of doing this because we are not supposed to be victims, we are not supposed to complain about our situation because, as men, we are supposed to fix the problem. The fact that men can't complain will never be considered a debatable issue until the public sees it as one, and the only way to get the publics attention is to cause a ruckus. As nice as it would be for equality to be a clear and obvious term, it just isn't. Humans don't think that way, we would rather live our lives peacefully and blissfully ignorant of what's going on around us, as long as everything seems hunky-dory. We even invented a word for it, Normal. As long as everything is Normal, there isn't any problems, as soon as we realize there is a problem within our normality, we do whatever we can to fix that problem so we can go back to our previous state. It's up to those who feel victimized and hurt by normal to speak out against it, otherwise, everything just seems... Normal.

  • CON

    Let us also assume that every woman who defines themself...

    Feminism is no longer about gender equality

    Now that Pro has redefined the sphere of debate to feminism in the West, which I am happy to accept, I feel that I must shall begin by reiterating the difference between feminism and misandry. Feminism is the belief that women are not inferior; misandry is the belief that men are inferior, and conversely that women are superior. A misandrist often suffers failure of logic through generalisation. For example, Some men are rapists. Therefore, all men are rapists. Therefore, all rapists are men. Pro is unfortunately falling into the same pattern: Some feminists are misandrists. Therefore, all feminists are misandrists. Therefore, all misandrists are feminists. Statistically, many women dislike the term 'feminist' because of it's association with misandry. Only 27% of women would term themselves feminists in the U.S. (http://www.cbsnews.com...) and yet 65% would describe themselves as feminists when the term was specifically defined as 'interested in equality between the sexes' (http://www.cbsnews.com...). Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that every woman who openly terms themselves a 'feminist' in this particular set of polls is a misandrist. (Not true, but simply for the sake of a rough figure here). Let us also assume that every woman who defines themself as a feminist when the non-misandrist definition is offered them, but would not like to be termed a feminist due to the association of the term with misandry, is not a misandrist (Again not necessarily true, but more likely to be so since they are specifically disassociating with the term through it's hostility). That makes it 27% of females who are misandrists; and 38% who are not but who would call themselves feminist. I feel this displays clearly my own contention; the majority of feminists, women interested in equality between the genders, are not misandrists. This of itself is a skewed proportion, since I sincerely doubt that all women who would term themselves feminists are misandrists. As an anecdotal piece of evidence towards that; I woke up this morning and turned the laptop on to check updates, emails etc (something I often do to wake myself up). On considering this debate I turned to my partner and asked, "Love, am I a misandrist?" He laughed, and answered, "Of course not." Yet I have considered myself a feminist all of my life. Further to that, the feminist movement is questioning the misandrists in it's ranks (http://www.feministcritics.org...) and arguing against misandry (http://sexademic.wordpress.com...); as I do myself. However, as long as some Western men consider women inferior, there will be a need for Western feminists to make the case that women are not inferior, separate to and apart from misandrists.

  • CON

    A1: Unequal rights in STEM fields Now that it is very...

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

    Thank you, VoiceofEquality, for instigating this debate. Since my opponent is Pro in this debate, he/she has the burden of proof to show that “feminism is for equal rights for all genders not just for women”. In the event that feminism is shown to be for unequal rights in certain circumstances, or in the alternate event wherein my opponent fails to provide arguments to affirm the resolution, the resolution is negated and I win. Negative Case Premise: The myth of gender equality At the biological level, prima facie, it is clear that women, who are anatomically very different to men (e.g. genitals), are not equal in this sense. But the differences run deeper. At the University of Pennsylvania, there was found to be striking differences in the neurological wiring of men’s and women’s brains. Specifically, neurological connection is found to be mostly forward and back with men, whilst women have connections left to right [1]. These differences manifest in ability, such as men being “better at learning and performing single tasks, such as cycling or navigating, whilst women tend to be better at multitasking and problem-solving in group situations. These differing abilities also manifest in preferences. In his book Gender, Nature, and nurture, and as spoken in the documentary ‘Brainwash: The Gender Equality Paradox’, Richard Lippa talks of his survey that collaborated answers from over 200,000 people in 53 counties. They were all asked what they wanted to work with. He found that, “men [were] much more orientated in the thing orientated occupations. Women, relatively, are much more orientated to the people professions… This is consistent across all the countries… Something biological is going on.” [2] [3]. Also found within this documentary is Trond Diseth of the Oslo Univeristy Hospital Research. Trond specifically works with “children with deformed genitals” and tries to work out which sex the children are. He does with the methodology of placing male, female and neutral toys in front of the child. He found that there are “clear differences between what the two gender gravitate towards… Children are born with a clear biological disposition” [3]. A1: Unequal rights in STEM fields Now that it is very clear that there are differences between the genders, why is feminism’s pursuit of equality harmful (i.e. what is the impact?). Programs and organisations that push women towards certain professions, such as the ‘Steminist’ organisation, are a waste of time and money because for the large majority of women, they are not interested in the ‘thing’ orientated professions. But it gets worse. There exists ‘gender quotas’ so that there is a push towards ‘gender equality’ in the workforce. These quotas mean that a certain number of women are required to be accepted into the STEM fields, or else the college will get into trouble [4], of which was backed by U.S President Barrack Obama [5]. BUT IT GETS EVEN WORSE. In 2012, there was serious talk (involving Barrack Obama) of ‘limiting male enrolment into science fields’ [6]. Such blatant misandry is the final stage of feminist rhetoric and is clearly fighting for unequal rights between the genders. The conception of feminist’s equal rights for all genders is plagued by the incorrect premise that the genders are equal (i.e. that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCES between the genders). Such a premise is wholly fallacious and results in feminism fighting for UNEQUAL RIGHTS, due to trying to correct for nonsense like the patriarchy. A1’s example is a clear demonstration of feminism not understanding the inherent differences between the genders, labelling these differences as sexist against women, and thus trying to correct by being sexist against men. Hence, in reality, feminism is for unequal rights between the genders, even though feminists think it is about equal rights. Counter-arguments “Feminism is about gender equality and the reason it is called feminism is because even though it's about gender equality it's women who are underprivileged." As demonstrated under Premise and A1, it is the fallacious presumption that women are “underprivileged” that creates a false premise. When feminists work with the premise that the world is inherently sexist against them, instead of recognising the real, biological inequalities between the genders, policies aimed at correcting this non-existent problem (in the form of gender quotas) are inherently sexist against men. “I want to grow up in a world were women don't get judged if they wear makeup or if they don't wear makeup. I want to grow up in a world were if a boy wants to were makeup he can without fear of being bullied or judged. I want to grown up in a world were if a girl has short hair she isn't stereotyped as a lesbian and if a boy is flamboyant he isn't stereotyped as gay.” Your wants are pure abstraction that do not fit reality, much like feminism does not fight for equal gender rights. A collaborative study by Viktoria R. Mileva (Univeristy of Stirling, Scotland), Alex Jones (University of Bangor, Wales) and Richard Russell (Gettysburg College, USA), showed that women who do not wear make-up are, generally, less attractive [7]. At the biologically level (i.e. the subconscious), women are judged regardless of whether you want them to be, as this is mate selection at play. The reasons for women wearing make-up and not encouraging men to do it, is because make-up was invented to make women look more fertile and or healthy. For example, from roughly 1500-1600 AD, “European women often attempt to lighten their skin using a variety of products, including white lead paint. Queen Elizabeth I of England was one well-known user of white lead, with which she created a look known as "the Mask of Youth”. There is not a reason for men to apply make-up in day-to-day life, hence the stigma against it. 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. Take a look at the following photos and tell me which version looks better and which version is more likely to be considered a lesbian: Likewise, flamboyancy in boys is attributed to homosexuals because homosexuals are, on average, more flamboyant than heterosexual men. It would be like wearing a t-shirt that says “Abortion is murder” but also holding the opinion that abortion is acceptable. Sure, your shirt does not necessarily reflect your opinion, but you cannot blame people for assuming that you are against abortion when you give cues to say that you are. So, the point of addressing each of these points is to show how feminism, in fighting for equal gender rights, fails to recognise or understand the important context in which these gender differences are inspired by, hence the ridiculous conclusions that feminism comes to (women are wholly oppressed by white, straight men; there is absolutely no inherent difference between the genders). “Feminism isn't about hating men and I have to admit there are some people who use the word feminist wrong and think its about women being superior but it's not about that it's about that equality for all genders.” In practice, feminism advocates for unequal rights, as demonstrated with A1. References [1] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... [2] http://books.google.com.au... [3] [4] http://dailycaller.com... [5] http://www.human.cornell.edu... [6] http://www.amnation.com... [7] http://www.ehbea2013.com... [8] http://cosmeticsinfo.org... [9] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

  • CON

    2: How does allowing abortion reduce responsibility? ......

    Feminism is no longer beneficial to our modern society

    Pro: "I would say it [the gender pay gap] doesn't matter anymore because in our society women don't have it much harder and the work they have to do to achieve a similar amount of materialistic success as men." Women earn ~80% of comparable men, maybe ~90% if you're generous. Thus, women have to work 25% or 11% harder in the United States to achieve results comparable to men, simply because they were born female. I do not see how that could possibly be considered fair. Pro: "The minor problem is that the information is rather updated and women gets a paid maternity leave for about a year." 1: My data is from 2010. 2: In many countries, such as the USA, there is no such maternity leave. Furthermore, how does a temporary leave for what amounts to a temporary medical condition resolve the pay gap? Unless women are on maternity leave for 20% of their time 3: In most countries that have a parental leave (to raise the kid), both men and women can use it. The only reason women "benefit" from such a leave is that women are forced into maternal roles. Pro: "The bigger problem is that it is a global data, not fitting with the rules of this debate." 1: My data talks *only* about the USA. Pro: "Boys are also often exposed to sexual harassment and the only reason men are not is because of natural physical advantage which men are slowly losing." 1: I agree. I cited a feminist group that helped redefine rape at the federal level, so that men can now get police assistance with their rapes, because the definition rape disincluded male rape [6]. Feminists just hate men, eh? Pro: "As of birth control and reproductive rights, again, if you read the rules of this debate properly, third world and developing countries are out of the picture and I don't see UK and US having birth control problems right?" 1: In the EU: "The availability of abortion varies across the European Region: almost all countries allow abortion to save a woman’s life and 90% to preserve mental or physical health; 88% of them allow abortion if the foetus is thought to be impaired, or in case of rape or incest. Nearly 80% allow abortion for economic and social reasons, and slightly fewer offer abortion on request. ... In Malta and Andorra abortion is illegal on any grounds. In Poland and Ireland, legal abortion is severely limited in availability" [8]. Yet: "Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence; women seek desperate measures if they cannot obtain safe abortions. Data from Romania revealed that, when termination of pregnancy was banned by the Ceausescu regime, maternal mortality was more than 20 times higher than today" [8]. 2: In the USA: Just look at the maps [9]. Pro: "You didn't define reproductive rights but I think you meant abortion which should totally be banned. Women should, just like men, be held responsible for their actions." 1: Banning abortion doesn't reduce abortions, and thus doesn't ensure that women be held responsible for their actions. 2: How does allowing abortion reduce responsibility? Pro: "Again, as of rape, we see a loophole, we can strengthen law enforcement but allowing abortion is like twisting the whole system to allow rape." 1: ??? Pro: "As of the second rebuttal, yes, you can say they are not true feminists, but you have to admit that they are indeed sparked by feminism. And feminism is what makes them look appropriate and proportionate to some people." 1: This is just argument by assertion. Where's the evidence that feminism causes these effects? Pro: "Quotes aren't that powerful, I just used a famous one to support my point because I was running out of time." 1: >Pro uses a quote to support case >Con uses 20 quotes to support case >Pro disregards Con's quote, but keeps Pro's quote 2: Prefer my quotes. There's a hella them. Pro: "Do you see any major feminist campaign that 1, doesn't call itself humanist/equalist and 2, provide equal service to both men and women?" 1: ??? Pro: "As of the racism thing, I have a similar view. At first it was great, Martin Luther King did a great job and achieved a lot. But today, if there are still people constantly stressing the fact that blacks don't receive equal treatment which, in some cases is true, I will be solemnly annoyed. The movement was good but if it is pushed any farther, it is a little too much." 1: Why? Blacks are vastly underemployed as a result of societal and historical discrimination, kind of like women. 2: Pro misses my point. Pro talks about feminist extremists; I talk about the average feminist. Just cause feminist extremists are crazy doesn't mean feminism is. Pro: "I apologise for the Japanese example which you seemingly have no experience in (no offense, very few do)." 1: Is fine. Pro: "However, I can prove that I am right. (I am not going to now. If you want me to, you can tell me to in the comments section, I really am not trying to search for excuses, I simply want to stay on topic). In fact, I will post it in the comments section right afterwards." 1: Uh, OK. Pro: "The program will be perfectly fine IF it is not sexist to create a similar program that is boys only. "Pro has yet to demonstrate that such programs are a result of feminism". Umm... They are not, sort of. The fact is, without feminism, there will be no programs like this. Again, I wonder if you read the definitions and rules of the debate. Just read the definition of feminism..." 1: Many programs are turning to equal treatment for both genders. Pro: "Yes, it is true that the commercial didn't paint it in positive light, but that argument can be used on a lot of things. Can you defend ABC by saying Jimmy Kimmel didn't put killing all Chinese people in positive light? The fact that if the person said sorry it's a girl will cause an outcry proves my point. And you can try to prove me wrong in the comments section." 1: Let's say I have a commercial, and in it a neo-Nazi says something in passing and the main character of the commercial gets creeped out. Do I need to apologize for the neo-Nazi? Pro: "Again, what you said is true but you should have read my definition of modern society which is not correct but we have to settle for for the sake of this debate." 1: Actually, killing feminism in developed nations is a sure way to kill it in nondeveloped nations, since much of the support for feminism in Africa and Asia comes from the West. 2: Women still aren't equal in the USA, EU, Japan, or South Korea; there's still impact in "modern society". Pro: "Yah, it wasn't very clear, but what I mean is that we need to be able to oppose feminism without sounding like trolls and keyboard warriors. Right now, this isn't entirely feminism's fault but it seems as if it is immoral to oppose feminism and anyone who is doing so is crazy and adsorb." 1: Thousands if not millions of people oppose feminism without repercussion. Look at the Republican Party. Pro: "In our modern society, again, referring to my definition, feminists are simply too close minded. It seems as though they will just dismiss anyone who disagrees with their ideology as trolls and I think that is part of the reason it developed men hate. Men are less "proficient" at being "brainwashed" by this ideology while women, generally, become immediately attached to the concept." 1: Sources for brainwashing and women-attraction? 2: Why are feminists any more close-minded than, MRAs? [8] euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Life-stages/sexual-and-reproductive-health/activities/abortion/facts-and-figures-about-abortion-in-the-european-region [9] fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/maps-of-access-to-abortion-by-state/

  • CON

    When both use the same comparison to agree with the parts...

    Modern Feminism is Not Needed in America

    If Pro wanted to use the common method rather than after the argument he would have followed the guidelines set forth in the new member’s sticky “In addition, when typing your debate argument, there is a common way of citing sources on DDO. In your argument, when you have just typed an argument that references a source, you simply put a number in brackets [1] like so. [1] References the source listed below as #1. This is the same source citing technique Wikipedia uses. [2]” http://www.debate.org... By calling it out he implies that he doesn’t want to put the sources at the end of the round but rather at the end of the argument. It’s poor conduct that he is refuses to bracket the location where the source is used, thereby adding to confusion in his posts. So I will continue to follow the rules set forth at the beginning and link my sources after the arguments rather than at the end of the round. Mutual blame – Pro chose the topics of the debate then he chose my position on those topics. A position which I did not take, and he has NOT proven in any way that these are the prevailing views of feminism. This is a baseless unsubstituted claim that should be dismissed out of hand. Even if it was accepted the debate did NOT require me to take a stance of his choosing so that he has an easy time defeating that stance. On TOP of that in R1 I was already objecting to the Rape Culture, and Pro still used that strawman. Pro has been dishonest throughout this whole debate. Wage Gap “42 minutes less” and “21% less” compares all female jobs against all male jobs. Pro cannot support one as valid data and the other not. To say the 21% wage gap isn’t valid because it’s not specific to the job, but still hold that 42 minutes less a day is valid even though it’s not specific to the job is dishonest. The point being if you don’t believe every job should be paid the same you should believe that every job should work the same number of hours. When both use the same comparison to agree with the parts that support your point of view, while disagreeing with the parts that don’t is dishonest. Either the comparison is valid or it is not. Also, I want to add both of my sources consider several factors beyond job title. The go into background, experience, education, region, and a many more things that define merit. They do NOT simply compare the same job titles. Read either of the articles. Although both articles discuss uncontrolled data, they also discuss controlled data which takes these other factors into account to come up with the 5 – 8% wage gap. Equal Opportunity Pro did not dispute my statements about the opportunity of women to become a CEO. So, the point stands. A specific wage gap but rather the wage gap as a whole? There is only one valid wage gap in my opinion, and that is the wage gap that compares apples to apples. I do not feel that comparing all women’s pay to all men’s pay is a valid wage gap. I’m not sure why you continue with this strawman. I am not, nor have I ever argued that the 21% wage gap is valid. That is not the wage gap as a whole, because… it’s not valid. The 5 – 8% isn’t a specific wage gap… it’s the only valid wage gap. It’s the whole wage gap. Please STOP trying to create a position that you can easily defeat and try to force me to defend it. This is a strawman fallacy, and it is dishonest. If you really felt like the “wage gap as a whole” is 21% you would NOT be on my side of this argument, but you don’t, and you aren’t. Please stop. Rape 2.1/1000 does equal .0021 but that’s not .0021 percent, that’s .21% as I previously showed. As you seem to need a calculator here is a link to one proving you are wrong, and dishonest. https://percentagecalculator.net... Pro did not and has not disputed that women are rape unequally to men. This argument goes to Con. Female Representation Pro has agreed that females are not equally represented in media. (even the media he’s cherry picked) Equality does not exist in any of these forms of entertainment even when women consume more of that form of entertainment. In conclusion, I spent the majority of this debate trying to bring the debate from what Pro wants my position to be to what my position actually is. He has falsified numbers, he has uses sources that both of us agree are invalid, and cherry picked the data all in a dishonest attempt to prove his points. Feminism is defined as equality, so if any of the arguments prove that inequality exists, then Feminism is needed in America. I believe I’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that inequality does exist, and if inequality exists then Feminism is needed.

  • CON

    The grandiose delusion I speak of in the aforementioned...

    The feminism movement should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts

    Arguments: 1. Is feminism irreproachable? The very least of my argument against pro's position would be, essentially, what is wrong with “delaying” the “definition” of certain women's “rights”, as per my opponents definitions? Take consideration: an inappropriately defined right would respectively lead to said inappropriate right being established and achieved (by my opponents given definition, although such a case would not be much of an achievement in reality). For example, would the establishment of “equality” for women in the form of having them perform alongside males in athletics be appropriate, on the inherent value of a skewed sense of equality? This isn't just a purely hypothetical scenario either, such cases are already being discussed [1], even on this very site, with certain justifications for yes votes reflecting the sad state of delusion left on society by feminism, such as “Gender Shouldn't Matter Gender should not be a factor in determining the opponents and teammates of an athlete. Girls are just as strong as boys, and with hard work and perseverance can train themselves to be better at their sport then the boys. It is sexist to use gender as a factor in determining the athlete's abilities, and demeaning to tell a girl "you can't play on the team, you aren't strong enough."” [2]. The grandiose delusion I speak of in the aforementioned reference, is that males and females are on equal par in regards to physical abilities; anybody who has been through secondary education should have the knowledge that this is obviously erroneousness [3], although I wouldn't even patronise a young child by insinuating they did not know such a self-evident fact. Just in case there are any contentions about the fact that men and women are physically different, there are many scientific studies which attest to this fact (e.g. [4]), although a cross-examination of Great British powerlifting records show the disparity between the physical strength of men and women; for example, the record for the open 84kg weight class for females for open equipped squat is 212.5kg, whilst the record for the open 83kg weight class for males unequipped squat is 262.5kg, let alone the respective open 83kg weight class for males equipped squat being 342.5kg – not to mention that the women's weight class only extend to 84kg+, while men's extends to 120kg+ [5]. Furthermore, more appropriately, cross-examination of world records in athletics clearly show a difference in the physical aptitude of males and females [6]. Another example could be endeavours to establish equality in conscription laws, which would see women being legally obliged to fight on the front line as infantry, all in the aims of equalising women's rights in relation to men's. Once again, this isn't an entirely hypothetical scenario, as Norway has already started “conscripting” women, although there conscription laws being liberal in these cases, with the female population of their military being only 9% [7], clearly showing the hypocritical lack of “equality” despite their misguided ideologies. All this, clearly shows that despite what ever intentions, feminism is not infallible and sometimes needs to be challenged. In a means to increase relevancy to the overall subject of the debate, I refer you to Numbers 1:2-3 “Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, [...] every male by their polls; From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel” [8], illustrates that Biblically only men who were expected to be drafted to fight. A final question at this point, that is, does my opponent believe there is any literature whatsoever that has a right to impede feminism? 2. Does the age of literature automatically void their worth? The second area of my argument is simply a criticism of my opponents fallacious presupposition, given the resolution, that the fact that a piece of text is ancient is reason alone to dismiss it as a whole; there were many texts from antiquity [9], and to dismiss any arguments from all these texts simply due to their age is, well, silly. For example, take one of the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill.” [10], which I think we can agree teaches a correct moral law, and then take Elliot Rodgers manifesto, which, once again I think we can agree, promotes immoral ideology, especially in reference to females [11]; doing so, we can evidently see that despite the antiquity of the former and the modernity of the latter, one is morally correct, whilst the other is severely lacking in morality. As a side note, I should also mention, that being a Christian, it is my view that the Bible is timeless, so criticisms on its antiquity is not pertinent – although I do not expect that my opponent will concede to this viewpoint. 3. Therefore, the pro resolution is essentially flawed. We see then, in principle, given that feminism isn't infallible and irreproachable, sometimes it should be impeded in its goals, and since the age of a text is not indicative of its worth, there is no inherent reason to prohibit Bronze Age texts from impeding feminism. My opponent even concedes to this point where he states that “[he is] not adverse to taking the good bits from [the Bible]”, but that simply he “cannot conceive of any aspect of this ancient traditional view that could impede the progress of feminism and still be considered a good bit”, displaying that its not that he is arguing that Bronze Age texts should not impede feminism in essence, but that he just has not seen any reason as of yet for any Bronze Age text to impede feminism, which I would disagree with. 4. Why Bronze Age texts (namely the Bible) should impede feminism. Now, to the crux of the issue, one example I would like to give as to how Biblical text should unquestionably impede feminism, is in the matter of abortion rights. Abortion is widely seen in feminist ideology as right of absolute free to all women [12], whilst the Bible takes opposition to such ideology, by declaring the sinfulness of abortion Exodus 21:22-24 “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her [...] if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth” [13], and as such, I believe that in the case of “women's rights” to open access to abortion should be impeded on such grounds. That is not to say that I believe that those who take part in abortions should be killed, as the referenced scripture states, in light of further scripture in Matthew 5:38-39 “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil” [14]. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I look forward to tackling my opponent specific contentions in regards to my stance on feminism and ancient texts – namely the Biblical texts. I will be saving my rebuttals for the following round(s). [1]: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk... [2]: http://www.debate.org.../ [3]: http://www.bbc.co.uk... [4]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.../ [5]: http://www.gbpf.org.uk... [6]: http://www.iaaf.org.../ [7]: http://www.norway.org.uk... [8]: https://www.biblegateway.com... [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org... [10]: https://www.biblegateway.com... [11]: http://abclocal.go.com... [12]: http://socialistworker.org... [13]: https://www.biblegateway.com... [14]: https://www.biblegateway.com...