args

CON

• CON

  Feminism is grounded on the belief that women are...

  Show full argument

  Feminism has reached a point where it is now more harmful than good.

  The assertion that feminism has reached a point that it causes more harm than good is false. There are many logical fallacies why this claim might be made, but they do not hold up under scrutiny. Much circumstantial and anecdotal evidence might be given to support such claims, but they beg the question as to whether feminism is the cause of the evidence. The facts will show that equality of the sexes has not been reached in this country, let alone much of the rest of the world. That this lofty goal has not been met does not imply that feminism failed, nor does it imply that feminism succeeded but that this is as close as we can get to equality. The facts only show we have far to go; not as far as we once did, of course, but still miles to go before we sleep. A June 2010 report by the U.S. Department of Labor(1) read that, in 2009, women who were full time salary or wage employees earned only 80% of their male counterparts. Though the gap is less than in 1979 (where they earned 62% of males), it can in no way be considered the best we can do. Of course economic earnings are hardly the only factor to determine equality, and was not the prime cause that gave rise to the feminist movement. The prime cause, the overarching grievance of the movement, is oppression. Feminism is grounded on the belief that women are oppressed or disadvantaged by comparison with men, and that their oppression is in some way illegitimate or unjustified. (2) So it is not the equality of incomes that will signify the success of the feminist movement, but the eradication of all oppression against women. Oppression is the flipside of liberty, and liberty can be gaged by choices. Women today have many more choices than they did even twenty years ago, and so I concede that the yoke of oppression is lighter, but it has not been thrown off. The roots of sexism go back thousands of years. The patriarchal societies in which women have sought to thrive can point to their holy books to give ‘proof’ of the subservient role that women are supposed to assume. Men who were comfortable with their role as breadwinners and protectors were taken aback by women who asserted their authority and power. Many men lost their identity as a direct result of women redefining theirs, but that is not a failure of the movement, it is a failure of the men. Women struggled mightily to define themselves apart from their traditional roles, because it was those roles, in part, that were keeping them shackled to the past. Women shattered the notion that they could be only housewives or secretaries. Then they shattered the notion that there were any jobs that could only be fulfilled by males. It wasn’t inferiority that made it difficult for women to break into the military, the police, the firefighters, et al. It was the stubborn refusal of the male mindset to change. We came very close already to running a female for the Presidency, and I anticipate we will have a First Husband in my lifetime. But having women in such places of power does not mean that there is no more sexism any more than having a black President means there is no more racism. It means we have come far, but the race is not run just because you can see the finish line. Though there is much good yet for the feminist movement to accomplish, my opponent will also argue that the movement does more harm than good. The hardships and failures that inevitably result from any evolutionary process in no way indicate that the struggle is not worth it. It is always difficult when someone in power has to give up some of that power. Many women, perhaps, have abused their newly claimed power but, considering the thousands of year of oppression, there is no indication that more harm is being caused than good. (1)U.S. Department of Labor, 2010, Highlights of Women's Earnings in 2009, 1/25/2012, Meridianville, AL, www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2009.pdf (2)James, Susan. 1998. “Feminism.” In Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 10. London: Routledge, p.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-has-reached-a-point-where-it-is-now-more-harmful-than-good./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 17.72

    feminism: 17.72

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

    premises: 9.29 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.57)

    sourceText: 1.88 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.01)
• CON

  Okay, so let's scratch my definition of irrelevant then...

  Show full argument

  Feminism is irrelevant in today's society

  Okay, so let's scratch my definition of irrelevant then and define "unnecessary". [1] Unnecessary: not needed. I will start of by rebutting some of your points. Domestic Violence 1) In your first argument, you claim that women are the abusers, not men, and that women abuse men more often then men abuse women. If we take a look at a credible source, such as (DVS) "Domestic Violence Statistics" you will see that the statistics for women whom are abused are much more serious and of a higher rate then men who are abused. [2] Every 9 seconds in the US a woman is assaulted or beaten. Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. Most often, the abuser is a member of her own family. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women—more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined. Studies suggest that up to 10 million children witness some form of domestic violence annually. Nearly 1 in 5 teenage girls who have been in a relationship said a boyfriend threatened violence or self-harm if presented with a breakup. Everyday in the US, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. Ninety-two percent of women surveyed listed reducing domestic violence and sexual assault as their top concern. Domestic violence victims lose nearly 8 million days of paid work per year in the US alone—the equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs. Based on reports from 10 countries, between 55 percent and 95 percent of women who had been physically abused by their partners had never contacted non-governmental organizations, shelters, or the police for help. The costs of intimate partner violence in the US alone exceed $5.8 billion per year: $4.1 billion are for direct medical and health care services, while productivity losses account for nearly $1.8 billion. Men who as children witnessed their parents’ domestic violence were twice as likely to abuse their own wives than sons of nonviolent parents. Now, let's compare this to the men whom have been abused statistics. [3] Nearly, 15% of women (14.8%) and 4% of men have been injured as a result of IPV that included rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.[iii] As you can see, there is a dramatic difference in the percentage of both genders who have been taken advantage of or have been beaten. Consent Here you are simply that if a women gets raped, and or is taken advantage of, it's simply her fault. This is in fact, very untrue. When someone is drunk, they have no control over their mind. Alcohol has a major impact on the brain, so people aren't allowed to control themselves. [4] Alcohol interferes with the brain’s communication pathways, and can affect the way the brain looks and works. These disruptions can change mood and behavior, and make it harder to think clearly and move with coordination. As you can see, you don't have control over your body. So if a guy tries to rape a women while she is drunk, he will more then likely succeed because the girl is unaware of her environment, thus leading to rape. Pay Gap In this claim, my opponent admits that there is in fact a gay gap by saying that there is a "23 cent" gap, then he seems to get confused and say that "Just to put the cherry on this sundae, the wage gap, if it ever existed, it legally should have gone away in 1963 when JFK signed such legislation. Another problem I have here is he says " should have gone away in 1963 when JFK signed such legislation." Okay then my question here is: What did JFK sign? And what should have gone away? My opponent fails to argue that the pay gap is a issue. Why Feminism is necessary. First, I would like to give you a background on how Feminism started AKA "The Women's Movement. [5] Charles Fourier, a Utopian Socialist and French philosopher, is credited with having coined the word "féminisme" in 1837.[11] The words "féminisme" ("feminisme") and "féminist" ("feminist") first appeared in France and the Netherlands in 1872,[12] Great Britain in the 1890s, and the United States in 1910,[13][14] and the Oxford English Dictionary lists 1852 as the year of the first appearance of "feminist"[15] and 1895 for "feminism".[16] Depending on historical moment, culture and country, feminists around the world have had different causes and goals. Most western feminist historians assert that all movements that work to obtain women's rights should be considered feminist movements, even when they did not (or do not) apply the term to themselves.[17][18][19][20][21][22] Other historians assert that the term should be limited to the modern feminist movement and its descendants. Those historians use the label "protofeminist" to describe earlier movements.[23] In today's society, men want to ignore the fact that women get taken advantage of way too much. Who is to stand up for them? This is why we have feminist. To 1, protect our right's and 2, to protect our self's and stand up for what is wrong. Men like to think that we are all equal when that in fact isn't the case, people would rather ignore the fact that we aren't equal because they'd rather not deal with it. 14 reasons why we need Feminism. [6] 1. Because women still dealwith catcalling on a daily basis. 2. Because there are currently only 20 women serving in the United States Senate, compared to 80 men. 3. Because America is still very much a patriarchy. 4. Because although we’ve made some great progress with female CEOs … 5. Overall, women still earn less money than men with the same education level. 6. Because a woman’s appearance is still under a microscope. 7. Because in the United States, a woman is raped every six seconds. 8. And more often than not, the victim is blamed. 9. Because women have been fired because of their looks. 10. Because women experience terror when walking alone at night. 11. Because pepper spray shouldn’t have to be a necessity for women to feel safe. 12. Because women should be allowed to decide what happens to their bodies. 13. Because in a domestic abuse case, people ask, “Why did she stay?” instead of, “Why did he abuse?” 14. And because even if you’ve never personally experienced any of these things, other women do…every single day. We women have the freedom to do what we want, nobody should be able to wake away our freedom of speech as stated in the first Amendment. I look forward to you argument! Sources: [1] https://www.google.com... [2] http://domesticviolencestatistics.org... [3] http://www.thehotline.org... [4] http://niaaa.nih.gov... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.buzzfeed.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-irrelevant-in-todays-society/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 17.71

    feminism: 17.71

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

    premises: 5.78 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 0.98)

    sourceText: 1.92 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.05)
• CON

  One analogy I heard was "that's like saying someone who...

  Show full argument

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

  You are aware in this debate you are supposed to be arguing in favor of feminism right? Anyways did you even read my argument? Well I have about 7.8 thousand characters left so I may as well expand on my arguments. A lot of the ways 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 and likely had external problems causing it such as mental illness, stress and alcohol/drug problems. Importantly this approach saw both males and females as victims and perpetrators. To put it simply this approach had no gender bias. 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. The women Erin Pizzey I recently talked about was terrorized by Feminists for questioning their model and saying it was wrong. She was protested and threatened by Feminists. She had to have a police escort where ever she went because of Feminists. She was instructed to have her mail re-directed to the bomb unit to ensure her house would not be blown to smithereens. The result of this terror peaked when her family dog was shot. As a result she fled the country. All of that just for saying women can be just as violent as men and that Feminists are wrong. Just for saying men can be victims too she was terrorized to the point of her fleeing the country. Countless Feminists view men as monsters and women as the princesses that need to be rescued from their violent captors. They reject the evidence and suppress those who speak out against them. As a result of Feminist policy men have been denied the rights as people, just because they are men and Feminist policy treats men like monsters. DV policy isn't even the only case. In Feminist rape policy all men are treated like possible rapists even though the reality is only a tiny percent of the population commits almost all rapes. So allow me to conclude, Feminism is not helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries because feminism itself does not treat the genders equally. Feminism treats women as the superior, harmless gender while Feminism treats men as sub-human monsters. Does that sound equal to you?

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-currently-helping-us-reach-gender-equality-in-1st-world-countries/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 17.69

    feminism: 17.69

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

    premises: 9.17 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.55)

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

  I accept but I am putting up the following definintion...

  Show full argument

  2nd wave and 3rd wave/modern feminism is harmful and should not exist.

  I accept but I am putting up the following definintion for feminism: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/2nd-wave-and-3rd-wave-modern-feminism-is-harmful-and-should-not-exist./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 17.53

    feminism: 17.53

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

    premises: 9.07 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.54)

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

  And did I mention this happens to girls as young as five...

  Show full argument

  On balance, Feminism is not needed in the US anymore.

  Thank you again for challenging me to this topic! I would like to say the resolution is not just limited to the United States. The resolution reads “On balance, Feminism is not needed in the US anymore.”The resolution is not just on the U.S, but other countries as well, it’s not restricted to the U.S. due to the wording. I will be arguing that: 1. Women are still oppressed in the U.S—thus, we still need feminism. 2. Oppression of Women in other countries, and why feminism is important. Oppression of Women in the U.S A lot of people believe that oppression no longer exist in the U.S anymore. Here are my reasons: C.1 [1] Sex, Domestic Violence and Rape: “In terms of the global sex trade, an estimated 50,000 women are trafficked into the US each year. The USA is both a destination country for trafficking, as well as a source country. This means that American women ARE kidnapped, or otherwise coerced into the sex trafficking industry. Women are often lured into the sex trade under false pretenses; being hired as waitresses or maids and then forced into prostitution. This is not just a problem for developing countries. It is here, on our own soil…. “In the US, 23 women a week are killed by intimates. This has held steady for more than a decade. 74% of women murdered from instances of domestic violence were murdered after the woman left the relationship, filed for divorce or got a restraining order. Our government has failed to protect women from abusive partners, and band-aid solutions like restraining orders are proven to be, ultimately, ineffective.” The goal of the government is to protect their citizens, and keep them safe at all measures. But, they don’t seem to care much when it comes to the safety of the Women. It merely seems as if the government merely believes that Women should be taking care of themselves. [4] Even the government underestimates the crisis American women are in. Last year the Justice Department reported that there were 182,000 sexual assaults committed against women in 2008, which would mean that the rate had decreased by 70 percent since 1993. But a study by the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center showed that the Justice Department's methodology was flawed. Instead of behaviorally based questions, such as "Has anyone ever forced you to have sex?", women were asked if they had been subject to "rape, attempted or other type of sexual attack." Victims often don't label their experience as "rape," especially when someone they know attacked them. The center says the actual number of U.S. women raped in 2008 was more than 1 million. The distressing statistics don't stop with violence: Women hold 17 percent of the seats in Congress; abortion is legal, but more than 85 percent of counties in the United States have no provider; women work outside the home, but they make about 76 cents to a man's dollar and make up the majority of Americans living in poverty. C.2 In the Workplace Many people want to argue that the “Wage Gap” simply doesn’t exist. In fact, it still does. Many people want to argue that the reasoning has to do with degrees, and positions. It has been proven on multiple occasions that Men and Women who have the same degree, and work the same job, Women still earn less. “Women still earn 72 cents for every man a dollar earns. In 2008, women occupied only 15% of board positions of Fortune 500 companies. The proportion of women in government was lower in 2007 than 1997. In Scandinavian countries, there are policies that enforce equality in representation of government. Not in the US, with a paltry 17% of female government officials–Iraq has a higher representation of women in government than we do. So does Namibia, Rwanda, and Afghanistan. Until there is equality in representation on a government level, there is no equality for women on the civic level.” [2] “Did you know that in 2014, women working full time in the United States typically were paid just 79 percent of what men were paid, a gap of 21 percent? The gap has narrowed since the 1970s (Figure 1), due largely to women’s progress in education and workforce participation and to men’s wages rising at a slower rate. But progress has stalled in recent years, and the pay gap does not appear likely to go away on its own.” This is merely discrimination, paying Women less because she is simply a woman. There is no denying the fact. This is oppression, and we should continue to fight for equality, especially when it comes to pay. Quick facts: Thanks to the pay gap, women struggle to pay off student loan debt even more than men do. The pay gap has barely budged in a decade. At the current rate, the gap won’t close for more than 100 years. Women in every state experience the pay gap, but in some states it’s worse than others C. 3 Why we need Feminism in other Countries. A) Because FGM still exists; [3] FGM involves removing bits of the genitals and stitching them back together. Female genital mutilation causes severe pain. It makes peeing very painful and sex impossible. Many want to say that the procedure is due to religion, which may be true in some cases, but not all. “despite FGM being mainly associated with Ethiopian minority Judaism and Sunni Muslims. The answer often lies in ancient attitudes to female sexuality. In some parts of the world, a high value is placed on a bride’s virginity. FGM destroys the victim’s ability to derive pleasure from sex while also making it highly-painful, ensuring that virginity remains intact. And did I mention this happens to girls as young as five months? That’s right: in 2013 there are still some people who honestly can’t see what’s wrong with mutilating a baby.” Child Brides [3] “Although it affects more girls worldwide, child marriage is bad news for both genders. In Rajasthan in India, children as young as six get married in lavish ceremonies, eventually moving in together at 14. As anyone who’s ever been a teenager knows, fourteen is not an age at which you can typically expect emotional maturity. Unsurprisingly, stuff like domestic abuse is more prevalent in these early marriages. But India has nothing on places like South Sudan or Yemen. While Indian child brides are usually around the same age as their husband, their foreign counterparts often wind up getting married to someone decades older. Girls who refuse to marry are frequently beaten, imprisoned or even murdered.” Again, another act of oppression, and inequality. Women are deprived from making choices themselves, thus they are oppressed by Men. FGM and Child brides are not choices made by Women, but simply by the elders, and Men in their societies. Depriving one of such a choice is a act of discrimination. Theese are just a *few* reasons as to why we still need feminism. The list goes on and on. But theese are the more important issues. Sources: [1] https://heymanda.wordpress.com... [2] http://www.aauw.org... [3] http://listverse.com... [4] http://www.washingtonpost.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/On-balance-Feminism-is-not-needed-in-the-US-anymore./2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 17.49

    feminism: 17.49

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

    premises: 6.50 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.10)

    sourceText: 1.92 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.05)
• CON

  I don't know about you, but I'd much rather live in...

  Show full argument

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

  My apologies on the format, something happened to the site so I pasted from Microsoft Word... At least it still exists. I appreciate the kind words, Kasmic, and same goes to you. I like the way you debate and stay away from personal insults. I completely agree - ad hominem attacks are useless. Thanks for your opening arguments, I'll see if I have enough room to bring up my own after addressing yours. Economic Injustice So I found a census .pdf that explains the lack of "representation" for females in STEM occupations, however absolutely nothing regarding pay [1]. A lack of female dominance or "equal" employment of men and women has (most likely) nothing to do with an employer's discrimination, bias, sexism, etc. And I'd say (this makes sense) a lack of female representation is due to more males choosing to enter this field of work than females, as females tend to enter more "family" oriented positions, like child care, front of house type stuff, where they are pretty much guaranteed to keep this position. I also, for the life of me, could not find any statistics showing pay between men and women based on same job, same work experience, same age, and same education. I did however find a census .pdf that showed there is a 23% difference between men and women for the most part, but this has nothing to do with specific jobs [2]. When an employer pays a colleague more than another, what's the first thing that comes to mind? "He/she must be better at this job"? "He/she must have more experience"? "The boss must see more potential in this individual"? Either way you look at it, this reasoning makes sense, right? ...So why is it when as soon as a man gets paid more than a woman, everyone blames sexism and says there's no possible way a male can be paid more than a female other than blatant sexism? Why are work ethics, performance, willingness to advance in the company (or not), not taken into perspective when there is a difference in pay between males and females? Would it be possible women just generally don't excel as much as men do in jobs such as engineering or mathematics or technology, and excel more in jobs geared toward "natural female" jobs, such as child care, or jobs that require a personable personality? I found a "top 10" on Discovery.com related to 10 gender differences between men and women [3]. Most are whatever, but one really stood out, and that is that, according to research and studies, Men handle lack of sleep better than women do. This may sound like nothing, but in the long run, would you prefer someone (notice I didn't specify gender) who can work longer without getting burnt out? If you were an employer, you would - and that makes sense, and doesn't have anything to do with discriminating against a gender. According to KFF, approximately 20% of women live in poverty, whereas 18% of men do [4]. This 2% difference most likely has nothing to do with discrimination, and to say one group of people statistically have "worse" lives means there is discrimination or sexism or racism or whatever against that group would be ridiculous. On average, women don't have as well paying jobs or as well "respected" jobs as men? I can agree with that. However you would need to prove that this is directly related to blatant sexism, discrimination, etc against women. Did you forget upwards of 70% of the homeless population is male [5]? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather live in poverty and have a minimum wage job with no benefits than have no house or job and live on the streets. We could even argue that women have it better then men when it comes to "true" poverty. To conclude that because women have less paying jobs (even though men have a higher unemployment rate than women [6]), and a lower representation in higher paying jobs is a direct repercussion of discrimination or sexism is... well, unrealistic. Domestic Violence Although statistics show more women are victims of domestic violence than men, that difference isn't very large at all, as about 40% of domestic violence victims are male [7]. One difference between a guy hitting a girl and a girl hitting a guy is when a girl hits a guy, people laugh. People don't take it seriously. People brush it off and figure he can defend himself. And to be clear, yes, they do laugh, as you can see in this social experiment on YouTube [8]. People LAUGH when a girl is physically assaulting a guy. Men are known to be physically stronger than women, and have a more physically aggressive mentality, which is most likely the main reason more men assault women than the other way around, but hey, this has nothing to do with sexism. It's genetics. It's biology. It sucks, any crime sucks, but it is completely irrational and unrealistic to conclude that there is a relationship between male on female domestic violence and sexism/superiority. One in six men under the age of 18 have been physically sexually abused [9]. I know the following is a statistic from way up in Canada, but Canada and America aren't very different when you think about it; Men are physically assaulted a lot more than women - over three times more men are victims of aggravated assault than women [10]. This is regarding domestic violence however, and although it is clear women very well could be assaulted in a domestic relationship/environment more than men are, you have not shown how feminism can help, and you have not proved that this is even a case of sexism or a superiority complex or anything of that sort. Statistics are great, however you have not provided a correlation between domestic abuse and sexism. And if feminism is not solely a "sexism/equal rights" movement, then why doesn't feminism focus on all types of abuse instead of ones that favor/victimize women more than men? How feminism can help I completely agree 100% that feminism was needed at a time, and did help drastically with women's rights and safety, and it was completely necessary in the 20th century. However modern feminism is truly pushing it. I have been called a rapist by feminists (it doesn't matter if "true" feminists don't consider these women "true" feminists, what matters is "true" feminists still associate with these "fake" feminists, or "feminazis," by sharing the same name), because I've had sex with women who have had alcohol (while I have also consumed alcohol). I have been called a supporter of rape because I consider it wise to avoid dark alleys by yourself, wise to not dress extremely provocatively, or stumble around alone while under the influence of drugs/alcohol. The term rape culture is basically asking for women to have more rights than men; If a woman claims she was raped - she was. If a woman points at a man for rape - he did. If a woman is asked any normal questions carried out in crime investigations - these people are supporters of rape. Women (feminists) are asking for special treatment and more rights than men. When is it not appropriate for someone to ask what a man was wearing when he was assaulted? Maybe he was walking down the wrong neighbourhood dressed all in red, and he was assaulted by Crips. Maybe the way he was walking could be taken as an intimidation tactic. Maybe his expensive clothing could be taken as bragging about his money from selling drugs. Asking a victim of any crime facts has nothing to do with supporting their misfortune. It is simple criminal procedures. Also, you'd rather teach men not to rape than women to try and avoid sick animals who actually do rape? Why not teach people not to murder, steal, harass, extort, or commit any other illegal or hurtful activity? Because you can't. Some people's brains develop much differently than others, which ends up leading some people to harm others, either physically or mentally, or both. Feminism denies this, and thinks that it would make more sense to tell these people not to commit crimes than tell people to attempt to avoid these types of people who we really can't do a hell of a lot about. Prisons exist. The death penalty is still in use in some places. I'm sure knowing you'll rot in prison for dozens of years if not your entire life if you rape a girl is a better deterrent than feminists making blogs and ranting on tumblr (trying not to sound like a jerk, sorry if it comes off that way, I'm passionate about this subject). Here's an article about rape culture [10], which does have some legitimate points, but also contains ridiculous things such as, (I'm paraphrasing) "you support rape if you like the song 'blurred lines.' " My arguments have been dismissed by feminists because I am a man, and do not know what it's like to be a woman. It is clear feminism focuses more on women's issues than true equality. It also victimizes women to a new extreme. You were raped if you consumed any alcohol. You were raped if you did not give a definitive “yes.” You were sexually harassed if a guy looked at you in a way you didn’t like. And much more. My main problem with feminism is it A. Victimizes wR2;oR2;mR2;eR2;nR2; everyone. B. Separates the sexes. C. Breeds plenty extremists and holds a lot of inconsiderate, disrespectful, misandrist bigots. D. Categorizes men as rapists or supporters of rape, even if they aren't, through terms such as rape culture. Thanks, I'm looking forward to a great next round, and I hope you can address most, if not all, of my points. [1] http://www.census.gov... [2] http://www.census.gov... [3] http://news.discovery.com... [4] http://kff.org... [5] http://www.nationalhomeless.org... [6] http://www.bls.gov... [7] http://www.theguardian.com... [8] (See two videos) http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... [9] https://1in6.org... [10] http://everydayfeminism.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/On-balance-modern-Feminism-is-beneficial-to-the-modern-United-States./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 17.46

    feminism: 17.46

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

    premises: 7.57 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.28)

    sourceText: 1.96 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.09)
• CON

  in today's age women have the financial and physical...

  Show full argument

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

  Thank you for responding. Let's begin "Yes you made some good points" - Well thank you :) "https://answers.yahoo.com...... there is more men in prison then women but that does not mean that m=women want to view men as the higher race" - Well the evidence you brought up just says that men make up the vast majority of prison captives. 6.8% women and 93.2% men. Seems a little off doesn't it? Anyways the point you brought up was "but that does not mean that m=women want to view men as the higher race" That's a little confusing, but what I think you are trying to say is that this doesn't mean women see themselves as superiors to men. Well first of all I would like to point out a common but fundamental misunderstanding you have. I said before the feminist movement as a whole views men as inferiors. FeminismX00;women. I am not accusing women of anything, I have no problem with women, in fact I love them (literally), however I do have a problem with feminism. It seems the point you are trying to make is that despite these ridiculous female favored statistics, you are rejecting that females are favored in the court of law. It baffles me how anyone can believe this when the stat that 93.2% of prison inmates are men is right in front of them. I can speak from my and others personal experience, men and women can be equally violent, fraudulent and criminal. With that being the case how can we reasonably have 93.2% of prison inmates being men. Surely people should be able to see that there HAS to be bias for that start to be true. If you still don't believe me let me drop some statistics. 1. Men receive 63% longer sentences than women for simply being men- http://www.law.umich.edu... 2. Men are 165% more likely to be convicted than men when they do the exact same crime- http://permutationofninjas.org... . If you take these statistics into account you absolutely can't deny that men are disadvantaged in the court of law. "Women should have equal rights and opportunities" I completely agree I am egalitarian and believe in equality for all humans. " but don't, http://www.forbes.com...... this website shoes the ratio of men to women in college and shows women are way more advanced in the field of education but still men are given more chances." Now this I am going to disagree with. If you click on the link what the statistic shows is that the ratio of men to women in college is quickly become a ratio with much more women than men. That's right. Women are actually getting more college level education than men. "shows women are way more advanced in the field of education but still men are given more chances" This, well. This just isn't true or backed up by anything. Nothing in the article says or supports this. You say men are given more opportunities without really backing it up with anything. In fact I would argue that the exact opposite is the case. For example take this into account. If you read this article females are preferred in the education system: http://www.hookingupsmart.com... . If you look read this article it talks about the barriers men face in university that women are immune to: http://www.the-american-interest.com... . "in today's age women have the financial and physical abilities to survive" they have every single ability to support themselves."but have not been given enough opportunity's" No. They have been given every single opportunity society has to offer, they just don't take them. In fact I am going to argue they have many more opportunities than men, they just don't take them. If you watch this video - http://www.avoiceformen.com... you will see that women are actually PREFERRED in stem jobs over men for no reason other than being men. As I stated before they have every single opportunity to take high paying jobs to support themselves. "Women in society today are seen as equal." Except by many feminists who see women as superior. "Women have the ability to be in the top 6 but have not been given that path to take." The first part is right. They completely have the ability to make it to the top of society. The second part is wrong. They are given the path to take, and they are given every opportunity to take that path. They just don't. Overall you have dropped my many points of how feminism has harmed society and how the movement has been detrimental to gender equality. A lot of what you have failed to do is prove that feminism itself is helping. All you have done is state that women are disadvantaged in some places, yet oddly you selected examples of places where they are given the upper hand. Moving on. 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. The women Erin Pizzey I recently talked about was terrorized by Feminists for questioning their model and saying it was wrong. She was protested and threatened by Feminists. She had to have a police escort where ever she went because of Feminists. She was instructed to have her mail re-directed to the bomb unit to ensure her house would not be blown to smithereens. The result of this terror peaked when her family dog was shot. As a result she fled the country. All of that just for saying women can be just as violent as men and that Feminists are wrong. Just for saying men can be victims too she was terrorized to the point of her fleeing the country. Countless Feminists view men as monsters and women as the princesses that need to be rescued from their violent captors. They reject the evidence and suppress those who speak out against them. As a result of Feminist policy men have been denied the rights as people, just because they are men. So allow me to conclude, Feminism is not helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries because feminism itself does not treat the genders equally. Feminism treats women as the superior while Feminism treats men as sub-human monsters. Does that sound like equality to you?

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Feminism-is-currently-helping-us-reach-gender-equality-in-1st-world-countries/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 17.45

    feminism: 17.45

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

    premises: 8.90 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.51)

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

  Not only that, but Pro effectively conceded the debate by...

  Show full argument

  New Western Feminism is pointless and oppresive.

  Resolution: Pro has undertaken to prove that feminism is 1. "pointless," 2. "focuses only on the supremacy of women," and 3. "oppresses the right of freedom of speech." Pro must establish all three points to win this debate, but Pro failed to establish any of them. Not only that, but Pro effectively conceded the debate by establishing that the Equality Canada feminist group is concerned with advancing "education, gender equality, reason and science," "collaboration between groups that discuss gender equality," "consciousness raising activities, to do with equality," and "the taboo subjects of gender equality." (Emphasis added.) We now enter the final round, in which new arguments are not to be entertained. Pro should not introduce new arguments; if he does introduce new arguments, voters should ignore them. Therefore, all seven points should go to Con: S&G for obvious reasons. Conduct because Pro tried to shift the burden of proof, and because Pro forfeited a round. Persuasion because (1) Pro failed to establish any of the three points that he undertook to establish, (2) because---even though it was not necessary since Pro had the burden of proof---Con established that two of those points were false, and (3) because Pro himself established (with his Equity Canada agument) that two of his points were false. Sources for obvious reasons.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/New-Western-Feminism-is-pointless-and-oppresive./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 17.35

    feminism: 17.35

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

    premises: 6.33 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.07)

    sourceText: 1.94 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.08)
• CON

  Therefore, it would be good for some feminists to stay...

  Show full argument

  The west doesn't need feminism, it needs to move

  Thanks for the opportunity to debate. I assume the argument is that we don't need feminism because equality, etc has been reached and there is a far greater need for advocacy for women in other countries. When we talk about feminism, I am thinking about it in terms of campaigning for women's rights. I would argue that it is still needed in the West {as well as elsewhere}. As well as the more well known issue of a pay gap there is a promotion gap. https://www.businessinsider.com.au... There is the issue of domestic violence and how female victims continue to be treated. https://overland.org.au... Yes, it possible that men can {and do campaign on these issues too} and that women that don't call themselves feminist can also help address these issues. I would argue that having more not less people campaigning to address these issues is a good thing. Therefore, it would be good for some feminists to stay active in the West. A strong feminist movement in the West can also help people elsewhere. This is a list containing some Western based women"s groups that through the funding they receive in the West can support those overseas http://www.nytimes.com... There is also the serious issue of sexual assaults against women and the backward views held by men {and some cases women} that come up in court and elsewhere. I do agree however that there should be a greater focus on the plight of women in other countries like widows and women in Saudi Arabia, etc. I just don't think all feminists should move because there is still issues here that need to be addressed.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-west-doesnt-need-feminism-it-needs-to-move/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 17.34

    feminism: 17.34

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

    premises: 7.48 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.27)

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

  But to claim that second and third wave feminism have...

  Show full argument

  Second-wave and third-wave feminism have, all in all, detrimentally affected the USA.

  As much as I am disappointed to see the debate end before it begins, I do at least appreciate my opponent letting us know he has decided to drop out. I considered posting arguments in support of Second and Third wave feminism just for the sake of it, but at this point I feel it would be a needless expenditure of energy and time on my part. Given that I was to take the con position, I was preparing to simply defend the position that second and third wave feminism have not caused more harm than good in the United States. It seems clear to me that the burden of proof was on Pro in this debate to demonstrate that they have been, all in all, detrimental to the country. I will say that second wave feminism fought for, and gained, legal protections against gender based employment discrimination as well as equal pay for men and women. Third wave feminism, which admittedly is more nebulously defined due to its contemporary nature, has made gender based violence a central theme and aided in bringing that topic to the national dialogue. I have a difficult time seeing how either of these 'waves' can be seen as being "all in all" detrimental to the United States. I was not coming here with the intention of claiming that the effects of feminism have been wholly good, and even less to defend the idea that ALL feminists are good. But to claim that second and third wave feminism have been "all in all" detrimental to the country was a rather large claim which obviously cannot be taken at face value without argument. Unfortunately it seems as if we will not be hearing that argument. Whatever my opponent's reasons for retiring from DDO may be, I wish him nothing but the best in the future.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Second-wave-and-third-wave-feminism-have-all-in-all-detrimentally-affected-the-USA./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 17.30

    feminism: 17.30

    conclusion: 4.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 10.42 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.77)

    sourceText: 1.92 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.05)