Pro vs. con view
1031 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Obviously this is going to run in contrast with the...

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

    A Fools challenge: Feminism has had a positive impact in many aspects but it has reached a point where a fair evaluation of its progress and necessity. Is due. Obviously this is going to run in contrast with the modern status quo and the majority of beliefs. So I don't expect to win your beliefs or opinions but rather judge my ability to proof is true and provide evidence when necessary. Part of the purpose of the argument is to open our minds to take a look at the beliefs we take for granted without thinking. "It is fortunate for us in power that people don't think" Adolf Hitler Don't get wrong woman I love woman. The world would be useless without them. But I believe that the feminist critique has not really allowed itself to be critiqued itself fairly. “Of course I agree with basics such as equal education choices and voting, driving, etc.” So my claim is that Feminism has reached a point where it is now more harmful than good. Send your best only; youmust have at least 2 years of university or 3 years of college minimum.

  • PRO

    If anything, cosmetic surgery is the latest phenomenon in...

    To attempt to dress cosmetic surgery in the flag of feminism is absurd.

    To attempt to dress cosmetic surgery in the flag of feminism is absurd. If anything, cosmetic surgery is the latest phenomenon in the long history of the objectification of women in society. Women are driven to meet male standards of beauty, exaggerating their shape and seeking to remain youthful lest their partner leave them for (often literally) a younger model. Today many operations are arranged by male partners rather than by the women themselves. Cosmetically-enhanced celebrities are redefining definitions of attractiveness for new generations, leading young girls who would have been considered naturally beautiful in past decades to see themselves as plain and to seek their own surgical remedies.

  • PRO

    Dominican Order held strong peripatetic views and with it...

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

    I thank Con for his response. The History Of Feminism When Con argued that feminism is not necessary to liberate those under oppression, it brings forth an interesting insight. I remembered a while back that there was tweet by Richard Dawkins regarding ancient philosophers. He delivered one of the most asinine form of cynicism to Plato (43 x 20 x 30 inches). As usual, he escaped the backlash of twitter commentators by mentioning "I was genuinely ignorant". The history surrounding patriarchy was a necessary cause for the rise of feminism. If we were to start with ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle held views that women were generally inferior (1.http://www.classicsnetwork.com...). They were regarded as the weaker sex and that each society should accept the universal rule being that women should be "domesticated" at all cost. The Philosophy of Aristotle dominated most of the middle ages extending even to the classical renaissance, be it in Baghdad or in Milan. There were opposition to such order and that includes the brawl between the Dominican Order and Franciscan Platonist(2.http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...). Dominican Order held strong peripatetic views and with it the order manage to mentor one of the most revered intellectuals of the time, most notable Saint Thomas Aquinas. The brawl between both would mean that both Plato and Aristotle would form the reference of thought and each reference would involve a commentary of either of the major philosophers' work. The excessive admiration of Ancient Greece throughout Medieval Europe effectively normalized the "Weaker Sex" Ideology. Women are seen as inferior and thus such an idea would then be regarded as a Truism. It was not until the development of First Wave Feminism will we actually see the advocacy of equity in terms of gender. Con disagreed with it's resulting benefits. While the benefit is questionable, the harm caused by Patriarchy should be enough to justify most feminist movements. It is unacceptable that men hold discriminatory views of how women are intrinsically weaker and it is unacceptable that they should be regarded as the weaker sex based on their biological predisposition. The Benefits of Feminism Con questioned the idea whether Feminism brings forth any benefit and argued that the results of feminism caused greater harm to society. Of this, Con mentions the decline of marriage, the disparity of legal court system and the misrepresentation of the wage gap. I disagree, the existence of marriage assumes that marriage confers a positive effect, when in essence it only relies on the co-existence capabilities of both spouses and whether both spouses agree to compromise on certain things that concerns their life. Marriage bonds often hides under the thin veil of societal stigma and they often rely on whether it is socially acceptable to issue a divorce. A study by Rebecca Silberbogen reports that only 10% of dysfunctional marriages went to trial (3.http://scholarship.law.wm.edu...). The study also found that some couples decided to institute an informal separation, where each of them lives in a separate household. They are still legally bonded as partners, but it's just that they refuse to live together due to uncompromising differences. These sort of cases effectively rules out the idea that marriage represents happiness. What represents happiness is entirely circumstantial and it should not rest on a legal bond that seems to only capture the acquisition of social status. Marriage does the couple with a sense of privileged social status which is often associated with long-term loyalty, solidarity and happiness. An example can be seen from a conservative commentator by the name of Steven Crowder who once bashed self-reliant single moms for failing to acknowledge the existence of a "male partner"(4.https://www.youtube.com...). It is socially acceptable to be in the majority but never is it socially acceptable to be in the minority. Marriage as with all forms of cohabitation are hiding behind the thin veil of societal stigma. Con's case along with Vox Day is negated. Feminism is a required force to overturn those in the majority.

  • PRO

    What things are being done in the name of feminism today...

    Humanism is a better ideology then Feminism

    I'm not confused in any regard as to what the wage gap is. Clearly you are confused, I meant this all in regards to what may relate to the factors of the wage gap. And sure, but like I said in my argument, some may not be true. But there are factors like that out there feminists like yourself ignore in regards to the wage gap. I had listed those reasons as to show you some that you haven't considered. And I am sure you could ask questions to the businesses whom pay less to their female employees instead of instantly assuming that there is misogyny. Yes, I do expect you to open your heart and go gain information about this. To research instead of making rapid claims, as feminists do quickly in regards to the wage gap, and also the male to female ratio in the government. Want examples and factors to consider? I already gave you them in my wage gap argument, which in this one, I could just copy and paste. Which I shall do, and you can go back and read the examples given in that argument for possible factors you look over to instantly assume misogyny. And sure, abortion was to narrow, my apologies. But still, pretty much around the area of pregnancy. So close enough. And no, it quite isn't. You see, that's like saying a bill only relating to men is signs of female dominance. Which for obvious reasons, is ridiculous. Even if there are 700 or so bills relating to men's sexual reproduction, nobody would assume that. Besides, if the head of our government was against women, why would they give you a choice with the bill? Let's be honest, a true misogyny wouldn't give women the choice of rejecting the bills. My paragraph regarding rape was an example, by the way, Pardon the confusion. Well, first of all, I shouldn't need to specify. Clearly I mean feminists of today, talking about the feminists from years ago would be pointless. What things are being done in the name of feminism today is what is wrong, and I do not agree with it whatsoever. And yes, it was a straw man, by the way. You had exaggerated my argument to make it easier, and also I believe to insult me personally. And that is in fact a straw man. And what I mean by that? I already explained it all, to repeat myself would be redundant. And right now? No, humanism could not probably fix big-time problems, the ideals are not strong enough in our world today. But, like any idea, if it grows, it certainly could bring forth some action. Actually, still, I am not. And woman are usually the victims of sexism? There is obvious men's rights issues that I can tell you. In domestic violence cases where the man is the victim, the guy is not nearly taken as seriously as you may want to believe. In regards to child possession cases, guess who pays child support and doesn't get the child more often? Men. Double standards like women who are molested or hit on without consent is a horrible thing (Which I am not saying it isn't) and men who are molested or hit on without consent are not taken seriously at all. People call that guy most likely gay, or ask "Hey, why didn't you just enjoy it?" I could go on and on, but both of the sexes have equality issues. And why M.R.A. is cool in my book and not feminists? Because the M.R.A. actually stands for equality within both genders, and wants equality between males and females. What feminists are doing shows that men are just sexist pigs. That's the impression feminism gives off entirely. My opponent can say that it is taking the exception and making it the rule as much as he likes, but after reviewing it, I do not see that. Moving along, it doesn't matter if there is other ways across. It is called political correctness, there is certain ways to get points across and screaming and insulting the opposition right after pulling a fire alarm, wasting the fire departments time and effort in thoughts of saving people's lives just to "get a point across" is not okay. No, I didn't contradict myself. I should have elaborated. POLITICAL enemies. Opponents. People who disagree. Et cetera, the feminists literally make the M.R.A. their enemies, and its frightening. Not qualified? Sir, there is no qualifications for freedom of speech. And so what if I am getting some of my ideas from a comedian? George Carlin was a comedian. Would you deny that he has good ideas about America just because he sprinkles in jokes over them? No, you wouldn't with anyone. Since this is the last round, we had a good debate. And it will be up to the audience to whom is the winner. It was a pleasure debating you, have a pleasant life. And I recommend to you personally to do some research on the history of humanism. Enlighten yourself. And how modern-day humanists act.

  • PRO

    Now before I move on I feel obligated to point out a...

    The world needs more feminism

    My opponent claims we in the west men and women alike all have equal opportunity however I am not from America rather Australia (still technically part of the west) and can say this is false. For example women currently only hold 5.2 percent of Fortune 500 CEO roles (1). Now one may think that this has nothing to do with sexism maybe women are just not studying or working hard enough this is also false; the male-female ratio in higher education has been steadily moved in favor of the females ever since the 1970s. Total enrollment figures show that females outnumbered their male counterparts for the first time in the late 1970s (in America) (2). Now if women are attaining higher education for the first time ever should they not be attaining more than a measly 5.2 percent of the Fortune 500 CEO roles(from studying education results one could assume it would be more around the 50 percent mark), clearly sexism still exists in the top jobs. Even at her own home the women is not considered equal in Australia, 13 Australian women have been killed as a result of domestic violence in the first seven weeks of 2015, that"s almost two women per week, as opposed to 0 men (3). And two women per week is consistent yearly. I have to ask the audience where is the equal opportunity for women to feel safe at their own homes, where is the equal opportunity for a women to walk home alone without the shadow of fear lurking around every corner. Now before I move on I feel obligated to point out a contradiction in my opponents argument with; "Because you cannot, no matter how hard you try, force someone to change his or her mind" followed in the next paragraph by "feminism still has a chokehold on how we think", I must ask my opponent which is it? No matter which one my opponent chooses one of his arguments must be nullified by default. To my opponents relationship argument. What a suprise relationships are changing. First I shall note how time changes and so do the way people socially interact as arranged marriage were common practice until the 18th century (4), we have moved away from this for the better just as we have moved away from the 50's. My opponent has gone with picking the 50's as an example to show as some sort of golden era for social interaction among the sexes which I shall now refute. I unlike my opponent see no problem with sexuall expression or safe sex with as many people as one wants, it's not hurting anyone. Back to the 50's my opponent claims women today are objectified my opponent could not be more wrong, women of the 50's were the objects they had no career, no mortgage, no bank account, and her role was to serve her man(4). This is true objectification it is the possession of someone the ownership of another human being it is grotesque and hideous. I find it obvious why divorce rates have gone up because equality has gone up, the women no longer feels trapped. In Asia, Africa, and Latin America, divorce is both an indicator of and force behind social changes that have improved prospects for women, reduced gender inequality, and fueled development. All of which suggests that the more people are able to get out of bad marriages, the better off their societies are likely to be. To reinforce my original opening argument with the cure to poverty being the empowerment of women, many of the same countries with rising divorce rates have also experienced significant economic development in recent years (5). The more common divorce becomes in a given society, the less damaging it"s likely to be for those individuals who pursue it. If mothers escape an abusive relationship, it"s good for their children, too (5). As we can see feminism is a necessity for for the world including the west. It does not just affect women for the better but society and the world as a whole. Thank you source: 1. https://www.google.com.au... 2. http://www.forbes.com... 3. http://www.womensagenda.com.au... 4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 5. http://www.bloomberg.com...

  • PRO

    Branches of modern Feminism have encouraged the...

    The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

    I feel like we are getting off topic. So my three basic assumptions go as follows: 1."feminism" is the agreed term for the movement towards equality of women. Branches of modern Feminism have encouraged the assumption that males and females are the same and that women who opt for the "housewife" role are somehow brainwashed, in servitude to their spouse or are behaving like second-class citizens in a way. At least they do not hold this role on a pedestal. 2.The attitude that women should be financially equal to men or that there should be no separation of roles, leads to negative consequences in relationships. 3.Therefore this particular attitude, borne out of feminism, when adopted, leads to negative consequences within the relationship. I will attempt to extract my opponents arguments against these principles and dispute them. My opponents first contention with my argument is with the notion that feminism, or public attitudes at all for that matter, effect peoples relationships at all. This is an interesting and groundbreaking claim: that the attitude the public hold does not effect the relationships the public have with one another; does my opponent see his error? Lets hear him out: "I'm still not quite sure how he thinks public attitudes affect our relationships. I can't blame him though, rational people (like ourselves) are not easily swayed by silly wankerisms. Look, it's simple. If you prefer a traditional relationship with your spouse, that's YOUR choice of how YOU feel the household should be run. If your spouse rejects your notion of a well kept, functional household, that would be HER choice. If you choose to quarrel because of your disagreement, that would be both your choices and society has no say in any of it. Your choice is the most influential factor in all these situations. In fact, your choice is so influential that it makes it impossible for public attitudes to affect you, unless you accept public opinion as an influence, and even then, it's still YOUR choice to accept it's influence." I"m not sure that all my opponent has eluded us to is the notion of free-will. You know the term "culture"? This, what I am eluding to, is what a "culture" is. It"s a commonly held set of values and beliefs that are held by a group of people. For example, in the West it is our common belief that people should be free to choose so long as it doesn"t infringe on the rights of others: and that males and females are of equal legal status. That is just one culture among an infinite number of different belief systems. Believe it or not, your values derive from that and were not created by your "rationale" or "free-will" as you put it. Actually, the ideas that you and your partner have are rather rare if not unique in human history so lets be more humble about it. So to dispute this I will argue that the idea that you are both free is just another idea. It is not the default. So to suggest that because you have a choice means your free from societies influence, is false. It is society that has told you that you are free (to a point). Also, to suggest that a societies value system and beliefs do not affect the behaviour of members of that society is incomprehensible to me. How have you concluded this? My opponent has not explained the concentration of cultural practices around the world, in which I eluded to last round, that clearly demonstrate that culture effect behaviour. I do not feel as though my opponent has adequately challenged this position and demonstrated that cultural attitudes do not affect behaviour. My opponents second paragraph states that I think women should be unequal, or at least practice inequality. What would that look like I ask you? This is pure virtue signalling and I expect better from a debate website member. I don"t know exactly how things should be done, obviously, but women need to feel less guilty about being housewives because that"s the most stable relationship. My argument is that feminism has negatively impacted relationships as it discourages this relationship model. I think women should feel comfortable, and that it should be the norm, that women are housewives. If women want to pursue a career or do whatever they want, they should have no issue. My opinion is however that the majority of women do not fit this feminist ideal and that striving for it is causing relationships to deteriorate. Do you see the difference between that and saying women should be unequal? Also I totally agree that people should do what they want, this does not contradict my argument though, so I would waste words on it. You"re a man? Okay then. I don"t know what your point is on your third paragraph other than that free-will effects our relationships too; which I don"t really know where to go with, as I am not sure how it challenges my premise and we have already discussed it. Your last bit in the paragraph: "Perhaps my opponent is a snot, and expects his spouse to do all the cooking and cleaning and leave him free for his manly pursuits, like getting drunk at the pub and watching football (soccer). Perhaps she's not a very nice person and refuses to help out at all. Or maybe like BB king said, the thrill is gone. I don't think feminism plays that big of a role in those situations, perhaps your both just mean people." This is ridiculous; what about I run a business which earns lots of money, takes up much time but allows for sporadic and unpredictable free-time to become available. I do this because of my "male typical" mentality of single-minded pursuit of goals. My partner gets to live with wealth, spend time with her children, look after the dwelling and pursue her own, less intense, ventures. She does this because she is happy to relax and do repetitive and low intensity work more than I am. We have been through this in my last argument did you not read? It fits our personality, like with typical males and females. Females love kids and males love to be socially ambitious. "My opponent suggested that I was arguing that males and females have no differences?!? I call on my opponent to come up with a quote in any of my arguments that shows that I actually feel that way." Does this qualify? "My opponents entire argument is based on shallow, generalizations on the difference between men and women, however there's no scientific evidence or statistics to back his claims" But then you go on to admit there are differences. So what are these differences? and why then is my premise wrong that the belief that men and women are the same leads to negative consequences in relationships? If you admit this belief is wrong.

  • PRO

    The Tuskegee Airmen earned the respect of our nation...

    Modern Feminism Is Pointless

    Okay Kale, the very thesis of your argument is why feminism is bad and unhealthy for modern society. In every counter-argument you make you are pointing out that even though feminists are wrong about something it's because of sexism or a negative attitude towards women. The very problem with Modern Feminism is that it suggests that NO MATTER WHAT'S THE ISSUE WOMEN ARE THE VICTIMS!!!!!!!!! If something doesn't go woman's way they assume it's the fact that they are a woman when that is most likely not the case. I'm guessing you don't watch any news because every time I see a news story about a woman being wronged people are outraged about it. When a woman is raped THERE IS HELL TO PAY!!!!!!!!!!!! Whether you want to believe it or not women are very much respected in today's society. 1. So your argument is if someone asks you to own up to what you stand for, you say that saying that limits women's potential. If anything that should motivate women to show this country what they can do. READ YOUR HISTORY!!!!!!!!!! When this country doubted African Americans' ability to fight for America, IT MOTIVATED THEM TO PROVE THEM WRONG AND THEY DID MORE THAN THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! The 54th Massachusetts Regiment (all black) charged Ft. Wagner during the Civil War knowing they would take heavy losses and they earned the respect of a war-weary nation who said they no longer wanted to fight for blacks. President Lincoln said to the people of New York after the NYC draft riots "You say you don't want to fight for Negroes, but they seem to want to fight for you". The Tuskegee Airmen earned the respect of our nation after being one of the most successful bomber escort squadron in the U.S Air Force. 2. Breast cancer awareness has nothing to do with the "hypersexualization" of women. Not only do I find that statement offensive and completely irrelevant, but it makes me think that at this point you are just making excuses based off of practical jokes made by stupid teenagers. I just graduated high school so I have heard a lot of those, but I have never heard them from anyone other than teens. 3. I based that counter-argument on the fact that you said that most rape victims wear sweat pants and yoga pants because they go after women with easily removed clothing. So now you are suggesting that rapists are going to rape no matter what the girls are wearing, but that wasn't what you said in Round 1. Also, society has never excused rape in recent years and the clothes would matter if they were excusing it for that reason. 4. NO WHERE WAS I SUGGESTING THAT MEN ARE ANIMALS!!!!!!!!!!!!! In Round 1 I was merely pointing out that some men cannot control their sexual thoughts which makes them want to rape someone. A man is perfectly in control of his body movements, but our thoughts drive us to do very bad things sometimes. In Round 2 I was saying that continuing to wear baggy clothes like the ones you mentioned are not helping prevent rape. The very problem with acting like a slut is that it puts the idea in people's minds that you want sex or obsessed with it. MEN AND WOMEN!!!!!!!!! 5. NOWHERE DID I BRING UP SEX!!!!!!!!!!! Bringing that up was entirely irrelevant. 6. I was saying that in response to the Feminist Movement's suggestion that rape is always associated with women. 7. It does not matter whether you are a man or woman. Society has decency and modesty standards regarding clothing in EVERY country and civilization in history. One of the main things that separates us from Apes is that we wear clothing and cover ourselves up. THAT IS THE WAY IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND THE WAY IT SHOULD STAY!!!!!!!!!!!! 8. THE WHOLE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IN THIS DEBATE IS THAT THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT IS MAKING MEN OUT TO BE THE BAD GUYS AND THE WOMEN AS THE VICTIMS!!!!!!!!!!!! I would love to have gender equality I really would, but the problem is that the feminist movement is making every issue about THEM and how it affects THEM. Men do care about rights for women, but feminists only see them as the oppressors. I understand that there are still injustices against women in this country, but let us be honest with ourselves. Is there really so much injustice against women that there needs to be a national movement? The answer is most certainly no. There is still injustice against women but the feminist movement is GREATLY exaggerating it. The key to getting respect is earning it not demanding it. Whether you are capable of earning it is entirely up to you.

  • PRO

    By focusing on women and their problems, feminism fails...

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

    Men have big problems too. By focusing on women and their problems, feminism fails to recognise that there are inequality issues in which men are the victims. For example: boys are falling behind girls in academic achievement; far less money is spent on combating ‘male’ than ‘female’ diseases (the difference between the amount of research into breast cancer and prostate cancer is a striking example); single fathers are discriminated against over child custody and child support; fear of being accused of sexism is so widespread that it often leads to unfair discrimination against men. These can only be tackled by recognising that feminism has gone too far.

    • 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)
  • PRO

    No new arguments shall be presented in Round 5. ... [1]...

    Feminism is based upon female entitlement to male achievements.

    I welcome the challenge of engaging a proponent of Feminism who is based in the United States of America, familiar with its laws and culture, and willing to pursue this topic dispassionately. Rules of Engagement: 1. Argumentation ethics apply. 2. Semantics shall not apply. 3. Anecdotal evidence shall be considered irrelevant. 4. Sources must be cited following assertions with notation and the URL provided to bottom of round. 5. Quotations shall be considered irrelevant. 6. Round 1 is acceptance. 7. No new arguments shall be presented in Round 5. Definitions: * These definitions are chosen from different sources in an attempt to avoid redundancy within definition (e.g. "entitlement - a state of entitling" etc.). Feminism - a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. [1] based - a fundamental principle or groundwork; foundation; basis. [2] female - a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries, and developing at puberty a relatively rounded body and enlarged breasts, and a beardless face; a girl or woman. [3] entitlement - a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement. [4] male - a person bearing an X and Y chromosome pair in the cell nuclei and normally having a penis, scrotum, and testicles, and developing hair on the face at adolescence; a boy or man. [5] achievements - something that has been accomplished esp by hard work, ability, or heroism. [6] Improper Form: Any of the following mischaracterizations will be seen as concession of the debate (i.e. one warning may be given, whereas the second results in consession to the opposition) - 1) Superiority/inferiority of genders based upon opinion rather than objective, biological attributes. 2) Broad cultural depictions of male as "rapist," female as "victim." Notes: Thank you ahead of time to Con for agreeing to engage this topic. Please be sure to delay your voting till the conclusion of this debate. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://dictionary.reference.com... [6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

CON

  • CON

    So a man could work 40 hours a week and make more then a...

    Feminism is needed in America

    We have gender equality in the USA. The most common feminist arguments I hear are as follows. 1. Woman make less then men for the same work 2. 1 in 5 woman are raped (I don't know if this is 100% accurate but I do hear it often and it is based of certain facts) 3. Men having power in society I will start with "Woman make less then men for the same work" or often said as "woman make 75 cents on a mans dollar". This is simply not true. This statistic includes anyone working 35 hours or more a week. So a man could work 40 hours a week and make more then a woman working 35 hours. The statistic doesn't compare people with exact position it compares people in the same field. Statistically speaking men are far more likely to take work in uncomfortable, isolated, and undesirable locations and take more demanding jobs that naturally pay more. For example, within sales, men gravitate to relatively high-stress and high-paying areas of specialization, like car dealership with long hours, while women are more likely to pursue relatively lower-paid areas of specialization like being a cashier with shorter hours. Also, unmarried women who've never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men. Which isn't wrong it just depends on what jobs they go into. http://www.wsj.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.theatlantic.com... Second, 1 in 5 woman are raped. So a man could work 40 hours a week and make more then a woman working 35 hours. The statistic doesn't compare people with exact position it compares people in the same field. Statistically speaking men are far more likely to take work in uncomfortable, isolated, and undesirable locations and take more demanding jobs that naturally pay more. For example, within sales, men gravitate to relatively high-stress and high-paying areas of specialization, like car dealership with long hours, while women are more likely to pursue relatively lower-paid areas of specialization like being a cashier with shorter hours. Also, unmarried women who've never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men. Which isn't wrong it just depends on what jobs they go into. http://www.wsj.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.theatlantic.com... Second, 1 in 5 woman are raped. For example, within sales, men gravitate to relatively high-stress and high-paying areas of specialization, like car dealership with long hours, while women are more likely to pursue relatively lower-paid areas of specialization like being a cashier with shorter hours. Also, unmarried women who've never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men. Which isn't wrong it just depends on what jobs they go into. http://www.wsj.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.theatlantic.com... Second, 1 in 5 woman are raped. Feminism can not help this and it is not sexist. Evil exists in the world and there is nothing we can do about it. Rapists know what they are doing is wrong. It isn't that they see woman as sex objects and non human, they just want to have sex and are willing to do a horrible act to have sex. It is not right, but it certainly is not something that society doesn't care about. It is universally condemned and considered awful. Lastly I hear it argued that men are the only ones with power in the USA Which is completely untrue. Woman are CEO's and hold many government positions. In Hillary Clinton case there could even be a female president in 2016. 21% of people in congress are female. This number although not 50-50 is fine especially considering as stated above. Statistically speaking men tend to go for higher paying and higher power positions. http://fortune.com...

  • CON

    Humans see patterns, so they notice when a sex generally...

    Feminism is necessary in modern day United States.

    Plenty of feminists stay true to their morals, and feminism (if only take the dictionary definition into account), is all for equality. Despite this, you cannot deny the feminist movement is deteriorating, and women have the same rights as men in the Untied States. Name one right that the United States government grants men and not women. I have yet to receive an answer. You also say that if there is substantial inequality, feminism is required. There isn't substantial inequality in America. Response to Point One: The fact that men are more likely to have STEM jobs isn't an injustice. Men are more likely to pursue STEM jobs due to their nature. Believe it or not, women and men are different, and not just because of culture or "brainwashing." Psychology is one STEM field that is dominated by women. [1] This makes sense, since women are more in tune with others' emotions, can better tell what others are thinking, and can analyze social situations with more accuracy than men could. [2] Women don't need to be "encouraged" to pursue STEM jobs, they need to be encouraged to do what they love, and to not be pressured into STEM jobs by people who judge women by what job they have. If they want a STEM job, fine. If they want to be a teacher, fine. If they want to work at McDonald's, fine. If they want to be a housewife, that's fine too. Feminism shouldn't promote specific carriers for women, but encourage women to choose whatever carrier choice they wish. Also, women shouldn't be paid for simply being pregnant. If women want to have I baby, fine. I don't see why they would want to, but to each her own. Still, if they aren't working, they shouldn't be paid (unless, of course, they are disabled and cannot work). If you don't have the money to have a baby, you shouldn't have a baby. This is why I advocate for free abortion, especially to those who cannot afford it. However, this is coming from someone who supports eugenics and birth control, so I can easily see other anti-feminists disagreeing with me. Response to Point Two: While I believe the United States Government is corrupt, elections are as fair as the voters allow them to be. Congressmen and women are elected by popular vote, so if women run and aren't elected, that was the decision of the general population. While you may not agree with the decision, the majority of people do. There are some ignorant voters though, which is why I believe voters should be required to take a political knowledge test before they vote. Response to Point Three: I don't agree with enforcing gender roles, but you do realize gender roles aren't the only reason women and men act different? Natural tenancies came before gender roles, and can explain why they exist. Men are physically stronger than women, so it makes sense that people associate men with strength relative to women. Men are more aggressive and dominant than women because they have more testosterone. [3] [4] Women are less likely to pursue STEM jobs than men because male and female brains function differently, as I've stated earlier. Humans see patterns, so they notice when a sex generally acts differently than the other. The mere existence of gender roles doesn't warrant a movement. Gender roles are misused, yes, but don't effect the average woman in the United States as much as you may think it does. The reason I pointed out specific events is because western feminism has grown so useless it has no where else to go but downhill. There is not much else women need to fight for in America, so the movement is beginning to just make stuff up. The patriarchy, the wage gap, anything! Just as long as we can satisfy the victim complexes of feminist sheep! We'll make them feel proud just for having a jobs, as women! Imagine that! And you ask for a percentage of radical feminist, which is a statistic you cannot calculate. Instead of fighting for women, feminists begin to attack men. We see this more and more often, and it will only get worse. This isn't a reason feminism is useless, it is a result. You must understand that, because you completely and utterly missed my point. It also wasn't my main argument, but my longest one. That doesn't really matter though. Then, you go on to dismiss the problems of women in other countries by saying, "Oh, there are some countries in Africa with more women in government than us. Yep, argument debunked." Afghanistan my have more women in government than the U.S., but that doesn't make the general consensus magically less sexist. 87% of Afghani women admit to experience domestic violence. Afghanistan is also the the only country in the whole world where women commit suicide more than men. Now let's address some African countries, because we can't declare an entire continent as woman friendly, now can we? In the Democratic Republic of Congo, "rapes are so brutal and so systematic that UN investigators have called them unprecedented." [5] DRC has even earned the title “rape capital of the world." [6] Militias in Sudan use systematic rape as a demographic weapon. This is another country where rape culture is very real and frightening. [5] In Chad, another country in Africa, while 77% of boys were going to elementary school, only 55% of girls were enrolled in elementary school. Only 28% of women in Chad are literate, but almost half of men are. [7] I could go on, but I'll save your time. Citations: [1] http://www.pbs.org... [2] http://www.fitbrains.com... [3] https://www.psychologytoday.com... [4] https://www.netnanny.com... [5] https://www.thestar.com... [6] http://www.theguardian.com... [7] http://www.usatoday.com...

  • CON

    The American Academy of Pediatrics recently put forward a...

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

    Overplayed anti feminist prank: http://youtu.be... * Firstly, this debate is about feminism in the West. I thought that was obvious. I apologize. I understand, but...it took thousands of years for women to be seen as human beings. That can be erased in a heartbeat. Feminism in the West can go overboard. Some feminists are just plain nuts, but...it's the art of the deal, if you will. You reach for the most, hoping simply to achieve the best possible by doing so. Overzealous feminists may simply be a bulwark towards the majority view worldwide from overcoming the West by its abrasive attitude. Imagine if feminism was submissive. In the face of a reality that muted females for thousands of years, they must protect the fortress at all costs. Why? Women face issues that men in general do not. 1)Rape 2)Being overwhelmed by physical onslot. * As I generally agree with you, in Western principle, I can see that some fires risk being put out much more than other fires. Female rights is an unstable fire that could more easily be snuffed out than rebuilt. Women of planet Earth must have a safe haven or sanctuary to plausably be able to escape to somewhere on Earth. Where would nonwesterners get this education if it was not heavy in the West? Examples? The American Academy of Pediatrics recently put forward a proposal on female genital mutilation. They wanted for American doctors to be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or “nick” on girls born into communities that practice female genital mutilation. Female circumcision is a custom in many African and Asian countries whereby the genitals of a girl child are cut. There are roughly four procedures. First there is the ritual pinprick. This is what Pediatrics refers to as the “nick” option. To give you an idea of what that means, visualize a preteen girl held down by adults. Her clitoris is tweaked so that the circumcizer can hold it between her forefinger and her thumb. Then she takes a needle and pierces it using enough force for it to go into the peak of the clitoris. As soon as it bleeds, the parents and others attending the ceremony cheer, the girl is comforted and the celebrations follow. Ayaan Hirsi Ali interview (Video reference) http://youtu.be... For many secular Muslims and former Muslims, the hijab is not a symbol of freedom. It is a symbol of the fact that women in Islam are second class citizens and that this status is encoded in both sacred text and tradition, enforced by culture and law. The hijab lies at one end of with the burka, a portable fabric wall that prevents women from engaging fully with the world, and vice versa. It is a reminder that for millennia women have been chattel. http://m.huffpost.com... The hijab and oppression of a sex- (Video reference) http://youtu.be... * Yes, but are these realities in the USA? You bet. Female genital mutilation is on the Rise in the U.S.- More than half a million women and girls in the U.S. are estimated to be affected or at risk of FGM, according to the Population Reference Bureau (PRB), a nonprofit organization that released statistics on FGM earlier this year. The number of those at risk has more than doubled in roughly the past decade, according to the PRB. Officials from various organizations say the main reasons include population growth, and the fact that more families are immigrating to America, and bringing their practices with them. http://abcnews.go.com... Muslims have sued in U.S. courts so Muslim women be able to wear burkas to work. The burka is the Islamic covering that covers the woman from head to toe, even covering the face other than the eyes. http://www.breitbart.com... So what's the big deal? Imagine someone commits a crime wearing a burka. The cops ask you what the person who commited the crime looked like. You don't know because you couldn't see them. Imagine an incident happens at work, but no co-employees know what she even looks like despite working with her 5 years. Imagine being a woman who came to America desperately yearning for freedom, but your family and husband make you cover up, and you silently hate it. The government and law enforcment must make it a priority to seperate church and state. In this instance, the law has given the woman her first individual identity through the law. That law would be empowered by Western feminism. Do I promote overzealous progressive feminism? No. But it may be an irritating bulwark to something worse.

  • CON

    My opponent spent the rest of her space exploring...

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

    Rebuttal of Pros Arguments 1. For let it be the case woman work in the same job and they get less pay. The example given was not balanced; pro continually compared her salary to those who had more experience and seniority. To use these qualifications as a reason why women get paid less than men is a red herring. 2. For let it be the case that woman get paid less in the general labour jobs or in general all together. My opponent attempts to justify the pay inequality by rationalizing that many men are supporting wives and we should expect the inequality. I am unwilling to concede this point, as it flies in the face of everything I know about business and has not a shred of evidence to back it up. However, even if this were true, that men are getting paid more because their employers know they have wives to take care of, then this is a fine example of institutionalized discrimination that should be added to the list of things feminism needs to address. It does not excuse the system from being discriminatory and trying to economically shoehorn women back into the role of housewives, a role so many women have fought to break free of. Then my opponent went off on a tangeant about how if these suppositions were raised to a feminist group they would be met with disdain. In my estimation, disdain for these points is warranted, because they are nothing ludicrous attempts to justify discrimination and they are not even well reasoned justifications. Even aside from what has been mentioned men still spend more on woman then woman on men. That is woman get more free goods then men in general. Finally my opponent had the audacity to imply that women deserved less pay because they received more gifts from men. "Stay at home and be a good little wife and we will bring you a nice present." I think not. My opponent spent the rest of her space exploring philosophy and epistomology. Interesting subjects, indeed, but not relevant to this discussion. The only aspect of my opening argument that was addressed was the financial aspect, which is the least of the arguments in favor of continued feminism. The true reason feminism is still needed is because there is still sexism. None of my opponents statements have demonstrated that feminism is doing harm of any kind, which is the basis for this debate. I was prepared to counter many arguments, but I have received none. I forfeited the last round and explained to my opponent that the burden of proof was her responsibility. Though I had nothing to refute, it was ill-mannered of me to let my time slip away without making a response. For that I apologize to my opponent. Supporting Arguments The good that has been accomplished by the feminist movement can be seen everywhere. Though my opponent graciously accepts that women should be allowed to vote and drive, her arguments prove that there is still much good that the feminist movement needs to achieve. My opponent allows that woment deserve an education, but it is the patriarchal mindset that needs to be educated. Oppression is about lack of choices. Women have been oppressed for millenia, and my opponent seems content that women be forced back into the roles that men picked out for them. I am not. An injustice done to anyone is an injustice done to everyone, and no one has a right to determine what a woman should do with her life EXCEPT the woman herself. Would the shoe be on the other foot one would expect such a hue and cry from the male population that the mountains would tremble. A persons worth and place in society should not be determined by their genitalia. This should be res ipsa loquitur, but obviously it is not, because this discussion is still taking place. So I will speak for it. Women, who once had only a handful of jobs from which to choose (teacher, librarian, nurse, et cetera) are now free to pursue almost any career they choose. Women are soldiers, police officers, firefighters, politicians, astronauts and doctors. For any who once said that women could not do these jobs I invite them to eat those words now. There is nothing a woman can not do. To be sure, women were and are harrassed by the men who wanted to keep these jobs the venue soley of the male population, but they persevered. But the stereotype is not completely broken. A woman who chooses to pursue a career is tacitly accepted by society, but it still comes with presuppositions. Women who work outside the home are still expected, overwhelmingly, to do the 'woman's work' when she gets home from her job. If the couple descides to start a family it is the woman who is expected to stay home and raise the children (if either parent does, that is). Feminism still has good work to do in helping women destroy the last of the stereotypes. There is no harm caused by it that could possibly outweigh the good that it has accomplished and has yet to accomplish.

  • CON

    First off, it's a bit superfluous for a feminist to...

    The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

    For a culture or society to exist, everybody within that culture has to accept the values, ideals, and laws of said culture. It seems my opponent believes that a culture or society is held together by an unexplainable magnetic force. NOPE!!! ALL cultures/societies are held together by each individuals acceptance of the ideals of said culture. If people begin to reject the ideals of society, then that society crumbles or is changed, and a new set of ideals are put into place. Without the consent of the people on an individual basis then society wouldn't exist. That last sentence doesn't only pertain to "western" society, it pertains to all societies. Do you know what a social construct is? It's the idea that some things that we believe to be true, may only be true within the context of our society, but may not be true in nature, or politics, or history. Some may consider gender roles to be a social construct. There's no omnipresent force that renders you helpless if you choose to stray from socially accepted gender roles. It is solely and purely your choice to abide by whichever standard you choose. Right about now, you might be thinking, what if you live in Iran? Could a man choose to don a Lularoe dress and walk down the street like he's in a pageant? Not without putting his safety at risk, but that doesn't mean he cannot do it. I am arguing that we are only truly governed by our free will, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for our actions. There's no force stopping me from going outside and setting off fireworks at 2am in my thickly settled neighborhood, but my acceptance of the fact that the consequences for that action would not be pleasant, stops me from doing so, not an unseen cosmic force. The most obvious social construction would be society itself. If you think about it, you might come to the conclusion that we all live in anarchy. There's no mechanism that physically stops us from doing or not doing anything, it's only our choice. Societies and cultures are made up of large groups of individuals who've collectively decided to forego some freedom, for the safety of living with the herd. Since we were born into an already existing society, we get the feeling that the rules and ideals of our society are written in some cosmic pillar that keeps the balance of existence in check. NOPE!!!! It is, and always has been a large group of individuals who've collectively accepted the ideals and standards of society. So when you really boil it down, my opponent is saying he accepts the traditional standard for his relationship, and his spouse rejects that standard. I don't get the feeling that the ghost of William F Buckley Jr will haunt you if you give in to her standards. I also don't think you'll have a swarm of unshaven women, burning bras on your front lawn, if she gives in. So no, social influence does not play as big a role as you might think. I think you misinterpreted my sentence about the "shallow generalizations on the difference between men and women". That sentence doesn't say, men and women are the same. Actually it says the opposite. It recognizes their are differences between men and women, but your generalizations (observations) seem shallow. Now, I don't know you, but you seem to be more intelligent than me, and I sort of get the sense that some of what you say is said out of spite, or bitterness, but perhaps you don't believe these things as strongly as you feel you do. I get the feeling that you are purposefully holding back on your sense of depth, for the sake of this debate. My opponent argues that certain branches of feminism encourage women to reject the role of "housewife" and that men and women are the same. First off, it's a bit superfluous for a feminist to encourage women to reject the role of "housewife", because most of western society has already rejected it. Not necessarily for the sake of womans rights, but for economic reasons. As I've argued before, (and it seems my opponent has no desire to address this) most families need the women to get jobs because they need a second source of income. I don't deny there are some extreme fundamental sects within the feminist movement, but do those particular sentiments actually represent the core values of feminism? Do all white people have a poster of David Duke hanging on there wall? Do all black people swear allegiance to the honorable Elijah Muhammad? Are all feminists really man haters? An extreme view made by certain feminists may not be a fair representation of the core values of feminism. It's also worth noting that not all feminists share the same views as other feminists. Some traditional feminists believe pornography is basically just "legal prostitution" so it should be outlawed, but many modern feminists will argue that pornography is a way of showing that woman "own" their sex and body image and there's no need to infringe on artistic rights for the sake of outdated puritan sentiments. It's difficult to make an assessment of where the core values of feminism are, because there are opposing views within the movement itself. Just clumping all feminist sentiment into one extremist category is a tad bit obtuse. I'm sure it can be heartbreaking to know that half of all marriages end in divorce. It's almost as if your a pessimist, your chances are pretty good that your marriage will end in divorce. I guess, on the flip side, if your prone to optimism, it seems you have a better chance of staying married for the remainder of your life. That almost gives me the feeling that your additude toward your relationship is the dominant factor within your relationship. https://www.psychologytoday.com... My opponent seems to have trouble with the concept that the framework of his relationship is based on his, and his spouses attitudes toward there relationship. It's based on how you feel about each other, and any bad or good sentiments you have for each other, are not influenced by feminism! Your relationship is based SOLELY on your feelings for each other. I could argue that "traditionalism" is the decadent factor in your relationship, but that wouldn't hold any water either. ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE!!!!

  • CON

    Should I never be happy because somebody else has it...

    American Feminism is Going too Far

    Every single example provided by Pro fails to merit the use of the word "extreme", or is downright incorrect. I'd like evidence that shows that women are "asking for higher wages for lesser jobs". Also, I fail to see what is extreme about "freeing the nipple". "I say, things are good the way they are now at least in the states." Current cultural norms are not necessarily better, so I would like to use this opportunity to call out Pro on her use of the is-ought fallacy. "Places that should be helped are those such that have women suffering to stay alive." Just because somebody else has it worse, does not mean that one should not strive to help their current situation. Why should those women struggle to stay alive when there are women that die without having the option to struggle? It's not selfish to want things to be better for yourself when others have it worse. Should I never be happy because somebody else has it better? "Women and men are not the exact same people, otherwise there would be no genders." I'd like to refer Pro to the US Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education where the idea of "separate but equal" from the case Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned. "We have the ability to do everything a man does and that for a lot of people is enough." Just because women have the "ability" to do everything that a man can do does not mean that there isn't cultural and institutional sexism that prevents women from doing certain things. Roughly 19% of engineering students are female [1]. This is due to the fact that in science fields men are seen more desirably even when they have the same credentials as women [2]. Modern American Should I never be happy because somebody else has it better? "Women and men are not the exact same people, otherwise there would be no genders." I'd like to refer Pro to the US Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education where the idea of "separate but equal" from the case Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned. "We have the ability to do everything a man does and that for a lot of people is enough." Just because women have the "ability" to do everything that a man can do does not mean that there isn't cultural and institutional sexism that prevents women from doing certain things. Roughly 19% of engineering students are female [1]. This is due to the fact that in science fields men are seen more desirably even when they have the same credentials as women [2]. Modern American feminism fights to end cultural and institutional oppression. [1] https://www.asme.org... [2] http://www.nytimes.com...

  • CON

    This supposes that men have either engaged in or...

    Why I believe that Feminism is not about equality

    The core of Feminism is a belief in Patriarchy hypothesis - that all societies currently and historically exist in a state of class warfare between men and women, With men winning. This supposes that men have either engaged in or passively supported a social tradition that violently suppresses women, Keeping both men and women in restrictive gender roles, Such as women-as-caregivers. If this is true, This means that for thousands of years, Women have failed to raise men that see women as human beings deserving of rights. This means that at least one of the following must be true: A) Women are singularly inept at raising children. Considering that this is a gendered role that "Patriarchy" keeps them restricted to, It implies a level of ineptitude on the part of men too, Since they are restricting important work to people who lack the skills. And/or B) Men are incapable of breaking the sociopathy required to see their own mothers, Daughters, Partners, Any woman they claim to "love" as human beings. This is where the likes of Sally Miller Gearhart and her male genocide narrative are at least consistent in their beliefs - nobody can change these monsters, And they're not going to change themselves, So genocide is the only option. If someone claims to be a feminist, And/or believes in Patriarchy, They are supporting a narrative that requires a worldview of women as incompetent, Men as monstrous, Or both. That is not "supportive" of men - misandry is a necessary component of Feminism's core belief.

  • CON

    They average 33 hours a week at jobs, and more than 17...

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

    Reguarding the resolution--My opponent should have been more specific with the resolution, instead of admitting to his fault, he is coming up with reasons to go around the truth, which is (he didn’t clarify). It is pretty obvious that I have won this debate. I won this debate for 2 main reasons. For one main reason, Pro agreed that there *is* a wage gap, but it’s because men chose riskier jobs. Well, there are women who work risky jobs too, so I’m not going to buy his case. It simply doesn’t make sense. My opponent did not do a very good job at organizing his rebuttals, so I will do my best to do it myself. Again, my opponent seems to be writing more “fluff” and this isn’t a cop out, the judges would agree with me. In regards to my Human Trafficking argument: “First of all, this statistic also applies to children. The resolution only applies to women. Con puts statistics about children that do not apply to this resolution. If this were policy debate, I would put a topicality violation.” I’m not entirely sure why this matters? A child is born a male, or a female, and there are many children that are *female* that get tossed into human trafficking. Just because you’re a child and a female, doesn’t mean you have an less of a right as a female does. “Human trafficking has nothing to with feminism. If I may remind a radical feminist of what feminism actually means.” Human trafficking violates ones rights. [1] Sex trafficking violates women’s right to life, liberty and security of person. The fundamental individual right to life, liberty and security of person is reflected in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). A person who is involved in human trafficking does not have a say in what they can, and can’t do. They are simply controlled by the people who own them. “If Con tries to prove that 80% of these children are females, than Con still proves nothing. Female is specifically an adult female, not a child. These are just a few arguments about bringing up children in this debate. These arguments should be deemed irrelevant. I feel like my opponent does not know what she is talking about, and confuses human trafficking with all sorts of topics.” I’m sorry, but this is utterly a useless statement. You’re Women if you have a vagina. A female child, has a vagina. It’s that simple. C2. “I don't get why you are failing at reading my case. I already stated "Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more. In the top ten most dangerous jobs(from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics)".” You told me where the statistic came from, but you didn’t actually show viable evidence, thus I can’t believe this to be true. "Males are for more likely to work in higher paying jobs-According to the White House Report, 7% of female professionals were employed in high paying computer fields, while 38% of males have gotten professional jobs." Here is the evidence I stated in my case.” I am not entirely sure what this has to do with the debate. I didn’t argue this, nor is anyone complaining about Women not working in the white house. [3]MY CASE: Here in the U.S., men and women work a nearly equal number of hours, about 50 per week. But once again, women take much more of the household burden. They average 33 hours a week at jobs, and more than 17 hours working around the house." Pro states: “First of all, Con does not provided a citation on where this evidence comes from.” I actually did in the round it was stated in. It was source #3. (http://kfor.com...) This is pretty obvious who won this debate, Con. For the following reasons: *My opponent should have been more specific with the resolution, instead of admitting to his fault, he is coming up with reasons to go around the truth, which is (he didn’t clarify). It is pretty obvious that I have won this debate. Thus, he dropped my FGM argument, and Child Bride argument. For another reason, Pro agreed that there *is* a wage gap, but it’s because men chose riskier jobs. Well, there are women who work risky jobs too, so I’m not going to buy his case. It simply doesn’t make sense. Therfor, vote Con. Sources: [1] http://www.endvawnow.org...

  • CON

    Please note: This is in no way, shape, or form an attack...

    Feminism creates pseudo problems and is nowhere near as relevant as Feminists claim it is

    [Please note: This is in no way, shape, or form an attack on women] Feminism- In this day in age, I have been noticing a few feminists creating a series of pseudo-problems such as "there aren't enough women in video games" when clearly these 'problems' have simple answers; video game designers are catering to the majority in order to make a profit and not to 'oppress' women. What exactly is to be gained financially by appealing to the demands of the minority of your customer base? Causes like this are near pointless due to the fact they are overanalyzed until they become a direct threat and/or threat against women. Wage gap- Moving on to women in the workplace, Feminists will argue that for every $1.00US a man makes a woman will make $0.80US. However, these same feminists fail to point out the fact that men typically do not quit their jobs to raise a family, are less likely to work part time, are more likely to go into a career path in which one is expected to perform laborious activities in extremely strenuous conditions, and are more likely to retire at a elderly age thereby getting the benefit of seniority. These factors are completely left out to make it seem as if the female population is being oppressed within the working environment. It is up to the individual to choose what career pathway they work in and due to the fact that many women prefer fields that do not require strenuous work or physical labor, naturally, they will be making less money than their male counterparts. Feminism cannot force women into fields that they do not wish to work in. Abortion- Regardless of your opinions about the morality of this subject, Feminists constantly argue that this is a woman's rights issue. However, the legality of aborting a human fetus has never been a woman's rights issue; it has always been a human's rights issue and about determining whether or not it is moral to kill a unborn child due to personal choices and/or financial reasons. Feminism is not needed to determine this. Sexual Violence- Women are sometimes the victims of sexual violence and Feminists will claim that men need to be taught not to rape. Sexual violence is a very real problem and should not exist. However, the solution that the Feminists have proposed is ineffective for the population as a whole due to the complex ways that one specific human will develop and react to a certain environment when compared to another human. Consider this: If we could reduce the rate of a crime to zero simply by telling someone not to commit it, why does murder still exist in this society? Besides sociopaths and psychopaths, I highly doubt you would run into any man in the street who thinks rape is acceptable. As a side note, the solution mentioned above implies that all men are potential rapists and need to be feared. With this logic, one can say that all humans are potential murders and need to be taught not to murder. If I recall correctly, I was never taught not to murder and learned simply from observing the reactions of fictitious characters in movies and the people in my surrounding environment. I was only able to do so due to the fact I live in a society that already perceives rape as a heinous crime. Feminism's proposed solution of educating men against it is not the most beneficial to stopping it. A much better solution would be simply to have young males and females be much more cautious when they are out with someone they do not know or trust. Conclusion- These constant streams of pseudo problems and duplicitous claims leads me to the conclusion that Feminists are simply trying to find anything to latch on to, victimizing themselves in the most bizarre ways imaginable in order to stay relevant.

  • CON

    One being reproductive "rights" and the other being rape...

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

    Pro: "My opponent argued on a platform of Islamophobia." Nope. I'm not Islamophobic. My family are all Muslims. I'm a truth lover. Pro: "used biased sources" Such as ABC News, Wikipedia, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia again Huffington Post...2 are sources that Pro himself used. * Pro: "He also willingly argues only Islamic countries to avoid the issue." Nepal is 81% Hindu. 9% are Buddhists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * Pro: "Rape was labeled untouchable and he violated this rule." Note: Pro just used rape in this debate. Pro's definition of rules was unclear and ambiguous even according to someone in the comments section. And I quote: "I am not going to exclude more than two things." "One being reproductive "rights" and the other being rape rates. Sexual harassment/groping is fair game." * Pro: "there was an Afghan queen." Who was not voted for. She was also the wife of King Amanullah Khan and under his authority which is a false dichotomy by ommiting information by Pro. She also "studied in Syria, learning Western and modern values there, which would influence her future actions and beliefs," according to Wikipedia, and showing an example of Western "One being reproductive "rights" and the other being rape rates. Sexual harassment/groping is fair game." * Pro: "there was an Afghan queen." Who was not voted for. She was also the wife of King Amanullah Khan and under his authority which is a false dichotomy by ommiting information by Pro. She also "studied in Syria, learning Western and modern values there, which would influence her future actions and beliefs," according to Wikipedia, and showing an example of Western feminism affecting the mindset of those from other cultures. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * Pro: "I firstly would like to say that women are now advocating for their own transport "for protection from men." And isn't being taken seriously in America because it has not been successful in other countries, and it is considered "discriminatory towards men." http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://m.huffpost.com... * Third and Fourth wave feminism are protected by freedom of speech. It is also protected by the seperation of church and state, like it or not. http://www.spiked-online.com... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * Pro: "Domestic abuse is more often than not caused by women against men." Pro used Youtube as their only source on this point. Nevertheless, In the debate about violence, men more often side with violence than women do. -"Whether it is in acts of violence such as rape or murder, or violence such as rioting, gang murders or war, men play a role that far exceeds that of women. Women are more likely to be the victims, rather the perpetrators, of violent crime." https://disorderedworld.com... * Pro: "To summarize the point of these videos, in domestic violence, men under report their abuse." Then how does anyone know they are under reporting something they never report? * Pro: "One day, my wife attacked me with a 2x4 while I was sleeping." Don't date or marry crazy females. * Pro: "Women can commit the same crimes as a man, and receive lighter sentences." Notice the word "can". Men also "can" receive lighter sentences than women. * Pro: "Feminism in the West is an overzealous belief that will not stop until women get their turn at oppressing men." Pro is stating an opinion and making a prediction, not stating a fact. * I finish by quoting Pro. Pro: "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."