args

CON

• CON

  These terms stand for 'spreading legs in public' and...

  Show full argument

  Feminism

  That seems about right, it's more of a discussion since I want to clear some things (and rumors) that have been floating around. You see that seems to be the thing, feminist claim they stand for equality yet there have been so many movements against men and supporting females, for example the claim that men are stronger, it's not just a stereotype (you said you would explain if I was interested, I am) while they ARE physically strong, they are not some sort of a super human being. There are men with meeker personalities (even if they are told to 'man up') I get where you're coming from but the whole declaration that men simply CANNOT be domestically abused because they are male and simply more powerful than women brings up many questions about feminist equality. I mean, take a look at the new 'terms' that have come into existence, "Man-spreading" and "Mansplaining", they're not even proper words, its just putting man with the word spreading and combining explaining. These terms stand for 'spreading legs in public' and 'explaining something to a woman in a condensing and/or patronizing manner' respectively, however these terms hold no logic and are specifically aimed at males, like I said before in the previous round, we, male and females, have been made differently, its nature. So why are men blamed for the way they sit? its a confirmed biological fact that they need to open their legs because of their genitalia, they just can't sit with them closed, its just the way it is, so holding men responsible for the way they were created is not equality simply because 'if women sit with their legs closed then men should too or else it would be offensive because males take too much space in comparison to females so they can be arrested FOR NOT SITTING WITH THEIR LEGS CLOSED' (sorry about that). The term 'Mansplaining', I mean where is the term for women who speak in a condensing or patronizing tone towards men? On second thoughts, why have they created this word in the first place? This word just...doesn't make sense, does this word imply that men think they're better than women? Who was such a genius psychologist to know what every man on the earth thinks? Does it imply that men use 'condensing or patronizing' tone towards women just because they're female or because of other reasons? "(of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing." fresh from google, it doesn't say anywhere that the man is being condensing towards the woman BECAUSE she is a female, it only says that he explains it TO a woman in a condensing tone, is it simply called man-plaining because its the man that's being condensing, so if equality is so important to feminists why are they coming up with terms specifically for men? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it come in the sexist category? Back towards the point, feminists have said that males cannot be domestically abused because "Women are equal to and just as capable as men. Except when it comes to abuse. No woman is physically capable of harming a man ever". How can they say that if they claim women are just as capable as men, if they are just as capable then why are they not 'just as capable to abuse', if men in their eyes are the abusers? Like I said before, not every man is strong, there are some who have softer personalities, or who are more sensitive because even if they 'man up', they cannot shut down their emotions. So if there can be a male who can be a drunkard who abuses his children and/or his partner, then why can't there be a drunkard female who abuses her children and/or her partner? If not drunkard, and there is a male who can harm his partner then why can't there be a female who harms her partner as well? Also note that ("Women are equal to and just as capable as men. Except when it comes to abuse. No woman is physically capable of harming a man ever") It only says that PHYSICALLY harm is 'incapable for females to commit', even when going along with those words, is verbal or psychological (mental abuse) not a thing? There have been cases where male domestic abuse help centers have been closed due to pressure, where are they supposed to go for help? if These terms stand for 'spreading legs in public' and 'explaining something to a woman in a condensing and/or patronizing manner' respectively, however these terms hold no logic and are specifically aimed at males, like I said before in the previous round, we, male and females, have been made differently, its nature. So why are men blamed for the way they sit? its a confirmed biological fact that they need to open their legs because of their genitalia, they just can't sit with them closed, its just the way it is, so holding men responsible for the way they were created is not equality simply because 'if women sit with their legs closed then men should too or else it would be offensive because males take too much space in comparison to females so they can be arrested FOR NOT SITTING WITH THEIR LEGS CLOSED' (sorry about that). The term 'Mansplaining', I mean where is the term for women who speak in a condensing or patronizing tone towards men? On second thoughts, why have they created this word in the first place? This word just...doesn't make sense, does this word imply that men think they're better than women? Who was such a genius psychologist to know what every man on the earth thinks? Does it imply that men use 'condensing or patronizing' tone towards women just because they're female or because of other reasons? "(of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing." fresh from google, it doesn't say anywhere that the man is being condensing towards the woman BECAUSE she is a female, it only says that he explains it TO a woman in a condensing tone, is it simply called man-plaining because its the man that's being condensing, so if equality is so important to feminists why are they coming up with terms specifically for men? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it come in the sexist category? Back towards the point, feminists have said that males cannot be domestically abused because "Women are equal to and just as capable as men. Except when it comes to abuse. No woman is physically capable of harming a man ever". How can they say that if they claim women are just as capable as men, if they are just as capable then why are they not 'just as capable to abuse', if men in their eyes are the abusers? Like I said before, not every man is strong, there are some who have softer personalities, or who are more sensitive because even if they 'man up', they cannot shut down their emotions. So if there can be a male who can be a drunkard who abuses his children and/or his partner, then why can't there be a drunkard female who abuses her children and/or her partner? If not drunkard, and there is a male who can harm his partner then why can't there be a female who harms her partner as well? Also note that ("Women are equal to and just as capable as men. Except when it comes to abuse. No woman is physically capable of harming a man ever") It only says that PHYSICALLY harm is 'incapable for females to commit', even when going along with those words, is verbal or psychological (mental abuse) not a thing? There have been cases where male domestic abuse help centers have been closed due to pressure, where are they supposed to go for help? if feminism supports equality then why are male shelters being shut down? Would a center specially made to help the female victims listen to a males cries of help or would they just call the authorities to get him arrested? Like a case of a "father with two children, a one-year-old girl and a nine-year-old boy and he was fleeing a violent, alcoholic wife." Another thing I would like to ask that if feminists claim that females are just as capable in ability as men then why do they back away from the flaws? If females can be just as good as men then females can just as bad as men. Likewise, why does no one work on the fact that their claim, that females are 'good', then (according to being equal) that men are just as 'good'?

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism/27/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.32

    feminism: 18.32

    conclusion: 13.44 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.50)

    premises: 3.02 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 0.51)

    sourceText: 1.86 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 1.99)
• CON

  Transgenderism (http://en.wikipedia.org...) has been...

  Show full argument

  3rd wave feminism has made notable progress for civil rights

  I feel bad because I knew this would happen. First, there are no provisions that 3rd Wave has directly impacted anything in the above presentation. 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, "Third-wave feminism is a term identified with several diverse strains of feminist activity and study, whose exact boundaries in the historiography of feminism are a subject of debate, but are generally marked as beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to the present. The movement arose partially as a response to the perceived failures of and backlash against initiatives and movements created by second-wave feminism during the 1960s, '70s, and '80s, and the perception that women are of "many colors, ethnicities, nationalities, religions and cultural backgrounds".[1] Rebecca Walker coined the term "third-wave feminism" in a 1992 essay." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) There's a chronological error. This means that, "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 by the general happenstance after the world's sexual revolution and other major occurrences and movements that happened prior to the birth of 3rd wave feminism. Transgenderism (http://en.wikipedia.org...) has been active for years long prior to the inception of 3rd Wave Feminism, I would point to the 1970's and 1980's specifically as the beginning of the tide of what would become the fruition seen in the 1990's and 2000's. Much like presidential plans most of the effects of a movement aren't seen for years after it's creation and the same goes here; Transgenderism has not been shown to directly correlate with 3rd wave's progression as claimed here above. What is true is that 3rd wave supports (as proven by my opponent) Transgenderism but 3rd wave also supports racial issues and a wide array of groups which does not mean that it directly impacted the actual presence of modern political and social placement for these issues. The battle had been waged for years. However the claim was not that 3rd wave supports the cause. The claim was that 3rd wave has furthered the cause. It has the same failings as the previous claim that 3rd wave has somehow furthered sexual openness when it is relatively sensible to attribute this to the major shifts in the country (and world) revolving around the sexual revolutions and movements that were en mass at least 30 years prior to the decade of the birth of 3rd wave feminism. For the small list of achievements: 1. "This data snapshot highlights several differences in educational opportunities between males and females from prekindergarten through higher education. The information herein, gathered from a variety of education data sources, shows that"despite the enormous progress made in ensuring equal educational opportunities since the passage of Title IX in 1972"much work remains if we are to achieve full gender equity among our nation"s students." ( http://www2.ed.gov... ) 1972: (https://www.aclu.org...) The concept had been established long prior. This is a 2nd wave battle and this is a continuation of that molding instead of a "victory". Not only that but again it proves support, which is not equivalent to direct intervention, from the 3rd wave community. It is not a product of 3rd wave thinking and furthermore it is only being listed as such because of when it occurred instead of accurately being assessed for it's actual value and involvement with the 3rd wave movement. The only other example I will example is the Gender Equality Duty of 2007 (http://wnc.equalities.gov.uk...) which is indeed a victory for 3rd wave. Sadly this is the only thing my opponent has posted which has validity. It has since been replaced by a new act in 2010 which covers far more than just gender such as age, disability, etc. Even using Pros definition for 3rd wave he has not shown with any clear indication most of his examples to be attributed even in part let alone in significance to 3rd wave feminism.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/3rd-wave-feminism-has-made-notable-progress-for-civil-rights/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.31

    feminism: 18.31

    conclusion: 6.55 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 9.76 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.65)

    sourceText: 2.00 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.14)
• CON

  It was not until the 1940s that women were given more...

  Show full argument

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

  Outline: I: Introduction II: The Background of Feminism III: Current Problems Women Face Today IV: Objectives and Effects of the Modern Feminist Movement I. Introduction The modern feminist movement: some people see it as a great activist movement fighting for justice and equality, whilst others may see the movement as being no more than a brood of crazy over-privileged women prancing around and causing stirrups for their campaign to eliminate all men from the face of this planet. My opponent argues that this movement is no more than a counteractive movement that does no more than destroy families, increase prejudice between the sexes, directly attack motherhood, and promote the mentality that women are better than men and deserve more rights because of so. By no means will I brush off these allegations towards the activist movement by saying that this is complete and utter boondoggle, but by no means is this relevant to the movement and the majority of its activists. There are, and always will be, people with radical beliefs that stray from the original goal of any movement. For example, many Donald Trump supporters simply supported Trump's strong opinions on foreign policy, and favored the taxes. Some even wanted to vote for him solely because they hated Clinton so much. However, the Klu Klux Klan greatly endorsed Trump. They were a small part of Trump's supporters, but by your logic, does a small part of Trump's radical supporters make the majority of his supporters as racist white supremacists? II: The Background of Feminism The Feminist Movement started as the "Women's Suffrage Movement" in 1848. As you can tell by the name, the movement's primary objective was for women in the United States to gain a voice in politics by giving them the right to vote. In 1920, as declared by the 19th amendment, women were given the right to vote. After the women were given suffrage, however, the movement died out and failed to make any further changes to increase women's civil rights. It was not until the 1940s that women were given more opportunities. After the United States entered WWII, men had to leave their jobs to join the warfront. Women had to take the vacant manufacturing jobs. They were an essential part of the war effort, supplying the American military with weapons, munitions, etc. The 1940s were a large turning point for feminism, giving women more of a voice, and proving to society that women are capable of taking the roles that were believed to be only for men (S1). From that point forward, the feminist movement grew. III: Current Problems Women Face Today By no means will I argue that women are being denied their basic rights, nor will I bash anyone in by declaring that modern-day sexism is even close to how bad it was in the early 1900s, however, that does not mean that women don't face any sort of sexism that requires action to protect them. Even though, in the United States, we live in a progressive society where women are given almost all the opportunities men are given and are protected legally as much as men, women still face prejudice, and they have every right to assemble and protest against it. One such problem that women face is the wage gap. According to the Institute for Women's Policy Research, "in 2015, female full-time workers made only 80 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gender wage gap of 20 percent," (S2). Imagine that you are a hard-working construction worker making about 30,000 USD. Then, imagine that your malicious boss decides to lower your annual wage by 20%. You would lose 6,000 USD from your yearly salary. A large part of the feminist movement is actively fighting to close the wage gap, and rightly so. Women also battle domestic violence and sexual assault. An article by "The Shriver Report" claims that one in five women has been sexually assaulted in college. It also has recorded over 270,000 instances of sexual assault worldwide on average annually. Admittedly, my third reason is fairly graphic, but I find that it is necessary to add: human trafficking is very real, and women are the biggest victim of it, though males are also the victims of sex trafficking. Sex trafficking is the exploitation of women and children for sex work It is estimated that human trafficking is a 32 billion dollar annual industry worldwide (S3). IV: Effects of the Modern Feminist Movement Pro argues that the Modern Feminist Movement has been nothing more than a movement which has ruined men and their families. However, the Modern Feminist Movement's objectives and accomplishments say differently. Modern-day feminism strives to close the wage gap, strike down sexual assault against women, and advocate for women's rights in the Middle-East. Third Wave Feminism has, through the news, protests, public speeches, and social media, informed people of problems that women face (as I mentioned above). Informing people is the first step to change and smite down wrong stereotypes.As they say, "knowledge is power." For instance, organizations such as the Feminist Majority Foundation have taken the opportunity to inform people about sexual and domestic assault by defining what it is and by helping victims by providing them with instructions on how to end it, also including the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights phone number to seek out further help in these situations. Additionally, within around fifty years, feminists have closed the wage gap from a woman's 59 cents for a man's dollar to 80 cents for a man's dollar, and it will continue do close as the movement grows stronger (S4). Feminists still continue to strive to close the wage gap, protect women against prejudice and sexual assault, and fight for women in the Middle East. Janet Mock, a popular feminist, hopes that for the new year, "that feminist, racial justice, reproductive rights and LGBT movements build a coalition that centers on the lives of women who lead intersectional lives and too often fall in between the cracks of these narrow mission statements," (S5). V: Sources S1) http://feminism.eserver.org... S2) http://www.iwpr.org... S3) http://shriverreport.org...; S4) http://everydayfeminism.com...; S5) https://www.washingtonpost.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Modern-Feminism-Third-Wave-Feminism-Destroys-Men-and-Their-Families/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.30

    feminism: 18.30

    conclusion: 9.83 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.10)

    premises: 6.50 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.10)

    sourceText: 1.98 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.11)
• CON

  I know that having equal rights is important, but I also...

  Show full argument

  Let's talk about Feminism

  My apologies for not being specific. There is no way that I think men should have more rights than women. I'm more against the feminists. Not everyone, but the ones that I have recently bumped into have made me question feminism. I know that having equal rights is important, but I also think that women have all the same rights as men. I don't understand what more the women could want. If anything, women have more rights than men. For instance, men rarely ever get custody of a their children. A man cannot hit a women, but a women can hit a man, and no one says a thing (I'm not saying that men should be able to hit women). I also can see both sides of the conflict of men getting paid more than women. I see why women think that they don't get paid as much as men is unfair. Although, based on the stereotypes of men and women, a man has the pressure of being obligated to able to provide for his family, and with that stereotype and obligation, I can see why they get paid maybe a little more than women.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Lets-talk-about-Feminism/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.28

    feminism: 18.28

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 6.33 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.07)

    sourceText: 1.94 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.07)
• CON

  2: Sexual violence affects both males and females. ......

  Show full argument

  Feminism is no longer beneficial to our modern society

  REBUTTALS: Pro: "I understand that your data is from 2010 and that still makes it five years behind." 1: My data might be 5 years behind, but it's infinitely more recent than Pro's source -- none. 2: Pro has failed to show why 5 years is significant; reject this attack on my source. 3: 5 years is in fact insignificant, given that the wage gap has not shifted much in the past decade. Pro: "You could get data from this year, and the information could be easily manipulated as most companies don't reveal their employee pay rates." 1: I *could*. I don't need to, because Pro hasn't provided a better alternate source. Pro: "America has an unpaid 12 week maternity leave according to Wikipedia which isn't a lot compared to other countries but is still something not offered to their male co workers." 1: Yeah, I don't think an unpaid 12 weeks of "we can't fire you yet" counts as maternal leave. 2: This also means that Pro's argument that women get compensated via having a maternal leave is effectively null -- they don't get paid for it, meaning it doesn't factor into their pay in a significant way. Pro: "Again, the data can not be confirmed and therefore shouldn't be your main argument or even an argument." 1: Pro states that the "data can not be confirmed" yet consistently fails to invalidate the data that I have presented, which univocally shows a wage gap between women and men. Pro has failed to provide *any* counterstudies. You, judge, *must* accept that a wage gap exists and hurts women in the workforce. Pro: "Yes, I was only rebutting an argument and even if feminist groups redefined rape, it still doesn't prove my point wrong. Boys are just as vulnerable as girls." 1: Pro first argued that feminist groups argue all men are rapists and are insensitive to male rape. I showed that major feminist groups advocate for expanding coverage for *all* genders and types of rape. Pro's viewpoint is, in fact, the *opposite* of the truth. 2: Sexual violence affects both males and females. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that 18.3% (1 in 5) of females have been unconsensually penetrated or recieved an unconsensual penetration attempt, compared to 1.4% (1 in 71) of males [10]; furthermore, 4.8% (1 in 21) of males reported that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime [10]; furthermore, an estimated 13% in of females and 6% of males have experienced sexual coercion in their lifetime and 27.2% of females and 11.7% of males have experienced unwanted sexual contact [10]. 16.2% (1 in 6) of females and 5.2% (1 in 19) of males have experienced stalking victimization in their lifetime [10]. 35.6% (1 in 3) of females and 28.5% (1 in 4) males have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Sexual violence is a massive issue and should not be downplayed. However, sexual violence is statistically more significant for females than for males, especially for more violent and invasive forms of sexual violence. Pro: "I know, a lot of people oppose feminism but usually they are simply considered sexist or trolling." 1: That's because a lot of the people who oppose feminism *are* sexist or trolling. Of the others, almost all are able to voice their views without opposition. Pro: "The republican party isn't that anti feminist. AND they lost quite a few elections" 1: The party that thinks "Kinder, Kuche, Kirche" is a good domestic role for women is antifeminist in my books. Pro: "[M]ost feminists are women and most women are feminists." 1: And? Most black civil rights advocates were black. Does this invalidate civil rights? Pro: "And yes, they are quite close minded, at least the ones I have see. It seems like they would not consider any other ideology and dismiss any attempt proving them wrong as trolling. And what is MRA? " 1: Again, some evidence (even analytics) is necessary to support this claim. 2: MRAs are "men's rights activists", the modern antifeminism [11]. REASONS FOR DECISION Conduct: Neither. Grammar: Neither. Arguments: Clear Con vote. Pro had the burden to prove Feminism is not beneficial to modern society. They have failed this burden. Pro has no standing arguments as to why feminism is hurtful. Feminism has not been shown to censor opposing opinions. Feminists do not promote false ideas about rape. Feminists aren't necessarily closeminded. In opposition, Con has cited studies to show that a wage gap exists and that Pro's responses do not affect this fact, which means that feminism is still relevant in its efforts to seek equality. Con also showed that feminists opposed rape and male rape, showing positive impact on today's society. In summary, Con had no burden, but fulfilled it; Pro had a burden, but failed it. Sources: Clear Con vote. Con used 11 sources; Pro used 0. Con cited government studies; Pro didn't. Vote Con! REFERENCES [10] cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf [11] rationalwiki.org/wiki/MRA

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-no-longer-beneficial-to-our-modern-society/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.28

    feminism: 18.28

    conclusion: 7.92 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 8.37 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.42)

    sourceText: 1.98 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.12)
• CON

  Even if it is a male buying the products, the girl must...

  Show full argument

  The hypersexualization of little girls is a step backwards for feminism.

  I accept this debate. Best of luck to my opponent Since Pro has not provided definitions in their first speech, I take it upon myself to provide them. Hypersexualization: accentuating the sexuality of, making extremely sexual Definition provided by Pro in comments. See there for further reference. Feminism: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities http://www.merriam-webster.com... My argument is clear and simple. In order for Pro to win, they will have to provide evidence that this hypersexualization is infringing of women's rights and/or opportunities. I will be arguing that this is not the case. Looking at the definition and the clarification graciously provided by Pro in the comments, one can infer that "hypersexualization" is the result of marketing and television. Since both of these require consent (either to be shown as such, or to buy a product) we can infer that the people buying these products are willingly making the decision to purchase said items. Even if it is a male buying the products, the girl must make a conscious decision to wear them. Since in no way is either of these actions forcing the girl to do anything this is not infringing of said girls rights. And since this is a consensual act, any loss of opportunity is a result of individual action. Therefore hypersexulization is not infringing on feminism.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-hypersexualization-of-little-girls-is-a-step-backwards-for-feminism./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.25

    feminism: 18.25

    conclusion: 7.92 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 8.51 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.44)

    sourceText: 1.82 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 1.94)
• CON

  On top of that, this isn't going to change how I view...

  Show full argument

  Modern Feminism is Necessary

  Thanks, soda. So like I said, I'll argue against your points and then bring up my own. Sexual Objectification Let me start out by saying humans are sexual creatures. We are attracted to people of the opposite (or occasionally same) sex. A man looking at you in a sexual way, or a woman looking at a man in a sexual way (yes, women can think of men in a sexual way too) is a.) not a bad thing, and b.) not sexist, nor something we need to fight against. With all that being said, I noticed your points aren't really about men or women looking at each other simply in a sexual way, so thanks for that. However, you go on to say that by using attractive PEOPLE in ads, it promotes the dehumanization of women. So I have a couple things to say about this. First of all, there are many ads that use an attractive man (sometimes just in his underwear) to sell a product. Here is a pretty good example of that: Although there are more ads that contain scantily-clad women over men, it's silly to deny that there are also ads that "sexualize" men in order to sell their products. So this means, by your own logic, that all humans are just dehumanizing each other, as we use male and female bodies to sell products. I have a couple things to say about this: 1.) How does this affect you? I'm looking at the ad beside this text right now, and I think to myself "huh, I wonder if that Air Freshener is any good." What I don't think is "huh, this ad is over-sexualizing the male body and is dehumanizing this man by using his body as nothing more than an object and something to look at." And even if I did think that... it's not affecting me. It's obviously his choice to participate in this ad, and I'm sure he's quite happy with it - he's able to show off his body, get some attention, get some money, and become somewhat popular. The company hiring this guy isn't "dehumanizing" him by paying him money to model beside an air freshener to catch the eyes of women. They aren't saying "you're less than a human because you're attractive and use your attractiveness to get attention and sell products." Anyway, the same situation, but with a woman, doesn't affect you. It's her choice to look pretty to sell something. And if it does affect you, I'd like to know how. 2.) The word "objectification" needs to go. An object is not something you have sex with. I wouldn't have sex with a lamp. I wouldn't have sex with a guitar. I wouldn't have sex with a chapstick (unless I was drunk). By saying you're "objectifying" them is actually discouraging people from joining fields like modeling, acting, etc. And the first objective of feminism was to empower women and let them know they can do whatever they want with their lives? As long as it isn't "looking attractive," you can do what you want. On top of that, this isn't going to change how I view women. People won't see a Carl's Jr. ad(amazing burgers by the way), and think "wow, those hot women are holding Burgers! I value women as less than men now! I now only see women as something to have sex with!" ...This wouldn't (and doesn't) happen. My other point is regarding nipples. Check out the graph below. Areas in green represent places that completely allow women to go topless. Orange is relaxed laws, and it's illegal for women to be topless in red areas [1]. So, this shows that in 100% of Canada, and more than 90% of America, it is not illegal for women to be topless. Although there is that small 10% in America, there is a pretty good argument behind the reason female breasts are frowned upon being shown in public: sexual stimulation. Studies have shown that the female nipple lights up and reacts with the same area of the brain as the clitoris does [2]. So this means that the female breasts are technically a sexual organ. So we have two options; treat the breasts the same as any other sexual organ and cover them up, or fight to uncover the clitoris as well, as it shares a common function with the nipples. If you believe the nipples should be free, so should the clit. So let's sum this up real quick. Men and women are both sexualized in TV, as humans are sexual creatures. It's up to the person offering their body to make a decision regarding how they make their money, it's not up to you. "Objectification" just doesn't work, as nobody (not many people, anyway) wants to have sex with an object. And the female nipples are equivalent to the clitoris, so covering them up isn't "unfair," but it is "sexualizing," as they are sexual organs. ...Which isn't a bad thing. Where I live, I've seen maybe two topless women at public beaches in my whole life. Slut Shaming This is another situation that actually also affects men. Men are called players (and other terms I can't use here) for sleeping with many women. It's generally frowned upon for anyone to sleep with a lot of different people. With that being said, I agree that people should be able to sleep with as many people as they want, however feminism isn't going to do anything about mean people. There will always be a name that people will come up with for someone that they disagree with. If I call Mike a "dick," am I suggesting penises are bad? If someone calls you a slut for sleeping with a lot of people, you ignore them, as they're a mean person and will find something else to call you anyway, and go on with your day. Feminism isn't going to magically stop all the mean people from existing. If they don't chastise one of your behaviors, they'll chastise another. "A man's virginity is seen as nothing, a woman's virginity has extreme importance to her." And you find a way to twist this into "women are oppressed"? It's scientifically proven that (I don't want to get into detail) if not stimulated correctly, it does hurt the first time a girl has sex [3]. To ensure they have a good time and aren't hurt (physically or emotionally), it's recommended that girls take pride in the person they lose it to. It's not only more emotionally meaningful to women than men [4], it's more uncomfortable/painful. So, to sum this bit up, we see that men and women are both "slut shamed," by being called mean words for having sex. We also see that these are just words, and to take offence to these words is silly. Society as a whole doesn't believe it's bad to have sex with many people, and the media sure doesn't promote against it. It's just a few people that are mean to begin with who will call you out on anything anyway. Double Standards I'm actually not quite sure where you get this idea that people think women who are in positions of power are looked at as pushy or bitchy. Almost every TV show or movie or book I read, a woman who is in power pretty much kicks the hell out of all the guys. Hell, most women in most media are portrayed as better than men. What I mean by this, especially in action movies, sure there are more men than women, however the women jump in, guns blazing, showing up the men, saying some cheesy "let the girls play now" line to make the men look weak, etc. Bosses being called bitchy or annoying or anything happens to both men and women. There just isn't a gender-exclusive word for men. With that being said, there are plenty of negative gender-exclusive words for men. And again, I have to reiterate my point that women in the media, whether in positions of authority or not, are often looked at as badass and able to show up the men. In fact, it's often men who are portrayed as clumsy, stupid, weak, etc. To quickly add one more thing to this, that whole "ban bossy" campaign that was going around a while ago was absolute rubbish. If being called a mean word deters you from entering a career path you want, maybe you weren't really fit out for that career to begin with. Someone who gives up after being called a bad word (happens to everybody) probably wouldn't have been that beneficial anyway. Alright, I don't want to take up too much space, so I'm jumping in to why I think feminism is a bad thing. I'm going to skip the fact that the wage gap is a myth and show that feminism spreads lies and is dangerous to women. Victim Blaming This whole idea of "slut shaming" and "victim blaming" suggests that women should wear what they want, do what they want, and act how they want, and in the end not expect any negative repercussions. Now I agree that it would be fabulous to live in a crime-free world, but that is unrealistic and currently is not the case, so it is smart and safe for men and women to take precautions while walking around alone, or in general. To suggest that women should be able to do what they want and not suffer consequences is asking for special treatment, as well as superiority. There aren't "theft walks" with people saying we should be able to wear what we want and not fear getting mugged. Same goes for other forms of crimes (that surprisingly primarily effect men). Feminists are only asking for *more* rights when it benefits women. This is not a positive/equal thing. Feminism Spreads Lies Like I said earlier with the wage gap, there are "statistics" that feminists present as fact, that aren't actually fact. Primarily the "1 in 5 women are raped" nonsense. Not only are almost all of these "statistics" taken from surveys [5], and not factually based with evidence at all, they scare the hell out of girls. Apparently 1 in 3 women are sexually assaulted. This puts fear into young girls and women in order to "show how oppressed they are." Although I agree there is a problem in developing countries, this doesn't reflect North America at all. Anyway, no more space, so thanks. Sources [1] http://gotopless.org... [2] http://www.livescience.com... [3] http://goaskalice.columbia.edu... [4] http://www.womenshealthmag.com... [5] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Modern-Feminism-is-Necessary/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.24

    feminism: 18.24

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 6.27 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.06)

    sourceText: 1.95 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.09)
• CON

  During the 9/11 attacks, people knew that no matter what...

  Show full argument

  American Feminism is Going too Far

  I don't understand why there is so much victim blaming going on. "I hope you know they would have been executed regardless." First of all, King Henry only executed his wives because they kept birthing daughters. They knew that if they could give birth to a son they would get to live. Secondly, what gives you so much moral authority to judge them? During the 9/11 attacks, people knew that no matter what they did they would die, but most were so overcome by fear that they couldn't fight back. Is it their fault that the planes crashed? No, of course not. It's NEVER the victims fault. "As far as your cute sexual harassment summary, carry some pepper spray, a taser, and a mobile phone." That's a ridiculous statement. Why on earth would somebody's response to sexual harassment be to whip out a taser and shoot somebody? They would almost certainly be fired. "Did these grad students really think a seventy year old man inviting them to a hotel room was going to give them a jigsaw puzzle?" Many of these cases date back all the way to the 60's. Cosby was not nearly that old then. Secondly, many times they were tricked into visiting him with excuses such as career advice. thirdly, in many of the cases they were having various drinks, sometimes coffee, and then he drugged and raped them [6]. They had no idea that he had ill intentions. Again, it is NEVER the victims fault. "Abortion is legal in a number of states and if a woman did not want to conceive she should have abstained or used contraceptives." What is she was raped? What if she did use contraceptives and they failed? "Discrimination in academia is illegal, you can't get turned down or fall behind men because you are a woman, it just doesn't work that way" Did I not explain the subconscious bias against women? It's not always active discrimination. It's hard to prove intent on subconscious discrimination because there is none. --- I can't figure out where Pro believes that During the 9/11 attacks, people knew that no matter what they did they would die, but most were so overcome by fear that they couldn't fight back. Is it their fault that the planes crashed? No, of course not. It's NEVER the victims fault. "As far as your cute sexual harassment summary, carry some pepper spray, a taser, and a mobile phone." That's a ridiculous statement. Why on earth would somebody's response to sexual harassment be to whip out a taser and shoot somebody? They would almost certainly be fired. "Did these grad students really think a seventy year old man inviting them to a hotel room was going to give them a jigsaw puzzle?" Many of these cases date back all the way to the 60's. Cosby was not nearly that old then. Secondly, many times they were tricked into visiting him with excuses such as career advice. thirdly, in many of the cases they were having various drinks, sometimes coffee, and then he drugged and raped them [6]. They had no idea that he had ill intentions. Again, it is NEVER the victims fault. "Abortion is legal in a number of states and if a woman did not want to conceive she should have abstained or used contraceptives." What is she was raped? What if she did use contraceptives and they failed? "Discrimination in academia is illegal, you can't get turned down or fall behind men because you are a woman, it just doesn't work that way" Did I not explain the subconscious bias against women? It's not always active discrimination. It's hard to prove intent on subconscious discrimination because there is none. --- I can't figure out where Pro believes that feminism has gone too far. Pro agreed that many aspects of feminism have not gone "too far", and cannot provide any concrete examples of places where feminism has in fact done so. She has simply made obscure statements saying that women should just work harder even when I have shown that women face obstacles that men don't have to. Women should have equal rights to men, and fighting for those rights should not be given a deadline. Feminists should not be criticized for asking "society to change their view points on topics they have already established." Slavery used to be an established idea, and yet here we are, society intact. Giving one party rights that another party has always has does not take right away from those that already have it. Finally, I don't believe that Pro fully understood my point that the laws in general support equality, but our culure doesn't. One of the major things that feminists are trying to accomplish is the change the culture to become more accepting of women. [6] http://www.slate.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/American-Feminism-is-Going-too-Far/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.22

    feminism: 18.22

    conclusion: 9.07 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.01)

    premises: 7.23 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.23)

    sourceText: 1.91 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.04)
• CON

  Western feminism is the cornerstone for equality amongst...

  Show full argument

  Western feminism has failed

  To be fair to my opponent I shall just post my opening arguments and no rebuttals for this round. Western Western feminism is the cornerstone for equality amongst women that we see today especially in places that my opponent speaks of such as the US. In 1960, the world of American women was limited in almost every respect, from family life to the workplace. A woman was expected to follow one path: to marry in her early 20s, start a family quickly, and devote her life to homemaking. As one woman at the time put it, "The female doesn't really expect a lot from life. She's here as someone's keeper " her husband's or her children's."[1] As such, wives bore the full load of housekeeping and child care, spending an average of 55 hours a week on domestic chores.[2] They were legally subject to their husbands via "head and master laws," and they had no legal right to any of their husbands' earnings or property, aside from a limited right to "proper support"; husbands, however, would control their wives' property and earnings.[3] If the marriage deteriorated, divorce was difficult to obtain, as "no-fault" divorce was not an option, forcing women to prove wrongdoing on the part of their husbands in order to get divorced.[4] The 38 percent of American women who worked in 1960 were largely limited to jobs as teacher, nurse, or secretary.[5] Women were generally unwelcome in professional programs; as one medical school dean declared, "Hell yes, we have a quota...We do keep women out, when we can. We don't want them here " and they don't want them elsewhere, either, whether or not they'll admit it."[6] As a result, in 1960, women accounted for six percent of American doctors, three percent of lawyers, and less than one percent of engineers.[7] Working women were routinely paid lower salaries than men and denied opportunities to advance, as employers assumed they would soon become pregnant and quit their jobs, and that, unlike men, they did not have families to support. The feminist movement of the 1960s and '70s originally focused on dismantling workplace inequality, such as denial of access to better jobs and salary inequity, via anti-discrimination laws. However, it quickly became clear that the newly established Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would not enforce the law's protection of women workers, and so a group of feminists including decided to found an organization that would fight gender discrimination through the courts and legislatures. In the summer of 1966, they launched the National Organization for Women (NOW), which went on to lobby Congress for pro-equality laws and assist women seeking legal aid as they battled workplace discrimination in the courts.[8] This was seen as the first big step in the way of equality in the workforce for women. As it should be obvious by now without western feminism and the movements that stemmed from it, equality for women especially in the workforce could very well being non existent. It certainly has not 'failed'. The definition of feminism is: "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes"[9], thus if you support equality for women you are by definition a feminist even if you don't recognise yourself as one. These are my opening arguments thank you reference: [1] Coontz, Stephanie. A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s. New York: Basic Books, 2011. 42. [2] Coontz, Stephanie. "When We Hated Mom." New York Times. 7 May. 2011. [3] A Strange Stirring 46. [4] Collins, Gail. When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present. New York: Little, Brown & Company, 2009. 43. [5] "100 Years of Consumer Spending: 1960-61." Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2006. PDF. [6] Ibid. [7] Ibid. [8] Rosen, Ruth. The World Split Open: How the Modern Women's Movement Changed America. New York: Viking Penguin, 2000. 196. [9]https://www.google.com.au...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Western-feminism-has-failed/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.18

    feminism: 18.18

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 6.18 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.05)

    sourceText: 1.99 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.12)
• CON

  They characterize being transgender in various ways: as...

  Show full argument

  Feminism Does Not Equal Hate for Me

  I agree that originally feminism was a great thing and still could be, but it has developed into something much worse. Many feminist use there cause to hate men and transgender people. Here are some actual quotes from modern feminists: Warning contains graphic language "To have your cock cut off and then plead special privileges as women " above natural-born women, who don"t know the meaning of suffering, apparently"" - Julie Burchill "[Moore] and I are part of the minority of women of working-class origin to make it in what used to be called Fleet Street and I think this partly contributes to the stand off with the tranni"We know that everything we have, we got for ourselves. We have no family money, no safety net. And we are damned if we are going to be accused of being privileged by a bunch of bed-wetters in bad wigs." - Julie Burchill The accusation of upper-class privilege is at odds with the reality that transgender people experience unemployment at twice the rate of the general population. Burchill"s false assumption is that transgender people don"t know the suffering of biologically born women ignores the fact that transpeople are especially vulnerable to violence including sexual violence. Transphobia in the feminist community isn"t new and continues to be promoted by feminists such as Sheila Jeffreys, Germaine Greer, and Julie Bindel who pathologize transgenderism for a variety of reasons. They characterize being transgender in various ways: as an extremely kinky sexual practice or a mental illness such as body dysmorphic disorder. Sometimes the criticism is paternalistic in claiming that transgender people are merely exploited victims of the medical industry"s drive to make money with various surgical and hormonal procedures. The 1994 book Transexual Empire: The Making of the She-Male by Janice Raymond describes being transsexual as a medical invention manufactured to create profit. Another criticism is that transgender people reinforce gender roles or expression. For example, Germaine Greer once referred to transwomen as "ghastly parodies of women" with "too much eye-shadow." Sometimes the attacks on transgender people reach conspiracy levels by those who see the phenomenon as an effort by men to turn themselves into women in order to infiltrate "women"-only spaces. Feminists Lierre Keith and Derrick Jensen blend transphobia with "anti-civilization" environmentalism in Deep Green Resistance (DGR). Julie Labrouste, a contact of Radical Women, was repudiated by DGR, which had been urging her to join until she mentioned she was trans-female. She shared the following email message that she received from the group: There has been a great deal of controversy around DGR"s stance on gender " we are a feminist organization and as such the women in our group have requested that their women"s spaces be women-only (women born women/female persons). Additionally, we believe that in general, trans*, transgenderism, and queer theory have been detrimental to the movement for women"s liberation. This is fundamental to the DGR movement and informs our work against patriarchy and civilization. This is not something we are interested in debating or changing, so DGR is likely not the best fit for you. Julie Bindel, another prominent feminist, promotes misconceptions by stating that "transsexualism, by its nature, promotes the idea that it is "natural" for boys to play with guns and girls to play with Barbie dolls"the idea that gender roles are biologically determined rather than socially constructed is the antithesis of feminism." She blames transgender people for promoting sexual stereotypes because male-to-female transgenders are supposedly driven to achieve an ultra-feminine ideal. She overlooks the fact that being transgender is about self-identification and that what someone actually does to transition is up to them and doesn"t necessarily include hormones or surgery. When some of the most prominent feminists and famous women make openly hateful anti-male statements, and the mainstream feminist organizations say and do nothing to distance themselves from such public statements, then it"s clear that the hatred of men has an accepted place in mainstream feminism. Does this seem like a harsh assessment of feminism? Perhaps. Is it true? Absolutely. One of the main problems with "feminism" is that it exploits the legitimate claims of equal rights as a cloak to usher in its divisive, hateful and neurotic interests. Interests that are plainly anti-male and not at all about equal rights. For example, here are some quotes from famous feminists. "I feel that "man-hating" is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." " Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor "To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he"s a machine, a walking dildo." -" Valerie Solanas "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." " Andrea Dworkin "Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" " Susan Brownmiller "The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men." " Sharon Stone "In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." " Catherine MacKinnon "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." " Sally Miller Gearhart "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." " Catherine Comins "All men are rapists and that"s all they are" " Marilyn French "Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release." " Germaine Greer. The quotations above are from Kelly Mac"s blog. Kelly is "a woman against feminism" because of its anti-male agenda. https://www.google.com... http://awomanagainstfeminism.blogspot.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-Does-Not-Equal-Hate-for-Me/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.13

    feminism: 18.13

    conclusion: 9.07 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 1.01)

    premises: 7.09 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.20)

    sourceText: 1.97 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.11)