Women leaders have a secret agenda to establish a Matriarchy, using feminism as a
guiding force
Alright. This is my first debate on this site, so I'm nervous right now, especially
since I'm generally insecure about my debating skills. Nevertheless, I will do my
best. Good luck to both you and me. Before I argue those claims in detail, let me
point out that you are severely misunderstanding the meaning of feminism. Your (common)
understanding of feminism is female rights over male rights, while the proper and
most basic definition of feminism is gender equality. Dictionary.com's longer definition
of feminism is "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of
women equal to those of men." Please do get that right, the definition isn't subjective!
It seems that one of your main claims is that systemic sexism doesn't currently exist,
and has instead reversed in favor of females. Systemic oppression of females has always
and still exists at different levels all around the world. Sure, sexism towards men
may have existed, but systemic oppression toward males has never and does not exist.
The ultimate goal of feminists is to achieve gender equality, anything that surpasses
that--that is, when one gender's powers and rights exceeds the other's--is no longer
feminism, but gender-based oppression. Thus, women cannot "use feminism to establish matriarchy" or undermine male power/rights. That is now oppression,
which, again, doesn't exist for men because women globally are not yet even "economically,
politically, and socially equal to men" as you (and whoever you got that information
from) say they are. Not even in the United States. In the regions of the Middle East and North Africa, East Asia and the Pacific, Latin
America and the Caribbean, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, only 17%, 19%, 27%,
19%, 23%, respectively, of their parliaments are held by women in 2014 (http://datatopics.worldbank.org...). In the hypothetical situation
that there is an equal representation of both genders in any parliament, both genders
would of course comprise of about half of any parliament's members. Yet women's presence
in contemporary parliaments rarely even exceed 25%. Now consider the gender pay gaps
that also exists globally: (http://www.theguardian.com...) In all the major countries
of the world, women are paid less than men, which is quintessential of gender inequality.
With and because of these gender gaps, women continue to be seen as less than men,
and thus will continue to be oppressed by them. And while oppression towards women
remains existent, women continue to risk gender-based violence, which several times
are unjustly overlooked by authorities, leaving women to suffer longer than they need
to. Consider the female rape victims around the world that don't receive public sympathy
simply because they are female. That is, because females tend to be seen as sluts,
and because of it, deserve to be raped. That's 1 in 5 females in the U.S. alone who
are at such a risk (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). Additionally, 30% of women
who have been in a relationship experienced sexual or phsyical violence by their partner
(http://www.who.int...). And around the world (mostly in Iran, India, and Pakistan,
where systemic oppression towards women are the most dangerous), there are about 1,500
acid-attacks primarily on women and children, where acid is deliberately thrown on
their faces by men (http://www.bbc.com...). Such injustice occurs because women aren't
empowered, which is precisely why we need feminism; so that women's rights can no longer be abused and so that women can be seen as
equal to men. The fact that you believe gender inequality no longer exists is, to
me, extraordinarily baffling and quite ludicrous, so I apologize for throwing all
those statistics at you, but I felt they were most necessary. Please research more
into it, rather than creating hypotheticals! This is a genuine request. To paraphrase
a large part of our argument, you also believe that women--at least those in power--are
oppressive, narrow-minded, fascistic, and somehow plotting together to undermine male
rights and powers in "secret" So you're saying that no one but females, primarily,
know that this plan, or "agenda," exists and are all working together in support of
it. But I am female, my strongly feminist friends are female, and many of my feminist
teachers are female. I live in a largely liberal area, and I have never heard of such
endeavors, nor have I even imagined it! Again, feminists don't wish to undermine men's
rights/powers; if they do, then they aren't feminists at all. You referred to Hillary
Clinton as a part of this "agenda" but here's a quote from her: "If women are healthy
and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their
families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal
partners in society, their families will flourish. And when families flourish, communities
and nations will flourish" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). Here, Hillary Clinton
does not at all wish to overpower men, but simply to rid of any existing gender inequality
in disfavor of women and stand alongside of men as "equal partners in society." You
also mentioned that "if a women such as Hillary Clinton would have to give back presidential
office to the hands of the 'oppressive' patriarchy, she could cancel presidential
elections by stripping your constitutional rights through the logical fallacy that
is Martial Law." First of all, she was never the president; in fact, as you very well
know, there has never been a female president, hence why feminism exists in the first place. Second, I can assure you that she, and any other president,
will never be able to commit such totalitarianistic actions given the strictly structured
government the Framers created for the US. Our government's three branches--executive,
legislative, and judicial--are all checked and balanced by each other. The executive
branch (which includes the president) doesn't possess any formal legislative powers
besides his veto power. There is the executive agreement, which allows the president
to make treaties without congressional consent, and the executive order, which allows
the president to make law also without congressional approval. But both aren't very
powerful arguments as one is irrelevant; the other, rare, highly scrutinized, and
lacks enough power to actually "cancel presidential elections," which would undeniably
undermine the Constitution, which then could easily be grounds for a presidential
impeachment. In fact, if Obama had any real legislative powers, he would have been
able to pass so many of his laws, but he is mostly rendered inefficient and incapable
of doing anything because of the largely Republican Congress (the legislative branch)
that almost always opposes him and his proposed legislations. So no, women, just like
males, cannot so easily undermine the very scared doctrine that is the Constitution.
The closest way of doing so would be interpreting the Constitution, which only the
Supreme Court has the power to do. I am concerned about your cruel (and quite offensive)
depiction of feminist women as oppressive, narrow-minded, and fascistic. Feminists
only wish for equality; if you see any woman, or anyone for that matter, advocating
for a single gender's rights over those of the other, then by all means, call them
out. But that's not what feminists are. And yes, women may "favor one social aspect
and execute another," just like any person may. Not all women agree on the same exact
set of beliefs--by implying so, you are stereotyping women. All individual women have
their own set of beliefs distinct from other women. Of course, large groups of women
may agree on some things, but again, large groups of people in general do. And woman
can't well execute their beliefs because they don't dominate the media, like you said
they do, since women only make up a mere 30% of the total journalists in the US. (http://www.theguardian.com...)
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
