Pro vs. con view
1031 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Todays feminists are hypocrites in every sense o the...

    Third-wave feminism is about misandry and has nothing to do with gender equality

    We have all heard from the left about how, feminism is all about gender equality and fairness. This definition that the left clings to is CORRECT....if we were still living in the 1950s. The third wave feminist movement has moved on from the basic principle that have guided the first and second waves. It has rather become a mean, spiteful, and man hating philosophy based off on not building up women but tearing down men. Not only do we see the replacement of peaceful protests with violet demonstrations such as the attack on women during Life-day. We currently see the result of such a transition in polls and figures done by many institutes. Women are abandoning feminism at an alarming rate not because of their supposed sudden transformation into racist and sexist bigots. These polls asked women if they supported gender equality and if they supported the third wave feminist movement. 85% of people when asked in the polls said that they support gender equality HOWEVER, only 18% of people said that they supported the third wave feminist movement. If, feminism in truly about equality, WHY wouldn't these people give the same answer to both poll questions. These polls are not done by some unreliable alt-right sources such as Breitbart. These polls are done by Vox, Huffington Post, CNN, etc. Modern day feminism is hated so much because they say one thing but, do another. Todays feminists are hypocrites in every sense o the word. My opponent would likely attempt to frame these debate as a force of good vs evil, equality vs oppression, etc. However, this is simply not the case as we see multiple deliberately misleading lies and actions done by third-wave feminism in an attempt to attack men and other women dissenters. We see their championship of the debunked gender pay-gap statistic and their completely unproven "1 in 4" rape culture data. Their magical concept of the modern day patriarchy conspiracy theories which deprives young women of the chance to improve on their failures and succeed in life. Feminism tells everyone that women are some oppressed class in America and demand laws to help women and punish all those who disagree with their agenda. Feminists lobbys the government for more affirmative action policies at college campuses and high-income workplaces. In reality, women have 2 to 1 advantage over men when applying for STEM jobs and are graduating college with degrees with much more higher rates that the male counterparts. We see them demanding that women be entered into more STEM fields when, in reality women tend to avoid this type of expertise. The more developed a country is, the less percentage of women are willing to find a STEM job. Women tend to dominate fields of the arts and humanities not because there is some evil cult of straight white men secretly hypnotizing the women to be forced into homemaker positions but because of choice. This lack of women in the STEM field, combined with women's tendency to take more vacations, work less hours LEADS to the supposed "gender wage gap". My opponent may perhaps mention gender stereotypes and how they affect women's choices however, my opponent must explain why the evil patriarchy would discourage women from physics BUT not veterinary sciences. The supposed "wage gap" couldn't even be called a wage gap, the statistic is calculated when you take the average annual income and do basic division. If you look by the hour for the same job, BOTH genders are equal in pay. My opponent might bring up some obscure statistic and certain stories where some companies violate this. However, simple economics can debunk this whole patriarchy and gender pay-gap argument. IF, corporations can get away with paying women less for equal amounts of work and labor, then why wouldn't companies just fire all their male employees and exclusively hire women. ALL companies want to maximize income and profit, that is why we saw sweatshops hire exclusively women in the late 1800s. Perhaps you may note that sexism would prevent companies from hiring women however even that is not the case. The 1800s were a time of gender equality but that did not stop companies from hiring exclusively women in these sweatshops. This modern-day movement cares little of fairness or equality of opportunity but focuses completely on equality of outcome. Now, my opponent might protest citing arguments about how these feminists are just "militant" feminists but, unfortunately that is not the case. The feminist leadership and figures around the world openly support these lies and advocate attacks on males. Emma Watson or Gloria Steinem are the new leaders and faces of this movement. These may be just "militant" feminists but these same "militant" feminists have hijacked feminism by taking control of the media and education systems. A movement is best defined by it's leaders and while not all of feminists are "militant", they are certainty led and encouraged by them. To attack men and delegitimize their status in society to bring about a "equality of outcome" does not bring about social progress but reverse sexism. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.pbs.org... http://www.news.cornell.edu... https://www.usnews.com... http://www.dailytexanonline.com... http://sundial.csun.edu... https://www.usnews.com... http://www.usatoday.com...

  • PRO

    If someone accepts this debate and they wish to challenge...

    Feminism is not misandry, but rather the belief in gender equality

    In this debate, I am going to argue that feminism is not misandry, but rather the belief in gender equality. Before we begin, I will define the definitions of "misandry", "sexism", and "gender equality". I define "misandry" as the belief that males are inherently inferior to females. I define "sexism" as the belief that one gender is superior to at least one other gender. Note that I said "at least". Finally, I define "gender equality" as the belief that no gender is inherently superior to any other gender - that is, being male isn't inherently better than being female, being female isn't inherently better than being male, etc. If someone accepts this debate and they wish to challenge one or more of these definitions, they may do so. Why am I taking the proposition that feminism is not misandry, but rather the belief in gender equality? Because, overall, women have it off far worse than men do. Here are some examples: 1) If a woman sleeps with many people, she's shamed and called a slut. If a man sleeps with many people, he's revered and called a stud. That is a blatant double standard in our society that is sexist against women. 2) Women are sexually objectified far more than men are. Just look up the word "sexy" on Google Images, and you will see that nearly all of the pictures are of women. 3) In Saudi Arabia, women are not legally allowed to drive, but men are. That is a blatant double standard against women. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Overall, women have it off far worse than men do, so that is why I am taking the stance in this debate that I am taking. If you disagree, I welcome you to accept this debate.

  • PRO

    They typically lack the level of personal responsibility...

    The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

    This is not about legal equality: I am not arguing that women should have different rights to men. I am saying that its better for males to be in the 'driving seat' when it comes to relationships. Women are typically less stable, reasonable and rational than their male counterparts and also struggle with handling power to a greater degree than men. They typically lack the level of personal responsibility that males posses and thus can become emotionally charged more easily and are more likely to make rash decisions that detriment the family as a whole. Womens intrinsic value of having vaginas and wombs was offset against the males value of being productive, strong, protective and of possessing leadership qualities. Now however women have the upper hand and men are becoming increasingly obsolete and thus are being treat with increasing disdain from their female counterparts. People are less happy than ever in relationships and my argument is that the rise of feminism has played a major role in this change. My view is that women are predominantly better suited to housekeeping and parental duties over work in the workplace. I also argue that they are typically happier in the home environment than in the workplace. I also argue that separate duties within a household produce a more stable relationship and a better environment for raising children. I argue that They typically lack the level of personal responsibility that males posses and thus can become emotionally charged more easily and are more likely to make rash decisions that detriment the family as a whole. Womens intrinsic value of having vaginas and wombs was offset against the males value of being productive, strong, protective and of possessing leadership qualities. Now however women have the upper hand and men are becoming increasingly obsolete and thus are being treat with increasing disdain from their female counterparts. People are less happy than ever in relationships and my argument is that the rise of feminism has played a major role in this change. My view is that women are predominantly better suited to housekeeping and parental duties over work in the workplace. I also argue that they are typically happier in the home environment than in the workplace. I also argue that separate duties within a household produce a more stable relationship and a better environment for raising children. I argue that Now however women have the upper hand and men are becoming increasingly obsolete and thus are being treat with increasing disdain from their female counterparts. People are less happy than ever in relationships and my argument is that the rise of feminism has played a major role in this change. My view is that women are predominantly better suited to housekeeping and parental duties over work in the workplace. I also argue that they are typically happier in the home environment than in the workplace. I also argue that separate duties within a household produce a more stable relationship and a better environment for raising children. I argue that feminism, though valuable in providing rights for women, now has a negative impact on relationship satisfaction and stability. The idea that men and women are the same is the misconception at the heart of this issue.

  • PRO

    Nor do I see a let the individual decide policy...

    feminism is marxism

    There are two areas that I believe you are disagreeing with. This is the crux of point one: "Feminism is Marxism light, where did that come from?" In your posts you claim that most of the left are solid capitalists. Most of your previous posts entail trying to explain how things are "somewhat (okay maybe more than somewhat) socialist areas of interests" but are in view not in fact socialist. My use 'Marxism light' was to address that issue. It is true that we live in a representational democracy. It is also true we have in socialist policies in place. At what point do we say that we are a socialist country? When the government spends 50%? 75%? That I think is where some of our differences exist. I do not see feminist today espousing free market economics. Nor do I see a let the individual decide policy prescriptions. What is happening is, feminist are trying to push through more government control of not only regulations but economic resources. What is unavoidable is that they do promote in large part socialist policies. Again equality of outcomes is not equality of opportunity. The only way to get the former is by using force. In this the original post clearly shows that individual's belief that it was only by increasing the class could collective action be taken against basically everyone else. The second area I think you disagree is the notion I put forward that you can only have socialism if you have marxism. As pointed out in my previous post, one can only have a redistribution of economic resources if one identifies classes and uses collective action to force the redistribution. In this way, as pointed out by von Mises, Fascism is really no different from Socialism. "Point One: This is saying that capitalism causes men to exploit women, which is not true, capitalism is not usually blamed. Point Two: A feminist "assault" on the family has little to do with Point Two Point Three: A feminist "assault" on the family has little to do with Point Three Point Four: Patriarchy does not equal capitalism Point Five: Multiple waves are not exclusive to Marxism Point Six: Men and women being equal has nothing to do with Point Six" All of these points have been addressed. I will expand on them. Production is not only items that are traded for currency. Other production can include labor in the family. Much of the economic conflict argued by feminist occur in the home. The division of labor where women produce economic output at home forgoing currency based imployment outside of the home, is considered 'slavery' by many feminist. Only true freedom is believed to be possible where the woman has equal income to the husband and home duties are shared equally. Specialization is considered a loss of 'power'. I will agree with you that economic considerations are not the only area that feminist argue for. The fact 'patriarchy' is specified does not mean that they are not marxist/socialist, especially when they use Marxist methods to come to their positions. In both word and deed, it is clear feminist are Marxists.

  • PRO

    Feminism is not directed specifically toward men, but...

    Feminism is relevant

    It's not quite relevant to the point of this debate, but as a disability rights community member, I can assure you that it regards equality--equality to read the same books as sighted people, equality to access the same buildings as able-bodied people, equality for an autistic person to clap their hands and jiggle their leg to calm themself in the same socially acceptable waythatsomeone would be viewed, say,reading a book to calm themself. Anyway, onto your points: males(in human race) are biologically programmed to compete with each other to get as most females as possible and to aknowledge as their leader the one who does it better. You've lost credibility the moment you said "biologically programmed." That's meaningless. Humans have a highly-evolved cerebral cortex that enables them to think beyond their instinct. (Plus, it's worth mentioning that chimpanzees have their own structured societies and have instances of prioritizing social cohesion over physical urges. Not even some animals are animalistic.) If humans were really slaves to our biological urge to view sex this way, nobody would need to point this out. It would be as obvious as feeling thirsty after taking a grueling run. Under your assertions, I as a woman would instinctively not want to have sex with a lot of guys and try to find the one who is the "best," as if that were objective. Nobody would need to enforce it, nobody would want to fight against it only to earn a counter-argument of "but biology!", because it would already be certain for us due to nature. But I (and practically all girls) don't think that way, and I'm made of nature! Also, early humans killed people whom they saw as territorial threats. Though we haven't changed drastically in genetics, we know not to do this. So it's absurd to look at us, members of civilized human society who use unnatural medicine and eat food that we did not hunt, and claim that sex is where we have to be uncontrollable slaves to biology. the funny thing is that the ones who actually dislike sluts more are other females So? I'm aware of this. I get mocked and shamed by being called a "skank" by both guys and girls, usually girls. But just because it's woman-against-woman doesn't make it right. Feminism is not directed specifically toward men, but toward society as a whole. again its mostly womens fault. in their attempt to reverse the roles and they compete with each other I don't have a witty simile for you here, but that's not right. As a woman, I don't see myself as a sexual being, meant to be judged by my attractiveness and usefulness to men. I don't see my beauty as the defining factor of my role, identity, or worth. Women in our society are viewed mainly for their looks, men being viewed for their character. That's not fair, and as a woman, I (and the rest of my half of the population) feel hurt by this mindset daily, being hypersexualized daily without my consent. This doesn't happen to men. How could this be "role reversal" by any way you interpet it? As for your disheartening conclusion, it's time we stop judging folks by how the "best" can "survive." We don't hunt. We have advanced medical strides that allow better living. Just because there tends to be a correlation with intelligence, strength, and (irrelevant) hunting doesn't mean that an entire half of a population should be limited to a categorizing role. Women and men should be viewed in an ethically fair way. We are all people, defined foremost by our agency and right to respect. They may tend to be different in the majority of cases, but making hasty assumptions about everyone in that group and judging them based solely on that is prejudice and stereotyping. We are all fundamentally equal and deserve to be viewed on equal terms.

  • PRO

    Note:CMI Survey was conducted in the UK which is part of...

    Feminism is necessary in modern First World countries.

    Differences in Wage Con claims that if a study simply omits personal choice, it is invalid to use it as a source. Con did not rebut the validity of the CMI study nor did Con questioned the representatives of the sample, I assume it is a concession. All con did aside from failing to question 2 key methodological issues that holds the study accountable is to say that just because one factor doesn't exist, the study is invalid. Omitting 1 factor does not make the study simplistic, it is simply used to reap the advantage of the balance between holism and reductionism in order to offset any disadvantages between both approaches "I need employers,not mothers" ~Claire Underwood, House Of Cards (Not Meant For Arguments, Just a TV series, lol) Moreover, Con argues that the existence of wage gap myth was due to the fact that men currently lacks the extended leave that women have, which explains the inequality between work schedules. I won't contest, but in the scope of this debate, particularly the CMI Survey, the reference Con made is useless. The average maternity leave for women in the UK is 54 weeks, which is roughly around 1 year(5.https://www.gov.uk...). (Note:CMI Survey was conducted in the UK which is part of the first world) Thus, if we are to review The CMI survey, the survey shows that women on average must work 14 years longer. Since the maternity leave is 1 year long, in order to validate Con's theory, family structures in the UK ought to consists of over 14 members just as the CMI survey persists. Evidence suggests otherwise(6.http://www.ons.gov.uk...). NONE of the families consists of 14 children 47% of families consists of only 1 dependent children 39% of families consists of only 2 dependent children 17% of families consists of only 3 dependent children | | | | 0% of families consists of only 14 children Extended family have been long gone, there is no logical premise to support it, hence the same can be said for Con's theory. Since personal choice was just thrown out of the window, the survey done by the US department of labour may now conclude that the wage gap is due to sexism since the other conclusion is flawed. Besides, even Con acknowledges that there is only 2 conclusions left, it is reasonable to accept the sexist theory over the personal choices theory. The differences in wage between genders is affirmed. Feminism Con acknowledges that just because there is a few spoiled apple, the whole feminist branch shouldn't be discredited. Fair enough, I did not imply that you were and that the only contention I meant to give was when con referenced spoiled apples as part of the whole feminism. Moreover, Con claims that feminist rarely call each other out, that is simply not true. There are conflicts within feminism itself, Post Colonial Feminists often brawl with Liberal Feminist over Cultural Imperialism in such that intervening in secluded tribes as imperialistic, radical feminists would disagree that women have achieved improvements and seeks to abolish the social status of gender. There are conflicts, to suggests otherwise is absurd. Domestic Responsibilities Lastly, Con argues that my case was referencing third world countries, I wasn't , I was directly referring to the UK. I argued that there are masked inequalities in domestic chores between spouses in the UK. This is also in addition to the global gender gap which complements the target studies I gave which is specifically the UK. Con is trying to shift the goal post in order to refute my contention easily. This is an inadmissible tactic. Back to you, rikomalpense Thanks.

  • PRO

    You have said that I have sunk low but I believe you are...

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

    Thank you for your argument. You have said that I have sunk low but I believe you are saying this because you know you admitted to supporting my argument and you have given evidence that does not fully support your points. Unfortunately I think you have forgotten what side you are on again when you come out and say "Anyways let's wrap this up. Resolution: Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries What I said was I am egalitarian and I believe in equality for all humans. If you agree with me I think that's a great thing." The argument is about Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries and you are on the con side but still you say you agree that it is currently helping us, that is not twisting your words but are your exact words. Thank you and good debate.

  • PRO

    If may address con's first rebuttal. ... And if you use...

    current state of feminism in first-world countries

    If what con stated is true, then that only affirms feminism's necessity. Feminism, as I stated before, is the belief that men and women should be equal. If, as pro stated, women have more priviledges than men, then feminism still needs to exist to combat these injustices. Pro also stated that some feminists do not care about this, and some even want to diminish the rights of men. This is true. I have encountered many feminists with slogans such as "KILL ALL MEN!" or "SEX = RAPE!" In this, my opponent is not a lair by any standards. However, these feminists are simply a small nuisance: a very vocal and very small minority. To liken all feminists to these radical misogynists (I use the term on them because of their nasty habit to ignore other women who disagree with them, and sometimes downright contribute to rape culture.) is a strawman point that I am convicted that every rational person is above, con included. However, while I do believe women have some priviledges men don't, women are still less fortunate in society than men. If may address con's first rebuttal. That the wage gap is because of women's collective bad habit of getting knocked up. This does NOT excuse an employer paying all female employees less. Firstly, not all women get pregnant. Just because they can is no excuse to cut their pay. Next, what happens when they actually get pregnant? Well, unlike what con said, they don't miss work for 9 months. Women can still work far into pregnancy in most fields. Next, when they actually get to the point where they can't work, their job just isn't left to get neglected while they get paid for doing nothing. Their pay is cut while on leave, and a temporary employee is hired on a reduced salary (Usually the rest of what the mother would get paid) to work until the now proud mom is ready to work again. I also feel the need to note that even with this practice, women are still paid less. I respectfully assert, pro, this pay gap is NOT justified. The "problem" has a simple solution which is being ignored in favor of a misogynist and, to be perfectly honest, lazy one. Lastly, I'll deal with con's point that women have more privileges than men. Before I state them, I must clarify one thing: Male privilege is not contraband. You are not a bigot for having privileges. The only reason privileges are at all a problem is because many people don't have them. Men have the privilege to not be considered deviant for persuing a life goal outside of raising a family. Men have the privilege to not be as worried about being raped as women. Men have the privilege of being potrayed in a candid, non-sexualized way in most media. Men have the privilege not to be marginalized or tokenized in any setting. There are many more privileges that are a huge problem in society, but these few are sufficient to serve my point. But we could argue all day about who oppressed who, about who has more privileges, about who's less equal to who, but none of this will change the simple fact: there are inequalities. Inequalities exist. And until all of us are equal, none of us are. The actions of a vocal minority do not invalidate the whole lot. The fact that there are some aspects of life where some people have it worse does not change the fact that other times those same people have it better (And vice versa!). Who has what unfair advantage will never justify that advantage. Pro seems to think that "feminism" is just some dirty work that a bunch of lesbian supremacists cooked up and that a real advocate of gender equality ought not to call themselves that. I say, who cares? Who gives a monticum, of a fraction, of a MOLE of a rat's arse what it's called? The fact is, whatever you call it, whichever genders rights you happen to be currently protecting, whatever reprihensible acts have been comitted under such a false banner, it doesn't matter. As long as you believe men and women should be equal, and you persue this goal peacefully, you will always be a feminist. And if you use feminism like that and only like that, then it will never become obsolete; Because peoples' rights, male or female, are always worth protecting.

  • PRO

    Saying he's sexist because he feels the man is more fit...

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

    Thanks for your patience, I had a wonderful debate free, restful weekend! Rebuttals: Economic Injustice Con says “There is a huge difference between 77 cents to the dollar and a 23% earnings difference between men and women.” 77/100 is 77%. Which is a 23% difference to 100%. This is basic math. 77 cents to a dollar is exactly a 23% difference. This means that a 23% difference in pay would be 77 cents on the dollar. Con says “I am not denying there is a difference in average income, but this is quickly shown to be anything but a patriarchy, or sexism, or discrimination, or any sort of negative bias against women, simply by looking at the types of jobs women have, and the types of jobs men have.” Again I have provided empirical evidence in specific job fields of this pay gap, (Men and Women who have the same job) to which Con says “a site giving an "example" with no sources to back it up doesn't quite cut it, unfortunately.” The statistics on the site are sourced from the 2011 Census Bureau. (1) As the numbers are as well sourced as any statistic it would behoove con to accept the fact that the pay gap is obviously and observably connected with gender. Con argues “that women earn as much as men do in Tennis. ...Makes sense, right? ...Well no, it doesn't. Not at all. Women play the best of three, while men play the best of five. Right off the bat, men work longer.” As a tennis player I can assure you that playing fewer rounds at the match does not in any way prove that men work longer. The bulk of the work done by professional athletes is not done during the matches, it is the months of training to get there. I am stunned that con would bring sports in as an example. Here is an article that shows the difference for men and women basketball players. (2) As you can see Women basketball players make on average $72,000 annually, while men average 5.15 million a year.(3) This is a stunning difference. I do agree with con that women’s sports “generate less views, less ad revenue,” The reasons for this have nothing to do with how much work is being done. Yet again, Con has provided an example of how our society does not treat women equally with men. Less views are a result of people not taking female professional athletes as serious as their male counter parts. Less views does equal less revenue. All a result of society not treating women and men equally. Con says “The way I see it all is if an employer provides actual reasoning as to why he isn't paying a woman as much as a man, or vise versa, or hired a man over a woman, that's good enough. It's his call to make. Saying he's sexist because he feels the man is more fit for the job than a woman, with an actual reason other than "because he's a man," is absolutely ridiculous and is attempting to take all responsibility off the woman.” I have not argued that an employer should provide reasons for why a women or man may be preferred. In fact I have not argued that certain careers that are male or female dominated should not be. I have argued that when men and women do work in the same field, for the same work that men, on balance, are paid much more. Again, this is empirically evident by my sited sources, and is not equal treatment. Con provides stats based on various cancers that affect men and women. He shows that Breast Cancer receives significantly more charity than prostate cancer. Ironically, this is another example that our society views women as more of a “charity case” then men. I do not mean to encourage people to stop donated, in fact I hope everyone finds a way to charitable donate to any good cause. However, this example does reflect the idea that society see’s women as in need of more charity then men. This is a perfect example of unequal treatment. Clearly this unequal treatment is deeply rooted in our society. I will conclude this argument as I did in round two. Clearly the pay gap is empirically evident and as such is indisputable. Just as evident is that poverty affects women significantly more so than men. It can then be concluded that men and women do not have an equal rights or opportunity in the U.S. economy. Domestic Violence Con says “Both (men and women) are equally negatively effected.” Just because both are negatively effected does not mean equally. Women are not taken seriously as abusers. Women are not taken seriously as professionals, Generally Women are not taken as seriously as men as people. I agree that Men are also negatively affected. This is largely due to the deep rooted sexism of our society treating women as children that need to be taken care of, obviously this puts an excessive burden on men to provide such support. This is why Feminism is “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities” Other arguments: Cons says “The difference between Christianity and the KKK is there's a clear difference between the two. Feminism and "feminazis" - not so much, in regards to social media attention and coverage. I've encountered, personally, more women who identify as feminists that are rude, disrespectful, hate men, and want female superiority than "true" feminists.” The difference between Christianity and the KKK is now clear…. It was not always so. Likewise with Feminism and Limbaugh’s so called “feminazis.” The extreme of any group are often the most obnoxiously vocal. Con says “I'm all for equal treatment, however I don't believe we have any reason to think we aren't treated equally.” It is empirically evident that this unequal treatment is present is society. As I have shown. Con says “Numbers are numbers. What are the reasons behind these numbers? Discrimination? Sexism? Or simple "poor" choice on behalf of the victims? My video shows both men and women are treated poorly.” I agree numbers are numbers. However, to conclude that Women on balance are paid less, treated inferior, and not taken as seriously as men as a result of “poor” choices, is to say that women generally make poorer choices than men. This is not true, no such claim could be substantiated. The video does show that both are treated poorly, and specifically that women are not taken seriously. That is why feminism is about equality. Women’s issues do create issues for men. Closing Statements: First I would like to thank Mister_Man for being a fantastic contender and a good sport. As we did not have much room to talk about the issues that are created for men due to the unequal treatment of women, or to address issues men face in our society, I will add a link to a video of a feminist addressing both men’s and women’s issues. (4) This is not intended to be a new argument, nor do I expect Con to refute the content. I just wanted to include it for those reading who are interested in hearing more on the topic. I will conclude as I did in round two. Men and women do not currently have equal rights and opportunities. This is empirically evident by the stats that I have provided. Women are not paid equally, or afforded the same opportunity in the U.S. economy. Women are affected significantly more than men by domestic violence, as this has become a common issue (1 in 4) it limits the opportunity and rights of women in a way that does not generally affect men. Feminism has been, and will continue to be a force for good in the U.S. as it brings to light these injustices and lobbies for change. Therefore we are lead to conclude that “on balance modern Feminism is beneficial to the modern United States.” Thanks for reading and vote pro! (1) http://www.aauw.org... (2) http://www.blackenterprise.com... (3) https://www.google.com... (4) http://www.youtube.com...

  • PRO

    He also willingly argues only Islamic countries to avoid...

    Modern Feminism (3rd/4th Wave) is Unnecessary as well as Unfair to Men.

    Well this concludes the debate. Now I am going to criticize my opponent's argument. No offence, I'd do it to my own mother to win an argument. My opponent argued on a platform of Islamophobia as well as using totally biased sources and ignored his own sources when it benefited his cause. He also willingly argues only Islamic countries to avoid the issue. He poses no arguments about 3rd and 4th wave feminism and concedes to my arguments. At the risk of violating my own rules, my opponent also argues against the first amendment and poses "what ifs" to win an argument he conceded to. Feminism in the West is an overzealous belief that will not stop until women get their turn at oppressing men. The wage gap is mostly their own doing, and they are given leniency on the penal system and socially. Rape was labeled untouchable and he violated this rule. Conclusion of the Conclusion My opponent argued Islamophobia and irrelevances and used biased sources that admit to how good women have it in the West, as well as not refute a single bit of my argument. His argument is null and void.

CON

  • CON

    By Con's logic, America wasn't a capitalist nation until...

    3rd wave feminism has made notable progress for civil rights

    Con's time is precious so quit with the whole "Thanking" thing. You were incredibly rude and harassed me for days about this nonsense; I'm not one for the two-faced so just spare me. You're forgiven this time. Con didn't neglect anything. You didn't prove what you stressed. 3rd wave feminism didn't cause what you said it caused, it supported what you said it caused, therefore there's not even a reason to explore point A further. You didn't support your own claim (again) and now are twisting it into another claim (again) to maintain some form of integrity. Your own source defeats your claims that 3rd Wave had any real hand in Sex Positivism, instead it took on Sex Positivism, that is Sex Positivism effected 3rd Wave after the rejection of 2nd. "To say sex positivity hasn't seen notable progress in the last 20 years is to ignore observable, documented facts to the contrary.". this is again a shifting of the same arguments because it's an attempt to push ownership for Sex Positivism by 3rd Wave when it is clear that they are not the same seeing as Feminism's 2nd wave, as cited by you, rejected Sex Positivism making the movements separate and their integration is definitely Feminism absorbing the pre-existing instead of Feminism driving it. These two pillars are sufficient to undermine the rest. "Con claims Third Wave feminist beliefs predate the existence of Third wave feminism, which is entirely true, however Con is incorrect when they assume those movements did not evolve into Third Wave Feminism. America was a Capitalist nation long before Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels coined the term in the late 1860s. By Con's logic, America wasn't a capitalist nation until the early 1900s.", straight red herring. No one was even talking about Capitalism. Furthermore Pro starts off by attempting to assert that the Third Wave existed before the Third Wave which is not equivalent to saying "Not All 2nd Wave agreed on matter X" which is just intellectually dishonest and a means to inject one's vantage point into any time period or situation. Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent (http://en.wikipedia.org...) as shown through the logic "If X supports concept A and A is a core of group B and then X is a member of group B." Written out "If a person pre-90's identified as a Feminist but supported Sex Positivism then they were actually a 3rd Wave Feminist." It's false. [ 1. Con again argues that because the term "third wave" came after these movements began in theory, that these movements are not part of the third wave. 2. Con provides no sources, aside from a wiki definition of transgenderism, to support these claims. ] Misstating the position (again); 1. Pro stated that third-wave feminism, in their opening, had a direct impact on the GBLTQ, specifically the T, and failed to prove it which was shown through yet another chronological error. 2. The citation was sufficient to prove the chronological error. There is no evidence of Pro's claim. Pro however does support Con's claim by showing that 2nd wave by and large rejected the concept (as with sex positivism) which in turn means that 3rd wave again absorbed rather than directly effected T but instead simply supports it which was not Pro's claim. Achievements: Con notes that the process began in 1972 and is an old battle. Con does not hide this. Con beats his chest in rage and sticks his tongue out because Pro decided to attempt a chronological war yet again which is not sufficient to prove any form of furthering or ownership by 3rd wave. There is no evidence or reason to believe that a group specifically dedicated to the cause of 3rd wave influenced this legislation which is what Pro needs to prove; general support is again insufficient. Con admits the example of the GED fits the BOP because Con did not have the energy to bother with looking up the history of the decision considering that Pro did not cite any of the "Achievements" and forced Con to look them up himself, by which Con was found to be falsifying statements and using allusions instead of proofs (that the new legislation is a direct result of 3rd wave, which is still unproven ) and con regrets his mercy. Let that be on record. Con REGRETS his mercy. Ha! Also, Pro's sources are terrible and Con uses functional sources when it comes to legal documentation while con uses random lines out of assorted sources to prove nothing again and again and make up claims that they cannot back over and over. And waste cons time. Con is displeased. Is this over yet? This farce? Can we just vote for this guy so I can do better things?

  • CON

    Maybe in some cases - as I argued in my opening round,...

    Official March Beginner's Tournament 2016 Round 2: Feminism is Beneficial to the Modern World.

    Pardon the extremely brief round, last-minute scheduling conflicts only left me with minimal time to finish. As with Pro prior, this should be of no relevance to voters, only an explanation -- Pro argues that current prevailing sexual norms and gender roles place women at a disadvantage, and that these gender roles are not only harmful to the, but to men as well. Pro cites the example of Hitchen and Maher's "male bashing", which fixates on attacking men due to behaving in a feminine matter. This ties into the subsequent, implicit argument that the fight against gender roles, largely spearheaded by feminism, is in the best interests of men (the other half of society) as well. Whether this is actually beneficial can be answered through a series of seemingly arbitrary rhetorical questions: Is feminism advocating for equality? Maybe in some cases - as I argued in my opening round, this is neither desirable nor likely achievable. The fact remains that modern, developed society is based in the fundamental inequality of humanity as a sexually dimorphic species. Is feminism advocating for women's interests, in particular? Given its historical trends, nature, and modern behavior, probably we can know this is true in some sense. At the very least, feminism acts in the best immediate interests of women. Is feminism doing any good that is not outweighed by its short-term or long-term problesm? No! Not only does it ruthlessly strive in favor of advancing women's interests (often to the detriment of men's, for example ), but the very advancement thereof poses an fundamental problem for society, as it is based on certain inequalities (which will, in some cases, NOT be to the immediate interests of women) common to the human condition. There is no evidence that an alternative or inverted arrangement (the forme of which appears to be the minimum of feminism's demands) is compatible with modern, civilized society.

  • CON

    We need to redefine consent and bodily autonomy in the...

    Modern Feminism Is Pointless

    1) I already did counter the one about the Armed Forces, saying that it's not fair that women are exempt from anything that can cause harm. It limits women's potential. 2) The breast/prostate cancer inequality is due to two reasons: one, a woman named Susan G. Komen actually took it upon herself to start a widespread awareness foundation; two, the hypersexualization of women. Breasts are considered pretty and valuable by society, viewing women through the third person lens and men through the first person lens. This is an inequality to both men and women for different reasons, so it's pointless to argue who's more oppressed by it. It seems more productive to just focus on the face that it unfairly exists. 3) As for your clothing argument, no, the clothes often weren't revealing. I'm not talking booty-displaying panty-showing yoga pants; I mean baggy, taco-sauce-stained, at-home pants. People of all styles get raped, and if a rapist wants to rape (and if society excuses it due to the woman's circumstances), the clothes won't matter. 4) When you say it "doesn't help in a rape situation," you're saying that a man's horniness is uncontrollable, that he's an animalistic slave to his desires rather than a civilized member of society. If a guy wears a tight shirt that outlines his abs, I'll become a drooly horny idiot on the inside, but I have a smidge of human decency and self-restraint. Even worse, you're treating the situation like a missing stair--what if someone's staircase had a missing stair and you were told to jump over it? Wouldn't that strike you as odd, because after all, why don't they fix it? We need to redefine consent and bodily autonomy in the public discourse, telling people clearly that you have no more right to a slut's body than to a girl in a sweatshirt and jeans. We should also redefine sex if we want to "help in a rape situation." What is sex, really? It's not necessarily a penis going into a vagina, nor is it the touching of sexual organs. Sex is the pleasure obtained from arousal and intimacy. Without that, it's a gynecologist appointment. So sticking a penis in someone means nothing. Gets you nothing. Absent the arousal and intimacy, it's just an unhygienic gynecologist appointment. Not only is sticking yourself in someone not right to do without their enthusiastic participation, it's not even sex. Most of things a person would really want from sex that they couldn't get from masturbation--emotional comfort, ego reinforcement, social status, physical closeness--are not things you can take by force. I would like to spread the meme that rape isn't getting laid by unethical means, it's not getting laid at all. 5) Where did I suggest that women are the only one who get raped? Rape happens among all genders and sexualities. However, I only brought up male-on-female cases because that's what you mentioned. There are horrific anti-woman sex-negative mindsets that enable and excuse rape, and a modern feminism movement should ideally work to get rid of them. However, there's also a need for a men's movement, because some mindsets (limiting standards of masculinity, "men can't possibly refuse sex," a woman could never hurt a man, etc.) that are toxic to male victims. Those definitely need focus. But if feminism (a WOMEN'S movement) is the one talking about them, that's just a fortunate side effect, not a duty. 6) I have radical opinions on clothing and bodies, and nowhere did I mean to suggest that they were female-only. I only mentioned women because that's what the previous commenter was talking about, and specific societal attitudes inhibit the bodily expression of women in particular. If a man wants to sag his pants and go around shirtless, what's the harm in that? There's nothing shameful about bodies, no matter one's gender. I see you're taking women's issues and asking "but what about the men?" However, not everything has to be about men. Women (and other genders!) can fight for issues that specifically affect women, as can men (and others) for men's issues. They don't have to be against each other. In fact, we'll only reach true gender equality when we fight alongside each other, listening to the other side and legitimately caring about their rights, not when we're silencing each other.

  • CON

    Surely, maybe some things have improved, but with no...

    Feminism Needs to die out

    Yemen: access to education is limited to women? isn't that the same with men in America? We're talking about Yemen here not America; do you wanna know why this is the case in America? Because many men in America are generally lazy, which is why an increase in women graduating and getting their PhDs is greater than men. 36% of women compared to 28% of men have graduated and that's not because men aren't given education, it's just that most of them can't be bothered. Iraq: Unfortunately it hasn't; I'm an Iraqi myself and I know what it's like. Women I've known have been dropped out of school from early ages and forced into marriage, youngest is thirteen. Sure it may be part of their culture, but who even said that the women really wanted to get married at that age, what if she was forced? It's not like men; infact there are many men who get married quite late in their 40s. As there is a rise of terrorism there, the Iraqi women face much different struggles than men, including a systematic culture of rape and slavery within the terrorist organisations. The Iraqi's Constitution in 2005 did state that there should be equality between men and women, but there are still wide gender gaps; I know my own country better than you do. Nepal: What are you on about rulebooks? When I said women's lives are dictated by their husbands and fathers, I was saying that they don't have the freedom to make their own decisions, does that seem fair to you? And no 25% is not a huge number; that's just the 75% remaining of women don't have education, so yes it seems pretty small. Peru: How do you know the women there are tougher than average women? Even though they may be tougher, the husband shouldn't slap his wife, its cruel, a slap on the face doesn't just hurt the woman physically but mentally, that is if you've ever been slapped across the face and knows what it feels like. Men are supposed to be the custodians of women, they have the right to protect them. Turkey: Well how do you know that for sure? What if they are women who want to have a job but can't because of the low employment? What if her husband doesn't let her work and just wants her to cook and clean? See you can't be sure that all women want to do their own thing by staying home. There has even been a significant increase of violence against women; and there has been a case where a man just killed his wife with a cooking pan just because THERE WASN'T ENOUGH SALT IN THE MEAL. Afghanistan: I only gave one example, but I'll give you more. Now I'm pretty sure you know what happened to Malala, and why she got shot. IT WAS BECAUSE SHE WAS A FEMALE WHO WANTED TO HAVE EDUCATION. But up until now, women can't have education or even finish their education and forced into early marriages. Have you heard of the murder of Farkhunda? Who got killed for falsely being accused of burning the Holy Quran. And the person who falsely accused her was a mullah and why did he accuse her for? TO SAVE HIS JOB. And it wasn't even a big deal, they just had a debate infront of a mosque and she sorta overthrew him or something, and because of that he accused her. People just kept savagely beating her up, burning her alive, till she died. It was horrid. This was obviously something major, which has highlighted violence against the women's country. Surely, maybe some things have improved, but with no continuous effort. Many women have died in pregnancy and birth, the life expectancy for a woman is 51. And don't tell me its nobody's fault, the country has pressurized women forcing them into marriages at the age of 12. So what do you expect? Her freedom as a young child has to be taken. It's not like men. In Kabul, it is very common for women to be taken to hospitals shortly after marriage, due to physical injuries such as tearing and excessive bleeding. Afghanistan is probably the worse second to India. Democratic republic of condo: I'll have to agree with you on that. Mali: Genital mutilation is considered as harm for a woman, and it doesn't just occur in Mali. And men barely get forced; not like women; and if they do get forced, most of them don't even get married young like women; and it's harder for the woman than the man because the woman is the one who takes most responsibility of the family, by having children and raising them, looking after the house, which is very difficult so she is facing more struggles. Saudi Arabia: I've been there; women aren't allowed to enter even if she is with her husband. She can't even stand outside of it for a long time, they'll force her to leave and I know this because I've seen it myself. Jordan: What I said before about Turkey. Feminism is not a waste of time; and women can be selfish just like men are, you can't just say women, look at all these facts and incidents that has happened to women, so how would you expect feminism to simply die out? It's impossible; feminism is obviously gonna grow, the more violence and attacks there are on women the more it will grow. Physical violence against women is something major that occurs in many societies not just in these countries but almost all around the world. And I also haven't mentioned the fact that there are two mental debators on this website who claim that women are chunks of meat for men and women aren't needed in the future because of the invention of sex bots, and post disgusting things about women.

  • CON

    The first round is for accepting the debate. ... Good...

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

    In this debate I will be arguing that Feminism is NOT currently helping us reach equality in 1st world countries. The first round is for accepting the debate. The second round is for opening statements and new arguments The third round will be rebuttals with new arguments still allowed The fourth round is for final rebuttals and a closing statement/speech Rules: 1. Stick to the resolution. 2. Be open minded. 3. See number one and two. 4. Good luck to whoever may accept this debate

  • CON

    The first round is for accepting the debate. ... Good...

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

    In this debate I will be arguing that Feminism is NOT currently helping us reach equality in 1st world countries. The first round is for accepting the debate. The second round is for opening statements and new arguments The third round will be rebuttals with new arguments still allowed The fourth round is for final rebuttals and a closing statement/speech Rules: 1. Stick to the resolution. 2. Be open minded. 3. See number one and two. 4. Good luck to whoever may accept this debate

  • CON

    First, many of the ways in which men suffer inequality...

    Men have big problems too. By focusing on women and their problems, feminism fails to recognise tha...

    There are two responses to this. First, many of the ways in which men suffer inequality are relatively minor when compared to the ongoing subordination of women in many areas of private and public life such as pay, childcare and sexuality. Second, where such inequality does exist, First, many of the ways in which men suffer inequality are relatively minor when compared to the ongoing subordination of women in many areas of private and public life such as pay, childcare and sexuality. Second, where such inequality does exist, feminism possesses the resources to offer a distinctive and useful critique of the causes and consequences of sexual inequality, whether it is men or women who suffer as a result - men and women should be joining forces to offer feminist responses to discrimination, not blaming feminism where men suffer.

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/2701-feminism/
    • score
      BM25 score: 16.64
      feminism: 16.64
      conclusion: 4.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.97, tfNorm 0.55)
      premises: 9.68 (idf 5.90, tfNorm 1.64)
      sourceText: 2.00 (boost 0.20, idf 4.68, tfNorm 2.14)
  • CON

    Statistics do not show support for differences in wage To...

    Feminism is necessary in modern First World countries.

    Statistics do not show support for differences in wage To begin with, I recognize that my initial sources were substandard, but Pro is guilty of the same mistake. Pro cites a source surveying managers, and only managers- a study that also does not take in account personal choices, which is a major factor creating the wage gap myth. It's often that men work longer hours, and do not have paternity leaves that slow their advancement and pay raises. In 2009, the US Department of Labour released a study on the wage gap, examining over 50 peer-reviewed papers [1]. Once personal choices were taken in account, the wage gap drops to somewhere in between 4.8% to 7.1%- or in other words, women appear to be making 92 to 95 cents to a man's dollar. Another study by the AAUW cites the wage gap to be 6.6 cents, and that includes comparing higher-paying jobs such as lawyers to lower-paying jobs such as librarians (as they all fall under the banner of 'other white collar') [2] Both sources have also said that they could not know with certainty whether this remaining wage gap is really due to sexism, or simply due to personal choices not taken in account. More educated feminists themselves have admitted that in this way, the wage gap is very close to zero [2]. It is clear that the wage gap in First World countries is insignificant. Feminists doing terrible things I do not claim that some feminists doing terrible things means that all feminists are terrible. That being said, there is a problem when feminists do terrible things and other feminists refuse to call them out, just because they're feminists , as can be seen in [5] of my first argument. As well, there is a difference between the dictionary definition and what happens in reality. North Korea is officially "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea." Is it democratic? Is it a republic? Not at all. It's actions that matter. Feminists can claim that they're for gender equity for all, male, female, and non-gender-conforming folk, but it's their transmisogynist [3], man-hating [4] actions that most feminists feel free to ignore as those feminists are "not REAL feminists" that reveals its true nature. Domestic Responsibilties This is completely irrelevant. The question is whether Another study by the AAUW cites the wage gap to be 6.6 cents, and that includes comparing higher-paying jobs such as lawyers to lower-paying jobs such as librarians (as they all fall under the banner of 'other white collar') [2] Both sources have also said that they could not know with certainty whether this remaining wage gap is really due to sexism, or simply due to personal choices not taken in account. More educated feminists themselves have admitted that in this way, the wage gap is very close to zero [2]. It is clear that the wage gap in First World countries is insignificant. Feminists doing terrible things I do not claim that some feminists doing terrible things means that all feminists are terrible. That being said, there is a problem when feminists do terrible things and other feminists refuse to call them out, just because they're feminists , as can be seen in [5] of my first argument. As well, there is a difference between the dictionary definition and what happens in reality. North Korea is officially "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea." Is it democratic? Is it a republic? Not at all. It's actions that matter. Feminists can claim that they're for gender equity for all, male, female, and non-gender-conforming folk, but it's their transmisogynist [3], man-hating [4] actions that most feminists feel free to ignore as those feminists are "not REAL feminists" that reveals its true nature. Domestic Responsibilties This is completely irrelevant. The question is whether feminism is necessary in modern First World countries, not still developing Third World countries where feminism is certainty still important and necessary. The claim that feminists are needed in First World countries has been rebutted. [1]http://www.consad.com... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://everydayfeminism.com... [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

  • CON

    My opponent dropped his case in the last round and thus...

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

    Unfortunately my opponenet has gone throughout this round without learning what a BOP is, so lets review what stands at this point... NOTHING! My opponent dropped his case in the last round and thus hasnt proven "2nd wave and 3rd wave/modern feminism is harmful and should not exist." Because of this we can only see a ballot in favor of the negation!

  • CON

    As my opponent still has not posted any new argument I...

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

    I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this subject. My opponent has not shown any reason to support the resolution that feminism is harmful at all, let alone that this harm outweighs the positive effects of the movement. As my opponent still has not posted any new argument I will let my argument stand. I wish my opponent luck in this and future debates.