PRO

  • PRO

    Though cases do go unreported, it is unlikely that the...

    Modern Feminism is Not Needed in America

    The Wage Gap; The wage gap is the first of feminist myths. There is no statistical evidence for the 79% claim as that is based off yearly earnings and not wages, and when all factors are accounted for women make 98% with a 4% margin of error, meaning that they might even make more. Most arguments in the 90%-96% range still do not account for many factors that go into yearly earnings, such as the fact that women work on average 42 minutes less each day. Lastly, if women feel that they are being paid less, they are allowed to sue under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 signed into law by JFK. Equal Opportunity: Equal opportunity is the best way to maintain freedoms of all persons in a nation. Equal outcome would result is suppression of rights for those getting paid less for their work as the only way to ensure equal outcome is to force, in this case women, to work in jobs which paid higher, not allowing them to follow their own wills. Otherwise you would have to lower the jobs men could have, resulting in a lowering economy and again restricting freedoms. Equal opportunity has already been achieved as there are no laws which target women or help men further in life. Rape Culture: Statistics according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics show that only 2.1 of 1000 persons had been a victim of rape, or .0021%. Though cases do go unreported, it is unlikely that the 20%-33% statistics are accurate as the original statistic would have to be increased 10000 times. The problem with statistics ranging from 20%-33% is that they are done in surveys with vague questions, many not fitting under the legal definitions of rape or sexual assault, making the statistics positively skewed. Statistics from the NWAV show that roughly .1% of males and .3% of females are raped annually, not including prison rape, which when included show over 200000 additional rapes against men. Though rapes do occur, the 1/3-1/5 statistics vastly over-represent the truth, and there is no evidence that rape is a result of culture. Female Representation: Last is representation of females, and when I talk about this I am referring to 2 topics, sexualization and appearance in movies, shows, and video games. First, media is over-sexualized for both sexes. The difference is that women are more likely to respond negatively to sexual imagery, and take personal offense. Only about 1/6 men showed care for sexually explicit imagery of men in commercials, so while they are displayed, men often do not care about the imagery. Also there is the myth that women are not represented as much in media because of sexism. First, when talking about films, women are the minority producers and writers, therefore when a writer makes a story about a character which he could understand, he picks a man character. This leads to more movies being about men than women, as it is what the creators are used to. For video games, though there are statistics showing that women and men are very evenly split among 'gamers', many of the female 'gamers' are counted on phone apps. When studying the most popular game platform on PC, Steam, women only make up 18% of the users, and as a result developers make games for their main audience, men. Conclusion: There is no explicit sexism demonstrated in any of these 4 topics, showing equal opportunity for women in work and media. There is also no evidence for a culture problem which leads to sexual violence and rape. Women are not discriminated against in America whether it be in culture or law, and therefore feminism is not necessary. Further Points: -A definition cannot define a movement, only actions define a movement, because of this the definition of feminism is not a proper argument for feminism. -Though 82% of Americans believe in the definition of feminism, only 20% of Americans are feminists (23% female and 16% male.), and the number is not growing. Sources: -http://www.payscale.com... -https://www.forbes.com... -https://www.bjs.gov... -http://www.escapistmagazine.com... -https://galyonk.in... (See games for women.) -http://www.mainstreethost.com... -https://www.eeoc.gov... -http://research.omicsgroup.org... -http://www.dailymail.co.uk... -http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

  • PRO

    while other women are being treated with real sexism we...

    Feminism Needs to die out

    while other women are being treated with real sexism we have selfish American women who have not stood against that, just their own. in over half the world, women just have been cleaning dishes and is In charge of the house, sure in 40% it was bad for them, but most feminism is happening in places where they weren't treated badly I'm not saying that they shouldn't have rights, I'm saying they are taking it to far, girlfriends that their boyfriends badly as well, and while it is true that a guy dumps her for being pregnant, a girl will disrespect their boyfriends opinion and have an abortion (I'm pro choice though, but I think men should have a say too) a women who doesn't take it too far isn't a feminist, she is an egalitarian

  • PRO

    Only stupid people think that Feminism is a good thing....

    Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries

    Only stupid people think that Feminism is a good thing. Women want to be treated equally but at the same time, not at all like men treat other men; I.E being punched in the face. Feminism when understood is a childish outcry from bitchz.

  • PRO

    She then stated that she likes cooking for her husband....

    Feminism Isn't Actually for Women's Rights.

    Thank you for accepting. I look forward to debating this with you. I guess I wasn't clear when I said first round is for acceptance. The second round was meant for opening arguments so I will post mine now. I will also let you know we are debating on modern day feminism which has come a long way since the great depression. Even I will admit that from the beginning of feminism up until the mid to late 80's, feminism was a just cause. Now, however; it is a corrupt and utterly disgusting cause full of women who are trying to change the lives and lifestyles of all women around them to be miserable just as theirs are. Not too long ago Kayle Cuoco-Sweeting was attacked by feminists for saying she wasn't a feminist. She got so much hate and rude messages that she felt obligated to apologize for something she shouldn't have to appologize for. When asked by RedBook if she was feminist she said "It's not something I think about. Things are different now and I know a lot of the worked that paved the way for women happened before I was around. I was never that feminist girl demanding equality. Maybe that's because I never faced inequality." She then stated that she likes cooking for her husband. "It makes me feel like a housewife," she said. "I like that. I know it sounds old fashioned but I like the idea of women taking care of their men." This sent feminists into a frenzy. All because a highly regarded female didn't share their beliefs. Source: usherald.com/kayle-cuoco-not-feminist/ Now let's talk statistics. Only 20% of women openly identify as feminist. That was a 2015 poll by m.huffpost.com/us/feminism-poll_n_3094917.html. In 2014, 28% of the American population identified as feminist. Yet 82% of people support gender equality. I am one of those 82%. I am not a feminist though. Now, let's talk about feminists claiming "opression." Let's face it. Women in the U.S. are not oppressed. If you want to see opression, look at the middle east. Women there are basically forced to wear clothing that the majority of them object to wearing. They aren't even aloud to drive. That's opression. Having a door held open for you by a man because he wants to be nice is not opression. Finally, let's talk about women claiming that they do not have equal rights to men. Women actually have more righgs than men. 1. Women have the right to genital integrity. No matter how you feel about the practice of circumcision, girls are protected against genital cutting of any kind and infant boys are not. 2. Women have the right to vote without agreeing to die. Women gain the right to vote by simply surviving 18 years. Men, however; cannot be eligible to vote until they sign with the Selective Service. This means they will have to be shiped off to war and be willing to die if deemed necessary by the government. 3. Women have the right to choose parenthood. Women can have an unwanted child aborted, put up for adoption or surrender the child under Safe Haven laws and be freed from all responsibility and obligation of the child without consulting the father. 4. Women have the right to be assumed caregivers for children. When parents divorce, the mother is almost always given custody of the child. The father, however; has to be verified as a worthy caregiver. 5. Women have the right to call unwanted, coerced sex rape. This means that if a woman coerces sex with a man, then decides later that she doesn't want it, she can call it rape and the man can be convicted. Source: http://thoughtcatalog.com... Overall, feminism is a corrupt cause full of unjust ignorant little girls who have been blinded by society into thinking that they are opressed and have less rights than men. It's ridiculous. Thank you.

  • PRO

    Pulling the "why does it have a word derivative of...

    modern day feminism does more good than harm

    "My opponent provided no source for their 99.99% of feminist voting for Bernie Sanders claim." http://prnt.sc... http://prnt.sc... http://prnt.sc... Sorry for the inconvience of having to go on another tab to see because I don't know how to add photos but, those are a few feminist pages that have a big following (the lowest one is 4k) which doesn't speak for all of the feminist community. Although they dont speak for the whole INTERSECTIONAL feminist family I can say that most feminist love Bernie because he shares feminist views. Modern day feminism has radical feminist in it, but thats not the whole. You are doing all you can to avoid the fact that there are bad apples in the bunch of feminist but their are also a lot of intersectional feminist who love men, and aren't men bashing people. Malala herself said she is a feminist, "I am a feminist and we all should be feminist because feminism is another word for equality". Pulling the "why does it have a word derivative of FEMALE" is a bit brave saying that the human race is called MANkind. It has the root 'fem' because it was created to empower woman but has of course rooted into different things too. It isn't just feminist, but most of the time you will see LGBT+ people call themself feminist also because intersectional feminism has a big role of fighting for LGBT+ rights [http://prnt.sc... , http://prnt.sc...] those of course don't speak for ALL of the lgbt+ family, but they have a big following and it's a bit hard to ask everyone who considers themself part of LGBT+ if their a feminist. Feminism has done so much good, radical feminist are of course harming but intersectional feminist like myself are striving to make a more equal society for men and women. Feminism had a lot to do with me being pro-black and being okay with being a queer female. Feminism helped my sister come out as a rape-victim, telling her she wasn't the only one. You may only see the radical feminist because thats the only type you see in the media but people like me and many others want to make men and women EQUAL not women better than men or vice versa. People like Malala, Rowan Blanchard, Amandla Stenberg, and even Canada's prime minister are great examples of intersectional feminism and what it is as a whole. I hope I have convienced you that feminism does a lot more good than harm, and that I may have even convienced you to learn more about intersectional feminism. [NO REFUTE FROM CON] side note: I used screenshots from instagram because a lot of feminist do online activism and raise awareness through instagram & it was the easiest way to show some type of proof of my statement. Have a nice day.

  • PRO

    Con failed to investigate my source for my assertion that...

    Feminism is no longer beneficial in America

    SUBPOINT A: My CONRAD study made addressing your first 4 sources obsolete. The judges do not have to accept them as true. I'm new to this site, but I've never seen any sort of a debate where one of the debaters tells the judges what they have to do. You also made your opening statement a rebuttal, which was quite unfair. SUBPOINT B: I do not have the burden of proving that there are biological differences that result in men working more full time jobs than women, this burden of proof relies on "Con". As for your second point, it seems like you are asking me to prove that having a child is a biological action - I'll let that question answer itself. Third, the CONRAD study answers the question of why mothers work less while they have a child, as does my previous source [3]. The CONRAD study does not support Con's point that women are "unfairly treated in promotion"; you cannot prove unfair promotion bias unless you examine the resumes of every applicant. Con failed to investigate my source for my assertion that women are biologically disposed to not seek higher paying jobs. SUBPOINT A: Gamergate can be summed up in one video [1]. If Con had taken the time to view my videos, they would have seen the blatant examples of violence committed by feminists. Also, Con is using "rationalwiki" as a source; using rationalwiki as a source is akin to using conservapedia. SUBPOINT B: 1. k 2. Strawman. I never said that there was a feminist conspiracy. As for The Amazing Atheist's rape jokes, they are just that. Jokes. 3. I am not an advocate for the Republican party. 4. How does "sample text" mean anything? Am I being trolled right now..........? 5. New source [1] 6. Critiquing the word "Con failed to investigate my source for my assertion that women are biologically disposed to not seek higher paying jobs. SUBPOINT A: Gamergate can be summed up in one video [1]. If Con had taken the time to view my videos, they would have seen the blatant examples of violence committed by feminists. Also, Con is using "rationalwiki" as a source; using rationalwiki as a source is akin to using conservapedia. SUBPOINT B: 1. k 2. Strawman. I never said that there was a feminist conspiracy. As for The Amazing Atheist's rape jokes, they are just that. Jokes. 3. I am not an advocate for the Republican party. 4. How does "sample text" mean anything? Am I being trolled right now..........? 5. New source [1] 6. Critiquing the word "feminism" is impossible, because even though they don't agree with each other, the majority respond to criticism in the same way. 7. I'm quite sorry 8. Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if it had been two feminists protesting, and a man slapped one of them? It is a total double standard. That video highlights the hypocrisy of feminism. SUMMARY Am I being trolled? How does "sample text" prove anything? I'm very confused right now. Also, I'd like to repeat that I didn't know I was supposed to open with a full on argument, and someone in the comments even reprimanded Con for doing so.

  • PRO

    Sexual objectification dehumanizes women in both men and...

    Modern Feminism is Necessary

    I think my biggest points for this argument will be the sexual objectification of women and their bodies women's bodies are treated as a commodity here in the west many ads show women in scantily clad clothing often in suggestive poses. I do believe this is necessary and acceptable in some cases such as lingerie for example but in many cases not such as music videos clothing ads and of course the famous Carl's Jr burger commercial. Sexual objectification dehumanizes women in both men and women's eyes a woman becomes just an object and not a person so a man feels free to treat her as one for an example of this i go to to women's nipples we have all seen that women have to cover their nipples on TV or in photographs whereas men do not have too and for what? there the same nipples there's no difference the only difference is a woman's breasts have become sexualized while a man's chest has not this is unfair and a product of sexual objectification. Women also have to deal with slut shaming while it is acceptable for a man to go out and sleep around a woman is expected to remain chaste if a woman does sleep around or work in the sex industry such as porn or prostitution she is deemed a slut,whore,skank so on and so forth as if somehow their sexual choices are a bad thing a lot of this comes from religious teachings but it has now become ingrained into our cultural norms. Even the concept of virginity was used to co modify women whereas a man virginity is seen as nothing a woman has extreme importance to her and even just the wording "lost her virginity" is used to shame her when you have sex you don't lose anything all you do is have sex but somehow for women they lose their "innocence". Now for my point this is still alive and well here in the west while attitudes towards women sexuality and sexual freedom are becoming more relaxed men are having a hard time giving up their old attitudes there is still a double standard when it comes to men and women and a lot of it comes from either religious teachings or cultural norms. There is also a prevailing belief here in the west that woman who are in positions of power are somehow intimidating pushy bitchy or bossy and of course there are women who are bad leaders but much of this is the fact that they are women. So in conclusion i do believe Sexual objectification dehumanizes women in both men and women's eyes a woman becomes just an object and not a person so a man feels free to treat her as one for an example of this i go to to women's nipples we have all seen that women have to cover their nipples on TV or in photographs whereas men do not have too and for what? there the same nipples there's no difference the only difference is a woman's breasts have become sexualized while a man's chest has not this is unfair and a product of sexual objectification. Women also have to deal with slut shaming while it is acceptable for a man to go out and sleep around a woman is expected to remain chaste if a woman does sleep around or work in the sex industry such as porn or prostitution she is deemed a slut,whore,skank so on and so forth as if somehow their sexual choices are a bad thing a lot of this comes from religious teachings but it has now become ingrained into our cultural norms. Even the concept of virginity was used to co modify women whereas a man virginity is seen as nothing a woman has extreme importance to her and even just the wording "lost her virginity" is used to shame her when you have sex you don't lose anything all you do is have sex but somehow for women they lose their "innocence". Now for my point this is still alive and well here in the west while attitudes towards women sexuality and sexual freedom are becoming more relaxed men are having a hard time giving up their old attitudes there is still a double standard when it comes to men and women and a lot of it comes from either religious teachings or cultural norms. There is also a prevailing belief here in the west that woman who are in positions of power are somehow intimidating pushy bitchy or bossy and of course there are women who are bad leaders but much of this is the fact that they are women. So in conclusion i do believe feminism is needed here in the west because while attitudes are shifting they are not where they could be and without feminism they could easily go back to the old ways.

  • PRO

    Women by far are used more often then men for...

    Modern Feminism is Necessary

    i actually agree with my opponent on the word objectification but for lack of a better word this is what i'm using and yes i'm quite aware that men can and are sexually objectified my issue isn't that women are dressed in bikini's to sell a burger it is that woman are in so many instances made to dress like that to sell things. Women by far are used more often then men for advertisements and more often then not there is some kind of sexual innuendo involved well to a young boy growing up seeing this bombardment of women in a sexual nature he is going to develop an attitude about women rather then seeing them as people he sees them as sexual beings only to better prove my point here is a link describing sexual objectification in the mind http://www.scientificamerican.com... this link will explain it all, As for the slut shaming thing while men are often perceived as players they are never subjected to the ridicule a woman will face for having lots of sex eventually they go on and often marry and forget it while many women especially if they live in a small town find it hard to find a man if they are a perceived "slut" women still by far are looked down upon for having lots of sex something women in the sex industry know too well in many cases and i have witnessed this personally a porn star will give an opinion on something and be immediately shot down with the old attitude of your just a slut so who cares what you think? It is a wrong attitude as "sluts" don't actually exist and as women become more relaxed sexually men will have to get over this attitude. My next argument will actually be one for men and that is the very widespread idea of male masculinity that men are supposed to be tough never show emotion or do anything perceived feminine. Even to the point to where men's sexual assault is taking lightly because "he must have enjoyed it" or he was raped by a man so "he must be gay" The Women by far are used more often then men for advertisements and more often then not there is some kind of sexual innuendo involved well to a young boy growing up seeing this bombardment of women in a sexual nature he is going to develop an attitude about women rather then seeing them as people he sees them as sexual beings only to better prove my point here is a link describing sexual objectification in the mind http://www.scientificamerican.com... this link will explain it all, As for the slut shaming thing while men are often perceived as players they are never subjected to the ridicule a woman will face for having lots of sex eventually they go on and often marry and forget it while many women especially if they live in a small town find it hard to find a man if they are a perceived "slut" women still by far are looked down upon for having lots of sex something women in the sex industry know too well in many cases and i have witnessed this personally a porn star will give an opinion on something and be immediately shot down with the old attitude of your just a slut so who cares what you think? It is a wrong attitude as "sluts" don't actually exist and as women become more relaxed sexually men will have to get over this attitude. My next argument will actually be one for men and that is the very widespread idea of male masculinity that men are supposed to be tough never show emotion or do anything perceived feminine. Even to the point to where men's sexual assault is taking lightly because "he must have enjoyed it" or he was raped by a man so "he must be gay" The feminism movement is set to combat these attitudes and strict gender roles and little boys are already seeing the advantages of it it is becoming more acceptable to play with dolls dress up as female characters like pink and show emotion. All of these is because of feminism and while i agree that there are some man hating feminazi's real feminists want equal rights for both and women and not just women and this is my conclusion for this round.

  • PRO

    I'm pretty sure that if you stopped to talk to them they...

    Let's talk about Feminism

    As I have said in the previous round women do not receive the same rights as men in many countries including the UK and USA. You claim that you have bumped into feminists yet you also claim that you don't know what more they could want? I'm pretty sure that if you stopped to talk to them they would have told you what they wanted. As I mentioned earlier women are fighting for the same wages as men (for the same jobs). Continuing on from this point women also find it significantly harder to receive the senior positions that men do. "The overall gender pay gap, which the Office for National Statistics defines as the difference between men"s and women"s hourly earnings as a percentage of men"s earnings, stands at a record low of 19.1pc as of April 2014, after increasing for the first time in five years to 19.8pc last year. For full-time workers, the pay gap narrowed to an all-time low of 9.4pc from 10pc last year. Women working full-time saw their earnings increase more than their male counterparts this year, by 0.6pc compared with 0.3pc, which took the average weekly earnings as of April 2014 to "462 for women and "558 for men." This is not equality. Men can get custody, but if the judge feels that the kids would be better off with the mother ( and usually at a young age they will) Also they consider the gender of the kids, who takes the kids to school, drs appointments, who cooks for them, picks their clothes, etc. and most of the time it is a mother. If there is a male child and he is older they will likely want to put him with the father. I'm pretty sure that if you stopped to talk to them they would have told you what they wanted. As I mentioned earlier women are fighting for the same wages as men (for the same jobs). Continuing on from this point women also find it significantly harder to receive the senior positions that men do. "The overall gender pay gap, which the Office for National Statistics defines as the difference between men"s and women"s hourly earnings as a percentage of men"s earnings, stands at a record low of 19.1pc as of April 2014, after increasing for the first time in five years to 19.8pc last year. For full-time workers, the pay gap narrowed to an all-time low of 9.4pc from 10pc last year. Women working full-time saw their earnings increase more than their male counterparts this year, by 0.6pc compared with 0.3pc, which took the average weekly earnings as of April 2014 to "462 for women and "558 for men." This is not equality. Men can get custody, but if the judge feels that the kids would be better off with the mother ( and usually at a young age they will) Also they consider the gender of the kids, who takes the kids to school, drs appointments, who cooks for them, picks their clothes, etc. and most of the time it is a mother. If there is a male child and he is older they will likely want to put him with the father. Feminism isn't about whether you have the right to slap a man or not. It is about important issues. Who cares if a woman slaps a man. If it is serious the police and the court will get involved - if not then the man should be a responsible adult and deal with it. Feminism is about equality that will improve a woman's life quality to the same life quality of a man. Wages and job positions are important. The right to slap a man is not. When I wrote about men being paid more than women (in case this is unclear) I was talking about men being paid more than women for doing the same jobs - with the same amount of work. Sources http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... https://answers.yahoo.com... (verified)

  • PRO

    Now, With "types" of Feminism which was my argument...

    Today's types of Feminism isn't needed

    Now, With "types" of Feminism which was my argument title, I meant the difference from fighting inequality, To woman dominance. Presiding you brought up wage gap, Simply the statistics aren't as accurate as you think. With a man and women, You have to count overtime and undertime, Statistically women work more then men, But men work more overtime them women, Overtime presides more money then just regularly working, This would provide more waging for the person which is not statistically a male, To have a bigger salary, And when that isn't taken into account, "wage gap" becomes and explained problem which is a different standard.

CON

  • CON

    I think that feminism should be in order because women...

    Feminism is a useless movement in the U.S. in todays political landscape

    I think that feminism should be in order because women are the best of many of the genders. We all know there are many genders but women are the top of the food chain! #Hillary4president

  • CON

    I anticipate debating with you. ... I ask that my...

    Modern Feminism (Third-Wave Feminism) Destroys Men and Their Families

    I am eager to debate against my opponent, seeing as he, admittedly, is a well-dictioned, mature debater. I anticipate debating with you. My arguments will consist mainly of how Modern Feminism has benefitted society through acts such as donations, peaceful protests that advocated women's rights for areas such as the Middle East, etc. I will be sure to back my claims with valid sources. I ask that my opponent does not use pictures of feminists with short hair, candy red hair dye, screaming at a crowd calling for the extermination of all men to back up his claims... Good luck, and may the odds be ever in your favor...

  • CON

    There IS a certain type of privilege for men over women....

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

    To say that feminism has achieved equality is nonsense. First, let's clarify what we mean by 'feminist'. 'Feminism' is a broad, umbrella title that covers a lot of different types of feminism, each with differing goals and each with different ways to achieve them. It's like saying someone's a Christian. There's lots of types of Christianity, each with different beliefs and different ways of practising their beliefs. Second, let's clarify what third wave feminism (TWF) actually is: In short, TWF is mainly to do with challenging gender norms (e.g. why do we associate pink with girls and blue with boys. Feminine appearance vs masculine appearance, etc.), calling for reproductive rights, and celebrating sexuality as a means of female empowerment. Also, of course, TWF challenges norms of language (e.g. why is it the accepted way to use 'he' as a general pronoun, when 'he' is clearly male?) TWF has different views and different beliefs, but, generally, these are the main topics. Thirdly, I dare say some TWFs are oppressive - the extremist types. There are also extremist Christians, extremist Muslims, etc. Are you going to say that all Christians or all Muslims are extremist because of a few you see on TV? No. That's silly. Similarly, you wouldn't call all TWF extremists just because of one or two. You haven't actually given any reason or examples why you think people view TWF as a "controlling tool and a movement of aggression, lies, misinformation and manipulation". You just stated it. Asserting something isn't an argument. Nor does it make it true. Please provide reasons beyond anecdotal evidence. You may only have heard the words "male privilege, wage gaps, misogyny, slut shaming" etc. from feminists because they are the ones who notice it or want to bring it to our attention. You're proving their point if you ignore it. They mention it so that it is brought to our attention so we can do something about it. Pretending such problems don't exist doesn't mean they'll go away. Feminists bring them up so they can be challenged. And they're right. There IS a certain type of privilege for men over women. Employers are more likely to employ a white male over a black female. Or even more simple, every day examples - men are allowed to show more skin. Men aren't stigmatised if they go around topless. Women are. In 2013, women made 22% less than men in almost every occupation (source: http://www.iwpr.org... ). Wage gaps are real. 'Slut shaming' is a problem that harkens back to male privilege. There's a double standard. A guy can have sex with lots of girls and be called a 'lad' or a 'champion', having 'conquered' the female body. If a girl does it, she's a 'slut' or a 'tramp'. Such issues are real problems. That's why you hear feminists talking about them. (Though are they feminists and they talk about them, or are they feminists *because* they talk about them?) These are things that TWF clearly wants to get rid of - the male privilege, the double standard between sexes, the pay gaps. They also want to challenge more than that. It's also a matter of girl privilege and boy privilege. Girls can play with pink dolls when they're younger. If a boy does it, he's told he should play with the blue army toys. A boy would be told off for playing with girl toys or dressing in 'girl' clothes, such as dresses or skirts. These things are gendered. TWF tries to challenge this. They believe that everyone should be free to play with whatever toys or wear whatever colour without the stigma attached. (OF COURSE, blue/pink or boys toys/girls toys are just a small example of the issue, but that's the most obvious, easiest example to illustrate it with.) And... Women have asked to be able to do what they want before. And men have stopped them doing it. There was a suffragette movement in the UK for a number of years before the government conceded and gave women over 30 the right to vote. Women in Ireland have argued for the right to contraceptives for years before being given it in 1980. Women are STILL arguing for abortion rights. So to say "Did they ask before and were denied, not to anyones knowledge!" is false. Women have asked and they HAVE been denied. Many times. And "if men were so bad to woman, why would we even pass a bill to allow woman to do what they finally asked to be able to do?" - There are many answers to this question, the main two being: 1) Not all men hate women. That's pretty clear. Extreme feminists might, but then we're discounting them because it's clear they're crazed. We're talking about the more moderate types of TWF. 2) I'll assume you mean the right to vote? Because otherwise you're not making any sense. Women have asked for many different things and they haven't got it all. But they have the right to vote in many Western countries. They got the vote in the UK after a while and after wearing the UK government down. The suffragettes were quite active during World War One. This put more pressure on the UK government to get a deal done because they were taking their attention away from the war. David Lloyd-George's house was set alight, for example. The Representation of the People's Act 1918 was passed after the suffragettes became quite aggressive. It was a calming measure. (People also say it was to thank the women for the work they did during the war. That might be part of it, but the aggression from the suffragettes certainly helped.) It isn't called 'egalitarianism' because they have different origins. Feminism initially meant to advocate women's rights. Since then, it has changed massively. Now-a-days, they roughly are the same. Feminism, however, has different emphasises - things particularly to do with gender and sexuality, etc. But they aim for, relatively, the same goals.

  • CON

    However I think it's fairly clear the author tackles the...

    Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries

    Now before I get started I would like to point out that I explicitly stated that no rebuttals are allowed in the second round. Pro did not follow this rule. Therefore any rebuttals she made in the second round should be disregarded of. If Pro wishes to restate those rebuttals in this round where they were meant to be, that's fine by me. However anything she said in round 2 that was a rebuttal does not count and the voters should not consider nor read. Ok now onto my rebuttals for Pro's statements. " 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." " This literally proves nothing. This is a terrible and close minded defense of Feminism. Please do not take this the wrong way, I am insulting the argument, not you. This is like responding to someone saying the US is very split by saying "But it's the UNITED states, how can it be split if it's called United? " Words and movements will almost always differentiate from their original purposes and definitions. Feminism's meaning and definition should not be what some person wrote down and instead what their actions reflect. So we are to judge Feminism by it's actions and not by it's dictionary definition. "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 debate is about modern feminism. What feminism did decades ago has no relevance in this debate. "both from the black populace and LGBTQAA populace." Gendered issues are incredibly different from race and sexual orientation issues. For example with race it's incredibly different for something I believe is called the tribal effect. What this means is issues with gender are completely different from issues with race because during tribal days men and women had the most intimate relationships, father, mother, husband, wife, brother, sister etc. As a result any issues they have aren't really issues of hate, but issues of stereotypes. For race on the other hand back in tribal days there were no blacks and whites sharing intimate relationships on a mass scale, this lead to tension for the others are different from themselves. This is what some issues are stemmed on. Because of this it's fairly ridiculous to compare gender and race issues as if they were the same thing. "Feminism is also responsible for the social awareness of different double-standards that impact both men and women." Feminism also caused many of the double standards they chose to ignore. Mostly aimed towards men. "Again, feminism is about equality for all genders. " As I have went on and on about in round 2 the movement's actions do not reflect this. You are still yet to prove that feminism actually does this, for all the evidence you have really offered is an irrelevant definition. "http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... " Some of the examples this article gives kind of fascinate me because it's like the author is living in a completely different world. On the other hand some of these issues are spot on and legitimate. However I think it's fairly clear the author tackles the issue with a complete misunderstanding of the problem. For example, some of the things this author talks about really haven't been serious issues for decades. Many of the other issues the author really implies are gendered issues caused by sexism, but in reality the problem really isn't with society but instead the problem is with something deep inside ourselves. Jealousy, insecurity, the list goes on. Why do you think some people will judge others for dressing too revealing or too prude? Is it sexism? No, it's personal insecurities. A lot of these issues just stem from people wanting to be something they're not. Instead of tackling the issue themselves and trying to make themselves better they blame it on sexism. Honestly, it's kind of sad. "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." So I read the list and have a few things to say. 1. Many of these hold no relevance to this debate for it is not about modern feminism so I have no response to those. 2. So let me call out this one gem in the article. "They called out rape culture." Rape culture, it's been a long time since I have heard those two words. So let me ask you this, do you honestly think we live in a rape culture. I'm legitimately curious. We live in a society that views rape as one of the most disgusting and horrible crimes. In a society that views rape that way, rape culture clearly does not exist and it blows my mind that people think it does. There's a lot of articles/sources you can read up about this, but here's one http://www.usnews.com... 3. Many of these really just aren't true. 4. Many of these are irrelevant to feminism or don't reflect the movement as a whole. 5. The rest of these aren't exactly helping us reach equality or weren't done by the feminist movement. "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" Interesting. Was feminism mutually beneficial when they painted men as the primary perpetrators for DV which has about equal male and female perpetration? Was feminism beneficial to men and women when they train law enforcement to be biased against men? Did feminism improve the conditions of men when they biased family courts to strip fathers away from their children regardless of whether they were the parent that could offer the best care to their child? No, feminism is not mutually beneficial to men and women. There's only one group of people feminists benefit. Feminists. Not women, just feminists. Now as I stated before no rebuttals were allowed in Round 2 so anything after this point should be disregarded of. Now to extend my arguments. many feminists defend their movement when someone brings up the issues men face is by saying either 1. That feminism helps men's issues by destroying stereotypes. 2. That men's issues are completely separate from female issues. One analogy I heard was "that's like saying someone who cured breast cancer hates the effort to cure lung cancer". Well the reason why both of these defenses are simply wrong is because feminism doesn't just help solve men's issues or do nothing about them. Instead it makes the problem worse and the movement as a whole tries to stop anything from being done about male issues. For example, consider this article/video: http://www.avoiceformen.com............ In this video there is a woman who talks about her efforts to bring awareness to men's issues is shut down and censored by Feminists. Clearly Feminism, as a whole, is not helping us solve men's issues. As I stated before it is making the problem worse. Now a lot of people (probably feminists) will refute this and say "Well not all feminists are like that"or "They aren't true feminists". The thing is I am asking the question of whether the movement as a whole is helping society, not if all feminists are bad. Also the thing about saying they are not true feminists is that people like them represent the face of feminism. They are usually the ones who control the policy in place, they control the movements and they control what the movement actually changes. A perfect example of how feminist policy has hurt society and driven us further from equality can be found here: http://www.avoiceformen.com............ . This article by Karen Straughan talks about how once domestic violence (Let's us DV for short) started getting public attention there were two main approaches to solve the problem. One of them saw it as gender neutral. This was lead by a woman named Erin Pizzey. She founded the first battered women's shelter. What she found while running her shelter was 60% of the women were as violent or even more violent than the men they were fleeing. And then there's the second approach, the feminist one. This model says that men are always the violent ones and are beating their partners to oppress them and to make their partners fear them. This model is based on what is called "patriarchy theory". This model became entrenched and seen as the most common and correct model by law enforcement, social workers and judges. This model is adopted by many of the 1st world, western countries including the US, Canada and the UK. In other words this model is the status quo. Despite being seen as the model that fits almost every case of domestic violence, in reality, it makes up the smallest minority of cases. The feminist model overtook the more benevolent model ran by Erin Pizzey, despite Pizzey's model being far more accurate and helpful. The feminist model has resulted in male victims of DV being seen as a joke and offered little to no help. Feminism did not help the issue. Feminism made the problem worse. Feminism is not helping 1st world countries reach gender equality, hence the resolution. As Karen Straughan put it, "If society was feminists, and blacks were men, they would scream ever louder that blacks are the primary offenders and that other races almost never commit such crimes, that the crime itself stems from "toxic, hegemonic blackness", they would ignore the evidence, suppress the evidence, intimidate or shun researchers who produce the evidence, engage in threats of violence against researchers who publish the evidence, and continue their attempts to entrench their view of blackness being integral to said crime into legislation and policy." To put what she said in other words: The way feminists view men and women in DV is dangerously similar to how racist whites view blacks in crime in a way that justifies systematic oppression. To you pro

  • CON

    If First Wave Feminism is understood as Suffragism and...

    1st world (thrid wave) Feminism has not merit in the 21st century

    I'll accept that debate & thank JediDude for the posting of it. Since first round is acceptance I won't post arguments but I will share definitions for "First world" & "Third Wave Feminism." If Pro does not concur, I hope to see alternate definitions in the 2nd round. "First World" seems like an anachronism of Cold War rhetoric, roughly corresponding to well-developed NATO allies. Wikipedia suggests that since 1991, "the definition has instead largely shifted to any country with little political risk and a well functioning democracy, rule of law, capitalist economy, economic stability and high standard of living." [1] I suspect that definitions of "Third Wave" Feminism vary according to perspective but are best understood as a continuation of and simultaneous reaction to Second Feminism. If First Wave Feminism is understood as Suffragism and the struggle to overcome the legal barriers preventing enfranchisement and Second Wave as the social struggle to achieve cultural parity, then Third Wave Feminism might be seen as the struggle to reject the paradigms of patriarchy and define a more inclusive set of social identities in reaction to a transformed social order. Susan B. Anthony is a generally accepted icon of the First Wave. Mary Tyler Moore might be seen as an icon of the Second Wave, asserting her value in the workplace, rejecting the necessity of marriage or motherhood as part of her contribution to society. A Third Wave feminist icon might be Buffy the Vampire Slayer- achieving a heroic value unattainable by men while assembling a network of family, friends, & lovers to satisfy the needs of her calling, her identity in defiance of the patriarchal Watchers. In response to Pro's argument, I intend to argue that Third Wave Feminism has at least some merit for women in the 21st Century. Hope the definitions help. I look forward to Pro's argument in the second round. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

  • CON

    Resolution analysis My opponent did not clarify much of...

    Modern-Day Feminism could very well be a lost cause. (No order of argument/ freestyle debate)

    My opponent has started her/his arguments in round 1 (R1); therefore, it seems that arguments are acceptable in R1. Resolution analysis My opponent did not clarify much of the resolution (such as through the use of definitions), so the burden to do so falls on me. Definitions Feminism: "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" [1]. Lost cause: "a person or thing that can no longer hope to succeed or be changed for the better." [2] Types of "Modern-Day Feminism" However, although Pro argues against feminism in general, the resolution only addresses "Modern-Day" Feminism. Pro has been researching feminism for over a year, and thus probably knows that there are many contemporary feminist positions. Although the resolution is likely referring to all of these positions collectively, I recommend limiting the number of contemporary feminist positions to make it easier on Pro: Third wave feminism Standpoint feminism Ecofeminism Conservative feminism Anarca-feminism Libertarian Resolution analysis My opponent did not clarify much of the resolution (such as through the use of definitions), so the burden to do so falls on me. Definitions Feminism: "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" [1]. Lost cause: "a person or thing that can no longer hope to succeed or be changed for the better." [2] Types of "Modern-Day Feminism" However, although Pro argues against feminism in general, the resolution only addresses "Modern-Day" Feminism. Pro has been researching feminism for over a year, and thus probably knows that there are many contemporary feminist positions. Although the resolution is likely referring to all of these positions collectively, I recommend limiting the number of contemporary feminist positions to make it easier on Pro: Third wave feminism Standpoint feminism Ecofeminism Conservative feminism Anarca-feminism Libertarian feminism Socialist feminism Marxist feminism Postcolonial feminism Post structural feminism Postmodern feminism Lipstick feminism And both positions of the Feminist Sex Wars All of these positions are a small piece of a much longer list that comprise modern day feminist movements. I will allow the debate to be focused on only these movements, even though doing so is to my disadvantage. Resolution interpretation Thus, the resolution "Modern-Day Feminism could very well be a lost cause" indicates that Pro ought to defend that Modern-day feminism is a lost cause, whereas Con may attack that position. Although taken on its own the resolution might be said to have Pro show a mere possibility of Modern-Day feminism being a lost cause; however, in the context of the debate it seems that the resolution is merely clarifying that there is a possibility that Modern Day feminism could be a lost cause and that therefore the debate is on whether or not it is the case that modern day feminism is a lost cause. Furthermore, the resolution also states that this is a "freestyle debate," which seems to suggest that a contextual rather than merely literal interpretation of the resolution should be preferred. Furthermore, Pro's first argument seems to support and clarify the context of the resolution; s/he finishes R1 with her/his position in the debate: "It's my total opinion but I just think it's [sic.] [Modern-day feminism] a lost cause." Thus, it seems clear from the wording and context of the debate that Pro is obligating with defending the assertion that Modern-Day feminism (limited to the list I provided) is a lost cause. Burden of Proof Because s/he is Pro, is a challenger, and is making a counter-cultural claim, it would seem that Pro also has the Burden of Proof (BoP) to demonstrate that Modern-Day feminism is a lost cause. ----- Short rebuttal: Pro listed exactly two reasons why Modern-Day feminism is a lost cause: 1. Values won't change quickly: "feminists cannot expect to change these highly socialized, and maybe even sexist values anytime soon." 2. Many Americans are ignorant of feminist theory: "A large amount of Americans don't even know that Modern-Day Feminism is as big as it is." Neither of these points indicate that Modern-Day feminism is a lost cause at all. The first point (1) suggests that change will happen slowly. Sometimes change does happen slowly, but that doesn't make it a "lost cause." The second point (1) suggests that because many Americans don't know about feminism, that it is a lost cause. In fact, the fact that many Americans do not understand feminism is a great explanation for why sexism still occurs in America. This means that through feminist education, America has a good shot of fighting sexism. My opponent also gave no sources regarding America's understanding of feminism in point two. Furthermore, my opponent's second point is limited to America. Feminism is a global movement with global implications (see especially postcolonial feminism). Thus, any negative attitude in America toward feminism or women in no way indicates that Modern-Day feminism is a lost cause. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com...

  • CON

    Feminism notes that if males who feel bad about...

    Feminism is based upon female entitlement to male achievements.

    I noted that in order to prove that based on the blanket wording of the resolution, my opponent needed to prove that all feminists hold this belief. My opponent countered by claiming that this is a fallacy of division. Unfortunately, he does not grasp the nature of the fallacy of division, which holds that if an object has a property, then claiming all of its parts must have that property is fallacious. Let me give examples to explain why this fallacy does not apply. If I claim that a Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean and that a Boeing 747 has jet engines, and then conclude that one of its jet engines can fly unaided across the ocean, I have committed the fallacy of division because I am assuming that part of the object has the same property as the whole. In this case, the parts of the object are not independent entities; rather, the engines, wings, etc. literally come together to comprise that object. Now, suppose I have a tablet computer and a desktop. Both are independent objects that we categorize with the set name "computer". If I claim that in order to prove that computers as a whole have touchscreens, both desktops and tablets must have them, my opponent cannot claim that I am committing the fallacy of division since the two types of computers do not come together to create a computer; rather, they are independent objects that we describe with a set called "computer". Similarly, different feminist ideologies are not parts of a feminist theory; rather, feminism is a term used to describe a set of independent theories with specific characteristics. In order to prove that the set used to describe all of the objects has a characteristic, he needs to prove that every object in the set has that characteristic. Feminist Separatism is an ideology that advocates the creation of female-only societies without any materials, objects, inventions, etc. from males. This ideology does not advocate using male achievements, so the set of theories fitting under feminism do not all have that characteristic. My opponent does not fulfill his burden and you automatically negate. He next gives an unsourced argument that contends that "If all people deserve equal political, economic, and social rights, people exist together successfully. Females exist together successfully. Therefore, females deserve equal political, economic, and social rights." He then states that this excludes males. I would like to see the source for this nonsensical strawman. I have never seen any feminist use this type of flawed reasoning, and I highly doubt that he has either. In any case, even if he gives an example of a single feminist who does this, this argument is not a property of the set "feminism" because not all of the feminist ideologies argue this. More importantly, however, this claim is entirely fallacious because it pretends that feminists advocate equal rights based on consequentialist reasons (i.e. it helps people exist together successfully), but feminism argues that people should have these rights because they are human rights, and that they deserve these rights regardless of the benefit to society. Feminists support these rights deontologically and claim that they are natural extensions of human dignity, and not that people have them because it is good for social cohesion. Feminists also note that these rights extend to all humans, so they are not excluding males. In fact, the nature of rights is entirely reciprocal because rights imply moral entitlements, meaning that all individuals, regardless of gender, are due the same protections. Males will not kill females, for example, and females will not kill males, because both groups have the right to life. Undoubtedly, he will respond to this by claiming that I am playing semantic games and that what he really means is that males are entitled to things like rights and an education because other males contributed to them. He is going to say that since females did not create them, they do not have any claim to them and that feminism is wrongfully taking those things from males. What feminism does is explain that this entitlement mindset is nonsense. Males are not any more entitled to social goods than females just because other males created them; in fact, this claim is precisely what he condemns: theft. The ideas and objects that people create belong to them and not to people who share common characteristics with them and thus the people who share characteristics with them have no more claim to them than others. Feminism notes that if males who feel bad about themselves because they are worthless losers and have no achievements of their own can act as leeches claiming partial ownership over the achievements of others, then there is no reason that females cannot also do the same thing by claiming kinship due to common humanity. Feminism is not advocating entitlement to male-owned achievements; it is advocating the equitable distribution of goods that belong to everyone or to no one. In addition, feminists do not want access to goods like rights and education because they want to dominate men; rather, they want basic rights and goods so that they can also contribute to society in a meaningful manner and advance fields such as science and philosophy. Feminists are not trying to take things without reciprocally giving; rather, they are attempting to make sure that females can reciprocate and give back to society. My opponent's brand of anti-feminism would have them benefit, at least marginally through a better lifestyle, from such benefits without giving them an opportunity to return the favor. My opponent might claim that the reciprocal behavior stems from the reproductive capacities of females, but note that this capacity remains the same regardless of the returns that males in a male-dominated society would give. Females are still giving birth regardless of the existence of voting or electricity, for example. So, he argues that not reciprocating for advantages is wrong, but then denies females the opportunity to reciprocate. Feminism, however, wishes to help females gain that chance. Argument 1 attempts to derive the notion that society should force people to prioritize needs over wants through the nonaggression principle. This completely contradicts the nonaggression principle, however; the principle is "a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual's property or person (which may also be considered that person's property), no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination or the principle of self-ownership." [5] What the principle notes is that even if an action has a positive consequence for society or even for the victim of aggression, forcing them to do specific actions is immoral because it violates the principle of autonomy. This completely contradicts my opponent's claim that society should force people into specific roles for consequentialist ends; such an action would be immoral according to the moral philosophy that my opponent decided to champion. This, ultimately, is what feminists argue; rather than forcing people into specific roles, feminists champion the right to autonomy for all people, not just males. His first argument is self-contradictory and flows negative. Even if you buy that we need to prioritize needs over wants, note that this still promotes the goals of feminism. Under traditional societies, females do not have control over their own bodies and were routinely subjected to such autonomy-violating procedures as marital rape, arranged marriages, and domestic violence. Because they were unable to obtain higher education and seek employment, they had no escape valve from situations that threatened their well-being. Feminism advocates fulfilling this need by grating females the capacity to be safe. Argument 2 attempts to claim that gender roles are natural and therefore just. He first argues that males are agents of death and females are agents of life. The problem is that these are socially assigned roles; there is no reason that either gender is intrinsically incapable of pursuing either role. He claims that men are selfishly altruistic based on necessity and cites a study that refutes almost every one of his claims. According to his study, which examines 38 students and attempts to extrapolate the results to all of humanity, when in a group setting in which active and passive roles existed, males took advantage of the active roles every single time, not out of necessity, but rather out of a desire to show off for the females. If females were psychologically predisposed to not exhibit this type of altruistic behavior, then females would have no desire to take the active role and would have taken the passive one. The study notes, however, that females wanted to take the active roles but that the males prevented them from doing so and instead assigned them the stereotypically clerical (passive) role. What this indicates is that there is nothing intrinsic to human nature that prevents females from taking such roles; in fact, in the absence of males, they did. Rather, it was the males who were forcing them to not have those roles that they wanted and were capable of performing. His justification for gender roles is based on the intrinsic difference between males and females by which males want to take active roles and females want to take passive roles, but that difference does not exist according to the study he cited. The difference in role allocation was a result of male forcefulness, and not a result of psychological orientation. Moreover, the notion that females are supposed to be biologically selfish is absolutely false. What the study notes is not that females are likely to be selfish and males altruistic, but rather that males were more likely to engage in heroic-type behavior. All altruistic behavior is not heroic behavior, however. Females engage in altruism even in traditional gender roles since they become the primary care-givers of children. Both genders are inherently capable of altruism. He next attempts to justify gender roles based on physiological differences. He notes that males produce more testosterone than females and have larger brains. While it is true that the male brain is larger, female brains have a greater surface area, more nerve cells, and more cellular connections, meaning that the female brain is more efficient at processing data and using both sides of the brain [1] In addition, the female brain has better memory skills and is much more creative than the brain male is [1]. This is empirically proven by the fact that more females graduate from high school, college, and graduate schools than males [2], have higher GPAs[3], as well as the fact that in July 2012, studies noted that in developed nations in which males and females receive equal educational opportunities, females have a higher IQ than males do [4]. What this means is that even if you believe my opponent's argument that society should force people into specific roles based on characteristics, you still vote for me because feminism advocates putting females in intellectual fields based on their inherent capacity to succeed while my opponent's brand of anti-feminism would not grant females roles that they are suited for. Most importantly, however, even if the evidence I provided is completely disregarded, my opponent's argument devolves into a contradictory notion that argues that we should have gender roles because on average, members of a specific gender will be better at performing tasks than members of the other gender. This ignores, however, the fact that some members of the other gender will be better at performing the tasks at hand than the average member of the gender that is stereotypically assigned that role, and thus prevents those individuals from fulfilling their potential. For example, I have an IQ of 148, was the salutatorian of my competitive private high school, had an extremely high SAT score, was a National Merit Finalist, attend an Ivy League institution, etc. I have more than outstripped my average male counterparts in terms of educational ability. My dream is to become a lawyer. Why should I be denied that dream on the basis that my opponent believes that the average male is better suited to be a lawyer than the average female? Why should a male who is less qualified than I am have that advantage while I do not? Why should I be resigned to a life of cooking, cleaning, and baby-producing for no reason other than the fact that I have a specific set of reproductive organs? Feminism advocates abolishing this type of categorical reasoning and attempts to judge people based on their abilities rather than on their characteristics. This, ultimately, fits my opponent's claim that we should assign people to roles based on their abilities better than his argument that we should blanketly force people into roles based on averages. Even if you believe his "roles" analysis, you still negate because feminism advocates giving people what they deserve based on their qualities while his brand of anti-feminism does not. On to Argument 3. He first lists a variety of male achievements and claims that, absent males, these things would not exist. He conveniently ignores the fact that most of these achievements were conceived of in an era in which females were not permitted to seek higher education and were resigned to fruitless lives as baby-making machines. In light of the testimony that I have provided about female intelligence and educational ability, there is no reason to believe that, absent such type of immoral coercive action, females would not have been able to contribute to such fields as well. In fact, whenever females were able to obtain education, they made stunning contributions to a variety of fields. Lise Meitner discovered nuclear fission and explained how it functioned and thus was responsible for the later research that led to the development of the atomic bomb. Marie Curie discovered radiation. Rosalind Franklin used X-Ray Crystallography to discover the structure of DNA, a discovery that singlehandedly advanced the field of biology. Barbara McClintock revolutionized genetics when she discovered transposons. Dorothy Hodgkin discovered the chemical structure of penicillin, an important discovery that drug companies currently employ to create cheap, penicillin-like alternatives. Hypatia was an Ancient Greek astronomer and mathematician who made important contributions to math and philosophy. There are countless examples of females who have contributed to the advancement of fields that we apply in our daily lives; these are not restricted just to males. In fact, stripping females of their ability to participate in such fields and failing to remember their achievements as my opponent does amounts to little more than claiming ownership over the advancements that they made for society. What this demonstrates is that male sacrifice is not the only tool for advancement; female sacrifice has been critical as well, and that both male and female sacrifice are necessary for society to prosper. Feminism recognizes this; my opponent does not. Feminism is not based on entitlement to male achievements, but rather on entitlement to self-ownership and the ability to author one's own destiny. Sources http://www.thirdage.com... http://www.good.is... https://chronicle.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...

  • CON

    Like I said earlier, when you take into consideration of...

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

    Well thanks for getting some rest I guess, haha. Economic Justice I understand the mathematics, don't worry. My point is that women do earn less than men in general, but that's in general. There are multiple reasons as to why they do, including experience, education levels, hours of work (which I will get back to later), time off, and much more. Your stats show women earn less than men in general for these jobs. They don't show why. Because one gender earns less than the other does not mean that gender is discriminated against, or is a result of sexism, meaning feminism has no case, and no real reason for tackling this issue. Here's something to consider - The general wage gap between men and women completely disappears when certain factors are taken into consideration [1]. Surveys administered to students in the late 70's and then again to the same students 30 years later show women chose less demanding jobs, generally had less experience (about two years) than men, worked more part-time work than men by nearly 10%, cared for children (more than men) leading to less work time & experience, and several other smaller factors. Taken from the site I'm quoting - "84.3 percent of the total wage gap can be explained by largely innocuous, non-discriminatory factors that have more to do with career and life choices than employers’ prejudices." So yes, women earn less money than men in general. However this has nothing to do with discrimination, and after taking into consideration where women work, how often they work, their experience, work ethics, performance, and time off, the wage gap disappears. Sports I played tennis for several years also, and I agree to an extent regarding time worked. However, professional sports has very little to do with hours worked (I brought up the hours worked regarding tennis players because you can actually watch men play 5 rounds, while women play 3, yet they are paid the same), and more to do with how popular they, their team, or their sport is. More (much more) people watch men's basketball, where not nearly as much watch women's basketball. This means there are much more ads viewed, and more revenue generated from men's basketball than women's, leading to the men being paid more. This is supply and demand - not sexism, not discrimination, it's the general public generating ad revenue more for the men than the women. Unfortunate for the women, sure, but how are they supposed to be getting paid the same as the men when their sponsors and networks hardly get anywhere close to as much as the men's networks and sponsors do? No. Just no. This is not "pfft, silly women," this is regarding how exciting one game is to watch over the other. What do you want to do? Force everyone to change their personal opinions on what is exciting for them or not? Once again, this is not discrimination, it's an entertainment value, something feminism can not, will not, and should not "change," as this would be... well, going around and telling people to literally think differently. Men's basketball is more fast-paced than women's, it makes sense that people would prefer to watch that. You're saying that we should not have any preference as to what we consider to be more exciting to watch...? That is completely unreasonable, unrealistic, and it's just pretty much denying human emotion. This is why I don't like feminism and consider it completely unnecessary. Men being paid more in the same field of work is nothing but a statistic. Like I said earlier, when you take into consideration of why they are paid more, the gap disappears. It would actually be unequal to pay men and women the same if the employer finds the man to be doing better work than the woman. Affirmative action falls into this category, but I'll leave that for another time. "Equal treatment" would imply "equal work." Please, provide a reliable source showing how women with the same education, experience and performance levels, to list a few variables, are paid less than men doing the exact same job. You have shown how women in general earn less than men... emphasis on earn... but this is unrelated to any type of discrimination or unjust/unfair treatment toward one sex or the other. The reason Breast Cancer research is funded so much is because of advertisement. Everywhere is plastered with "raise awareness and fund breast cancer research!" - This is not people viewing women as inferior and in need of more treatment. Much like professional sports, this is "unequal" because there are more ads associated with this money-making program. I could say men earn more than women because people feel men need more money to sustain a happier lifestyle, therefore this is an unjust treatment toward men and people feel men are inferior which is why they are paid more. You could really say anything negative about something good... Pizza tastes horrible because Pizza Hut doesn't care about my taste buds! That's discrimination! ...You're calling literally getting more money for a cause dedicated to helping women practically 'discrimination.' The pay gap exists, men earn more than women... this is a result of more hours put in, harder jobs worked, less time taken off, and much more. This has nothing to do with discrimination, and therefore, nothing to do with feminism. Because one group of people does better than another does not mean that group has it easier, is offered more, is given more, is treated better, or has more rights than the other group. Therefore, feminism is not needed at all, as it is evident that women and men make different choices, leading to different career paths and pay rates, showing perfectly well that neither is unjustly treated or discriminated or "favoured" over the other. Domestic Violence You'd need to provide example as how women are not taken as seriously. And say you're right, they aren't - is this unfair discrimination? Nope. Women are generally weaker, not as strong, not as physically fit or capable as men, so when Average Joe sees a woman beating a man, he can "safely" assume he can defend himself perfectly well. Although I disagree with this mindset, it isn't because "hurr wumen sux," it's most likely because of our different body types and general activities of men and women. Men and women having equal rights and opportunities has nothing to do with how society views either. Men tend to be stronger than women, more reason for men to protect women. It's biology, and feminism is trying to deny what is hardwired into our systems. But hey, women are "catered to," (so you say), and men are pressured to provide support for women... each are equally treated "poorly," so we are in fact treated equally. Women are given the same opportunities and rights as men, it's the fact that they chose not to actually take anyone up on these opportunities that makes feminism think it has a just cause (great game by the way, check it out for ps3). Other stuff I agree, it's unfortunate that the extremists are much more vocal, however I don't see why feminists can't call themselves egalitarians, so they aren't associated with "feminazis" nearly as much. That would make a lot of sense. Unequal treatment =/= different choices between the sexes. A 2009 study shows that women do, in fact, make "different" choices than men, leading to different career paths, less earning, etc [2]. Consider it "poor" choices if you wish, but men and women sure don't make the same choices. And to be clear, men aren't treated "fairly" when it comes to men doing "female" activities" just like women aren't when it comes to doing "male" activities. America and Canada isn't hellbent on telling women what they can and can't do, and if anything, they're hellbent on telling society as a whole what they can and can't do, even if it doesn't affect anyone at all. Closers Well thank you too, Kasmic, it's been a pleasure debating feminism with someone who doesn't insult me and actually has reliable sources and statistics we can work with! So thanks. When I saw this video the day it came out I couldn't help but wonder why Emma Watson forgot about men. She mentions men in the first minute and says feminism isn't just a women's movement... but she hardly reference men anywhere else in her speech. The one thing that irritated me is the fact that she says "women everywhere, in every country are still not treated equally..." she fails to mention men, and yet again, feminism is shown (even by the "feminism isn't ONLY for women girl") to be only for women. Now I'm not saying this is true, but feminists fail (a lot of the time) to mention any men's problems. Thanks for sharing that video though, Emma is really trying to make it an equality movement instead of a "women's rights" movement - as it should be... however I still believe we are treated equally. For women to be treated as unequal to men, they have to be receiving different treatment than men, while acting equal to them. You have failed to provide reasonable examples of women being paid less due purely to discrimination. Yes, your sources are reliable, and yes, your sources do say women earn less than men, however I have provided the reasoning to this, and it is more than reasonable. Domestic violence is not unequal treatment of women. More women extort men out of child care than guys do - this doesn't mean men are unequal to women or vise versa. It's a bad thing that happens to some people. Feminism was needed at a time. Thanks to feminism, we now have equal rights. However we no longer need to fight for something we already have in America. The wage gap has been shown to not be due to discrimination, women choosing different careers than men is not a lack of opportunity, and women gaining more support than men is not implied inferiority. Feminism is an outdated, unnecessary cause in America. Thanks again for a good debate! [1] http://www.ncpa.org... [2] http://www.consad.com...

  • CON

    things like owning land and voting were things women...

    Is third wave feminsim still feminism

    I believe that what feminism stood for when it was first started was actually fighting for equal rights for women. things like owning land and voting were things women should have been able to do but now all i see is a bunch of "gender queer" people getting on buzzfeed and complaining about video games. i am not trying to make jokes about this even there are literally women who complain about things that have nothing to do with them and i believe that this should be stopped

  • CON

    Bottomline:Has feminism succeeded in the West?Yes! ......

    Feminism is a poisonous belief system that needs to be done away with.

    Hi, I certainly have my hands full in this last post.I apologise if I sound condescending at times, but many of the claims that you make were simply too much for me to bear. 1.Definition troubles Firstly,about the definition of Feminism, I have been giving the definition of Feminism from the 1st round itself. It is truly unfortunate that you ignored the difference that we have in the definition and are coming up with a totally new definition in the last round of the debate.You should have defined it in the 2nd round or the opening round as you are the instigator.I recommend the readers to see the definition themselves in the site and see who is misreporting. I stand by my initial claim that feminism is the the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. This is something I have been saying from the first round itself.Just because a few "radical" feminists may define it otherwise, it does not change the meaning of a word that is atleast 200 years old. If it is an attempt at equal rights, then your claim that we must have an "Egalitarian" movement falls flat on its face, because feminism is an attempt at "egalitarianism".Thus, you cannot say that equality is needed while feminism is not, because I have given ample proof that the two are defined as one and the same! 2.The Nature Of the World You seem to have a very limited and narrow world view and seem to be completely oblivious of the condition of women outside the US and Western Europe.I have conceded that in these regions the feminist movement has gone too far from the 1st round itself, but that is irrelevant as we are talking about the world at large. I have given a number of UN and WHO studies and have even given quotes from the Qura'an itself to show how patriarchy and the subjugation of women is rampant in the Islamic world and in Asia.There are over 1 Billion muslims alone, not to mention another 1 billion Hindus in India(my country) that has a much larger land area than Europe(excluding Russia) combined.How these regions that consitute over 1/3rd of the worlds population, can be convineintly ignored by you is really astounding.On what basis you claim to have a better understanding of the condition of women than UN and WHO officials working in these areas for many years really baffles me. Yet you totally ignore all this and go on to make rash statements like "I would go so far as to say Feminism has succeeded in a vast majority of the world." Sorry, your opinion could not be more wrong, as anyone who reads the various reports I have cited will realise. Bottomline:Has feminism succeeded in the West?Yes! But it is far from succeeding in the East and is the only movement that cares for women in the Islamic world.This debate is about the world at large, not just the west. 3.Nature Of equality I am sorry if you were not able to understand my arguments, because I thought the meaning was self evident. Some Feminist movements may seem like they are getting special priviledges for women, but in reality they are compensating for the special nature of women's bodies.The argument sought to explain why women are given prefence for custody in cases of divorce,given alimony, as well as special employment benefits like Maternity Leave.I was saying that this is not a special concession but an attempt at equality. Women better get those choices you mentioned as they are literally risking their lives.If a guy does not want to look after his child he should have used protection, or better still, abstained from sex itself!He can't simply use a woman's body like a toy and then leave whenever he wants.If he can't pay child support, HE DESERVES to go to prison as he is forcing the woman to commit murder otherwise or to live with a lifelong responsibility that is partly his! The ability to give birth is not a handicap, the risk to one's own life due to complications during pregnancy IS!I don't see how this is Misogynistic, it is a fact of nature. 4.India I am sorry for not giving adequate sources in the previous round.Those are government released statistics, and unfortunately in India we have a really corrupt government.All documents should be read for the actual numbers, and most claims should be taken with a pinch of Salt.I forgot to mention how to read these documents I reccommend that the voters read the links that were given below, as well as these links that I have provided here before forming your opinions. 5.The Remaining Issues a.Circumcision. I concede that it is a painful practice for both men and women.However the reason why it is more widely prevalent for men was also explained in the previous round.For men, It is actually beneficial! It is a recommended practice even by modern doctors in extreme cases of infection and Phimosis. But women who have their genitals mutilated can NEVER experience sexual pleasure their entire lives! Not to mention the fact that they are going to suffer from various complications at childbirth and are going to be much more vulnerable for to a host of other problems and infections. This makes it much more serious that over 80% of the women in many countries live with this horrific practice. b.Domestic Violence and Sharia'ah Everything you wrote as a rebuttal is just your own opinion with no reliable source.What I am giving is the result of many well documented WHO and UN sponsored studies .I recommend the voters to take this into consideration, and to read my argument carefully and once again. Also,even if the 'little guy' was wrong, there is something called 'Civility' and 'Restraint'.The world is much bigger than 'Here in the South'! I have shown how even in those countries where even Pro agrees that feminism has succeeded, more women are literally Clobbered to DEATH by their intimate partners.It is amazing how you actually seek to jusify this. c.Sweden The reason I brought up Sweden is to rebut your claim that women are somehow not motivated to come to Politics.Since you have not given any rebuttals for that, completely Ignored the other example Rwanda, I am assuming you don't have anything to add in that discussion. The private hatred you seem to have for Sweden is irrelavant and none of my concern.Even if Sweden is all the things you claim it to be, it does not alter the fact that women have the desire to take part in politics and will succeed if given a chance. The remaining issues like Bride Burning etc. you don't really seem to be making any points so I won't bother refuting them. Conclusion Pro seems confused about what he really wants.Feminism as was defined from the 1st round of the debate was an attempt at equality between the genders.I too want Equality, and I say feminism is one such way to achieve equality. He keeps claiming that "equality" is needed completely oblivious to the fact that feminism all over the world, ever since the word itself was coined was an attempt at exactly what both of us seem to want. Feminism is the only source of hope for millions around the world.I humbly request voters to look beyond their immediate surroundings,and the actions of a few radicals, but at the world at large when voting. Your Sincerely, CynicalDiogenes Sources: These are Non-Governmental Organizations that give a better picture of reality: http://www.cwcs.in... http://vawhelp.org...; http://www.wcdsngo.org...