PRO

  • PRO

    This entire argument can equate to one type of person:...

    Feminism in society and what is useful for,Rape Cultures existence, Wage Gaps existence

    Here is my rebuttal. This entire argument can equate to one type of person: feminazi Here's the difference. Feminazi - an extreme feminist who believes the option of abortion is essential to the political, social, and economic advancement of women [1] Feminism -the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. [2] This argument extends to only feminazis, as all feminazis aren't real feminists, according to the definition. I look forward to your defense. I'll go into a more in depth rebuttal in my opening statements. Citations [1]http://www.dictionary.com... [2]http://www.google.com...

  • PRO

    This is so because boys have been treated as defective...

    Feminism is no longer needed.

    The patriarchy, the wage gap, sexism in the workplace and many more. Illogical terms, with no facts backing them up, tailored made for the uninformed masses to consume. In 2016, society has never been more equal, and yet, feminist garbage is spewed over the media, leftism encouraging special treatment for women, social conditioning to ingrain inferiority in men. With all these things, we can discern that feminism is no longer needed. Graduation rates for males have dropped dramatically since the 1950's, the wage gap has been proven wrong, and women winning custody cases by landslides. 1) Graduation rates / The education system Informative video: The average GPA for males have dropped, and the GPA for females have risen over the past few years by a significant amount. This is not due to a sudden change in whichever gender is smarter, but simply, the tailoring of an education system for women. Think about it. When you describe disruptive, noisy, defective, dirty, and many other things in a classroom what comes to your mind? Of course, a boy. This is so because boys have been treated as defective girls in schools. There is a 0.4 - 0.5 GPA gap between females and males (Russell Sage, 2004), with the GPA even increasing to this day. This shows evidence on how the education system is change to tailor towards females more than males. Source: http://www.russellsage.org... 2) The wage gap The belief states that for every dollar a man makes in a job, for the exact same job, the woman would make around 66 cents, based on an average made across the United States. Firstly, the way the data is obtained is extremely flawed. An average then used to compare specific jobs around the world, which doesn't take into account occupation, hours worked, position, and choices each gender makes. The gap between the wages is, in reality, a broad brush calculation across a large demographic. Secondly, the mere prospect of having men paid more than women in it self is a logical fallacy. If companies could pay women less than males for the same job, companies could gain a gigantic market advantage over competitors spending less on wages for women. "The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than "77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men." The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That"s not at all the case. "Full time" officially means 35 hours, but men work more hours than women. That"s the first problem: We could be comparing men working 40 hours to women working 35." - Forbes.com Source: http://www.forbes.com... 3) Custody winnings For several decades, it has been so that females have a 60% higher change of a custodial win rate than men (Dalrock Wordpress, 2007). This is not due to women being better at winning cases, but pure bias towards women. Males are aggressors, and females are victims, so it goes. This innate belief in most people lead them to believe that the mother is a better care taker than the father. though this may not be an issue if the child can still regularly visit the other parent, it becomes a problem when the father (if he loses) still has to pay a significantly larger amount to child support, even when the mother loses custody (Villanouscompany.com). This shows that even a mother financially incapable of taking care of a child still wins the case, which is nothing but evidence for pure bias. Source: http://www.villainouscompany.com... Good luck to anyone up for the challenge. You'll need it

  • PRO

    That is completely unfair to men who are suffering from...

    Modern Feminism Is Pointless

    Okay, first thank you for keeping this debate professional as a lot of these debates go the opposite way. However, your argument points out the very problem I have with feminism. I noticed how you didn't respond to ALL of my points only to the ones you thought you could counter. You completely ignored the point I made about most women thinking they shouldn't be in combat in the Armed Forces. It shows that the feminist movement is sadly hypocritical because they claim to want the same treatment as men yet they are unwilling to fight and die alongside men for their country. I believe women can be viewed as equals, but so far I have seen very little effort from women especially feminists to do that. I am a strong supporter of America's Armed Forces, and it frustrates and makes me angry when women say they can be equal to men in anything yet they don't want to fight alongside men and some very brave women for a country who would be very grateful for their sacrifice if they were willing to sacrifice for it. Another thing that frustrates me is Breast Cancer "Awareness". There is an entire month dedicated to fighting breast cancer, but here is a very sad fact that most Americans seem to ignore. More men die from prostate cancer than women from breast cancer (it's on the internet and very easy to find). That is completely unfair to men who are suffering from prostate cancer and would appreciate donations from willing donors, but most of the money goes towards breast cancer which is associated with women but men suffer from it as well. Now I will respond to your points. People don't think women are innocent right from the first glance, but women try to act like they are in an effort to get what they want. My uncle is fighting for the custody of his son against his wife who is throwing a lot of false accusations at him even though he has documents that prove those accusations wrong. Not once has the Judge asked proof that these accusations are true. He is taking her side because she is playing the role of the innocent woman. I am not saying all women do this, but whenever I see a woman in court she almost always tries to pull something like this. The reason people have the mindset that women are innocent most of the time is because women try and give them this mindset. A lot of good and caring fathers lose any custody of their children because in the divorce hearings the woman is almost ALWAYS favored. You may think this as a stereotype, but I see it happening a lot more as the years go by. My parents are divorced so I have experienced this first-hand. You say that most women who are raped are wearing sweatpants, yoga pants, or pajama pants. These are also considered revealing clothing to some and are not allowed at many schools in America. I also see a lot of women wearing these so they are either wearing the clothing I mentioned or the clothing you mentioned. Either way it doesn't help them in a rape situation yet they continue to wear these types of clothing. The clothing you mentioned reveals a lot because I can usually see underwear lines from those pants. Another thing is the suggestion that rape is only associated with women which is false. Males are also raped yet there is no mention of this in a feminist's rape argument. In the comments you said there is no reason for women to dress modestly. Believe it or not there are standards for men too as to what clothing is appropriate. There is a reason why men have to wear shirts in stores. There is a reason a guy sagging his pants is frowned upon in respected society. Women AND men are expected to dress appropriately in a social situation. Once again the "same treatment as men" argument comes into play in this situation.

  • PRO

    Feminism represents a small, privileged constituency of...

    Feminism represents a small, privileged constituency of middle-class white women, who can afford to ...

    Feminism represents a small, privileged constituency of middle-class white women, who can afford to worry about relatively insignificant issues like executive pay and body image; meanwhile the problems suffered by women across the world, such as poverty, hunger and racism (none of which are exclusively female problems) are ignored.

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/2701-feminism/
  • PRO

    Many women no longer identify themselves as feminists,...

    Many women no longer identify themselves as feminists, associating feminism with man-hating, sex-hat...

    Many women no longer identify themselves as feminists, associating feminism with man-hating, sex-hating humourlessness, and seeing it as a relic of the 1970s. Modern women are perfectly capable of competing with men on equal terms, and they resent suggestions that they need special treatment.

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/2701-feminism/
  • PRO

    They feel that a man"s life should not be ruined simply...

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

    I am not arguing that the idea of feminism is bad, I am arguing that 2nd/3rd wave feminism is bad. Most may argue that my arguments only apply to the radical feminists, but the radical feminists are the famous and widely-known feminists that taint feminism. In countries like the USA, women have it much better thanks to laws like affirmative action or VAMA. (which is very unneeded and sexist) 1.Feminists victimize women, and assume all men are predators . If this is not misandry, then I honestly don't know what is! This is the most falsified claim feminism has made. There are many women who get let off free for raping a child, or a man. Just because men can't get pregnant, doesn't automatically make them rapists and unable to be raped. 2.Have a look at the second-wave feminist view of men for an example. Valerie Solanas, the radical feminist who shot Andy Warhol in 1968, provides a famous example of misandry in her self-published SCUM Manifesto. In case you're wondering, SCUM is an acronym for "Society for Cutting Up Men", practically a call for gendercide, the culling of men. Quite literally, Solanas expressed her desire to "institute complete automation and destroy the male sex." 3.Think "Violence Against Women Act" " notice something wrong in that? Notice how violence against men or children is not mentioned? VAWA implies, through it"s title alone, that men are the primary perpetrators of violence " despite 30 years of research and in excess of 130 scientific studies proving that intimate partner violence is roughly mutual. Time and time again, the results say the same "men and women are equally violent towards one another". And yet, when feminists demand preferential treatment or additional "rights", the government promptly delivers, like a good boy." Links for the next argument(s)(in order). 4. http://www.glennsacks.com... http://web.archive.org... http://web.archive.org... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://londonfeministnetwork.org.uk... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.thisislondon.co.uk... http://pubpages.unh.edu... http://i.imgur.com... http://www.law.fsu.edu... http://www.firstpost.com... http://www.jpost.com... http://rinow.org... http://www.weeklystandard.com... http://www.legislature.mi.gov... Father"s rights group want shared parenting (equal custody) to be the default if both parents want custody and neither parent is unfit. They feel that men should not be punished for being men, and that women should not be awarded custody to their kids simply for being women. Currently women are awarded primary custody almost all the time, even if the husband was the stay-at-home Dad and the woman was the breadwinner. Feminists fought against this. You can read NOW"s own statement here. Also note their usage of anti-male lies, i.e. "fathers are abusive, don"t give them custody." That is from 1997, but still remains valid today. Men want protection against false rape allegations. They feel that a man"s life should not be ruined simply on the allegation of a woman who may be a vindictive liar. Currently, a woman can accuse a man of rape for no reason, and the man"s name is splashed in the paper and his life is ruined. So, they fought for laws granting men anonymity until charged with the crime of rape"not convicted, just charged. Feminists fought against this, causing it to fail. Also see here, the London Feminist Network campaigning to defeat the proposal. "The London Feminist Network is a campaigning organisation uniting London based feminist groups and individuals in activism." Men want an end to the justice system favouring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men. Feminists fought against this, arguing that no woman should be sent to jail, even women who had murdered multiple people. Men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of "being male" under primary aggressor policies. Feminists fought against this by trying to suppress evidence showing that half of domestic violence is done by women, by threatening the researchers with bomb threats, death threats, etc. Modern, younger feminists are doing it as well. And sadly, they were successful in this effort of propaganda. For decades, and continuing today, violent men are (rightfully) convicted and punished by the state, while violent women are left to freely terrorize and harm their partners. The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting primarily in having only male batterers criminally pursued. Men want female rapists to be arrested, charged, and convicted with rape. In Western countries, women are rarely punished when raping men, due to the biased legal system. In some countries, women cannot be punished when raping men, since rape is defined as a male-perpetrated crime. Feminists fought against this in India, arguing that "there is a physicality [in] rape" and that it would make things "more complicated for judges." Feminists fought against this in Israel, claiming that changing the law would result in men filing false rape claims. Men don"t want to be thrown in jail because they lost their jobs and temporarily cannot pay child support. Feminists fought against this, trying to lower the amount to $5000 before a man is guilty of a felony for not paying child support. If a man loses a decent-paying job, he will now be a felon, go to jail, lose his right to vote, AND be unable to find future jobs"if he cannot regain an equal-paying job within a few months. Men want equal economic support and help from the government. When the recession hit, male-dominated fields like construction lost millions of jobs, while female-fields like education and healthcare gained jobs. So the government proposed an economic stimulus for those fields. Feminists successfully fought against this, arguing that it was discrimination to support men, and caused the government to give money to women who didn"t deserve it. Hundreds of professional feminists complained against the "sexism" of helping men (who had lost jobs) and not women (who had gained jobs). A representative of the Michigan National Organization for Women testified in opposition to the Revocation of Paternity Act, which stopped the old law which stated that if a woman was married and cheated on her husband, the resulting child is considered to be legally the husband"s and the biological father had no legal rights to fight for custody or parenting time with his biological child. As you can see, the claim that feminism fight for men"s rights is a blatant lie. Don"t believe any feminists that say that. Feminists fight for women"s rights. That is a good thing. Feminists also are happy to harm men"s rights, as shown above. That is a bad thing. Feminism is about female privilege, not equality. Some may argue that these cases of feminists harming men is not "representative" of feminism. I ask you: Are there any cases of feminists helping men? No. Yet, there are many cases of feminists harming men. It is reasonable to conclude from these facts that feminism fights to harm men. 5. Quotes of Famous and powerful feminists. "Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex." ~Valerie Solanas, the SCUM Manifesto "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." ~National NOW Times "I feel that "man-hating" is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." ~Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor "To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he"s a machine, a walking dildo." ~Valerie Solanas "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." ~Andrea Dworkin "Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" ~Susan Brownmiller (even though women are less than 40% of rape victims...) "The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men." ~Sharon Stone "In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." ~Catherine MacKinnon "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." ~Sally Miller Gearhart "All men are rapists and that"s all they are" ~Marilyn French "Sex is the cross on which women are crucified " Sex can only be adequately defined as universal rape." ~Hodee Edwards "Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." ~Hillary Clinton (How does that make women the victims...? The men are the ones that died or got caught as war criminals!)

  • PRO

    But Farrell also wanted the women to see what it was like...

    Feminism is no longer about gender equality

    I would like to thank the Con for challenging me with that well-written response, this debate should be a good one. I also applaud my opponent for recognizing the fact that discrimination against men and boys does exist and that there are feminists who could be described accurately as misandrists. This is progress of a kind, because when I type the word misandry the spell-check reminds me that many people don't believe hatred or discrimination against men exists. The problem is that these radical feminists and there ideas are not on the fringe but are actually the feminist orthodoxy. Its clear that feminist organizations are inherently gynocentric, that the men in these organizations are a small minority and the male point of view completely non-existent. Warren Farrell (http://en.wikipedia.org...), the only man to be elected three times to the board of NOW (National Organization for Women) in New York, found himself quickly falling out of the favour of feminists as soon he began sharing the the male perspective and raising issues concerning men. "Farrell was leading anti-sexism workshops on college campuses across the country [...] [He] made men participate in "beauty pageants" to make them see what it was like for women to be judged on their looks alone. The feminists were good with that; they loved him; they sponsored him; they took him out to dinner and told him how wonderful he was. But Farrell also wanted the women to see what it was like to be a man. Men, according to Farrell, "take 152 risks of rejection from first eye contact with a woman until intercourse." He decided that women should have to participate in a role-reversal exercise in which they were forced to ask a man out. The feminists did not like that. According to Farrell, most of them, after watching the men go through the beauty contest, walked out when it came time to participate in the role-reversal "date." But Farrell's biggest argument with feminists came in the mid- to late '70s, when, one by one, NOW chapters across the country came out in support of giving mothers primary custody of children in cases of divorce." (Save the males: http://www.salon.com...) None of this made Warren any less of a an advocate for women's rights and freedoms, yet there was something unacceptable about this to feminists. Farrell eventually found himself excommunicated from the feminist community and blacklisted from media appearances. All because he tried to be fair and give men equal representation within the feminist movement. It is indisputable that feminism has a strong female bias and membership, and as a consequence, is incapable of being equal. Now with the other issues you raised, albeit off topic, its really a difference between equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. What's important is that women have equal rights, freedoms, and opportunities, but the outcomes don't have to be equal in every way and shouldn't be imposed.

  • PRO

    Gender roles are not variables in todays phenomenon of...

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

    I have condensed my opponent"s premises below: 1. Feminism=gender equality 2. More vacations are because of pregnancy 3. Fathers should be responsible for pregnancy too 4. Gender roles and stereotypes push women away from STEM 5. Bachelors are useless in STEM fields 6. Applicants for STEM are usually male 7. Companies don"t hire women because sexism 8. Women want CEO and board positions and we should give them more of these titles 9. Gender wage Gap is because of sexism 10. Stalin is not communist, Bin laden is not a Muslim, Homophobic church is not Christianity 11. WOMEN earn less than men=sexism Counter points 1. Gender equality means an equality of opportunity. These affirmative action policies only secure equality of outcome. Feminism demanding corporations to give women more money than men to close up a wage gap, has nothing to do with equality of opportunity, beating down men for special benefits for women in fact hurts men"s equality of opportunity. " 2. The statistic about working shorter hours and taking vacations does not include pregnancy in the equation. The study conducted vacations and pregnancy leave as two separate things. 3. Fathers are responsible, while females are pregnant and unable to work, the father continues to provide a stable income for the family. It is irresponsible to leave one"s job despite the fact that you are still able-bodied. 4. Countries like the former Soviet Union had no shortage of gender stereotypes and the government enacted several sexist policies. They however, had a larger role in STEM for women. When living in an oppressive and sexist society, women would actually participate in STEM more than in the current free world. Gender roles are not variables in todays phenomenon of women avoiding STEM fields. RAther, women simply tend to go to arts and humanities when given a free choice. Women don"t enter STEM just because, their psychology is different. Women"s brain circuitry is wired towards art and humanities therefore, women tend to gravitate away from STEM. Feminism forcing companies to hire more women has nothing to do with giving women choices but rather promoting an agenda. Most women when applying for STEM have a 2:1 advantage already, how much else is needed to take away more opportunities for young men entering STEM. 5. Women also earn more doctorates and masters than men. Your point about Bachelors being useless is irrelevant. 6. Most of STEM applicants are men but, women also have a 2:1 advantage and again women don"t choose to enter STEM because of their choice. 7. You have not proven that the supposed reason why companies don"t hire a lot of women is the result of some secret patriarchy. "" 8. Bill Gates, Amancio Ortega, Warren Buffet did not just get "hired" into CEO/board positions. They did not just start off as a CEO of a major company. They worked their way up this status from the bottom. You forget that these billionaires did not just protest against the government and just force their way into major and successful corporations. Yes, men make up the majority of billionaires BUT, majority of men are in low income jobs. Meanwhile, most women make up middle-income jobs so, if anyone has any income upward mobility advantage, it is not men but, women. Income mobility for EVERYONE is still quite high and if women truly want to get into high positions, they must start at the bottom like everyone. 9. Gender wage gap has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with women"s personal choices. 10.Stalin is a communist, Osama Bin-Laden is a Muslim, Homophobic churches are still Christians. While one can condemn their actions, that does not change their ideology. Just because they force/ impose their beliefs on others, doesn"t change the fact that they are still the same ideology. ISIS might be radical Muslims but that doesn"t change the fact that they are Muslims. If I was 5 years old and drink alcohol, does that mean that I am no longer 5 years old? If you decide to wear a dress, does that make you no longer a man? Some Nazis didn"t want to kill Jews, does that mean Hitler is not a Nazi? America"s president and government have been under the Democrats for 8 years, now it is under the Republicans. Does that mean America is no longer America? If you are racist, being openly/secretly "prejudiced does not change the fact that you are still a racist. Ideology is still ideology regardless of practice. 11. Income has no correlation with virtue. Being "poorer" does not mean that you are a better person and that doesn"t mean that the richer person must have rigged the system. The world is not perfect and does not completely follow rules of statistics and probability. Flipping a coin does not guarantee a 50% Head, 50% Tails rate despite, being proven by math to do so. Just because there are two genders with relatively equal portions of the population does not guarantee an equal amount of pay among the two. " Feminism is not just some simple values or an ideological concept. It is a movement which is led by people and even if, the leaders turn away from their initial values, that does not mean that the movement is no longer the same movement. Feminism is merely a movement that adopted values from Egalitarianism. They have strayed from these concepts of equal opportunity and have focused on misandry. Feminism has changed and now promotes misandry. The movement has moved on from its ideology and therefore, I find it fair to criticize all of it aspects. I am not a feminist because they have moved on from it values. I am an egalitarian so, I still support gender equality but to beat down on men is simply not the answer we need to improve society.

  • PRO

    2.Evidence for a bias in Nutrition and Health care The...

    Feminism is a poisonous belief system that needs to be done away with.

    Thank you for your rebuttal! I understand that I have taken entirely to long to answer this. So should time run out, I encourage you to place your final closing argument in the comments section. I sincerely apologize. I had no intention of "running out the clock" so to speak. Egalitarian as described by Merriam Webster: : aiming for equal wealth, status, etc., for all people. Feminism as described by Merriam Webster's dictionary: organized activity in support of women's rights and interests. To be sure, I am completely aware of the terms I am using and advocating. I also tend to believe you were using this point as a way to undermine my credibility. I would ask the voters to notice this. As far as your view of historical and global feminism goes, I seriously disagree. I would go so far as to say Feminism has succeeded in a vast majority of the world. Hence, my desire to se a change to the Egalitarian movement. And definitions and uses of words change over time to reflect their current meanings. A quick example if I may, Just because the Spartans were considered the greatest warriors of their time does not mean we should arm any current military with spears. The same holds true for feminism. In it's time it did great things for equality. We must now move on. 1.Nature of equality rebuttal I agree with this, if someone is handicapped than we should most certainly help them achieve everything a fully functional human being would if it were in our power. To do nothing would be a complete and heinous moral misstep. However, in this statement of yours you have, without knowing it uncovered the blatant doublethink of the modern Feminist movement. Are women weak or strong? You say that women have a "handicap" which needs to be overcome which I find a bit misogynistic in and of itself. Women are better at some things than men are and men are better than some things than women. This does not, however immediately show a lack of equality. Women's bodies go through a great deal in child birth, yes. However I fail to see what this has to do with a quest for equality. Women give birth, and currently they are the only ones in the US, who have any choice about reproducing. A woman can get an abortion, or a woman can take birth control. Men do not have that luxury. Women and only women can choose whether a man must be a father. and if he refuses to take care of his child he is thrown into debtors prison. (Something that was supposedly done away with hundreds of years ago.) until he can or is willing to pay child support. I'm sorry I do not see where women get the short end of the stick in this scenario. Any other point you were trying to make with this entry I am missing. I do not see how having the ability to make babies immediately translates out to a handicap. 2.Evidence for a bias in Nutrition and Health care The India Stat article was the only one I was able to open as the other page had 404'd I would like to take an excerpt from the conclusion of the paper that you pasted here as proof. *However, there appears to less discrimination against the girls in terms of nutritional status. In fact there appears to be greater malnutrition amongst the boys* As far as the mortality rates are concerned they bob back and forth between male and female based on ages. I see no discrimination here. What I see is hurting children that need food desperately. I encourage the voters to read the evidence posted in these findings. **When you are talking about male genital mutilation I seriously hope you don't mean circumcision. The removal of the foreskin does not impair a males sexual function in any way, and is a widely recommended procedure even by modern doctors** I most certainly AM talking about circumcision, how dare you belittle the suffering of any child. Female genital mutilation is very wrong and it is a terrible practice. Male genital mutilation is just as wrong and SIGNIFICANTLY more widely practiced. I am not here to get into a word war about which procedure does the most damage. What I am trying to show is that both sexes go through this terrible procedure. and it should stop for both sexes. As far as a circumcision being recommended. No it isn't. again you will need to provide information. I have never heard of any modern doctor anywhere recommending this act. **Bride Burning** At the risk of sounding callous. I understand this is a problem. I also understand that your government is working on it. At this point this is a race to stop heinous practices. Since it is illegal, and your society is taking a stand to stop it. I cannot speak more on this issue because I am not and have never been involved in your countries culture. This leaves me at a severe disadvantage. **Under-representation of women in Parliaments.** Lets take a look at one of these feminist Utopias shall we? "A Brief History of Swedish Sex: How the Nation that Gave Us Free Love Redefined Rape and Declared War on Julian Assange" It cost just "5 from Amazon. The book gives a chronological account of how Sweden was transformed from being a so called Utopian "liberal democracy" into a modern day totalitarian witchocracy. It is a destiny that Australia is frighteningly staring down the barrel of unless the political and legislative classes there can miraculously find the courage to stand up for common sense. Sweden is a showpiece example of how ridiculously scary Radical Feminist rule is and how Sweden is an international embarrassment. Hotel workers there are trained to spy on their guests in case they should indulge in any untoward sexual activity. To be male is to be regarded by some as equivalent to Taliban terrorism. A girl being teased on a school bus can try to claim rape because she thought the boys" willies stood up. Leading Swedish Radfem academics, Professor Christian Diesen and Eva Diesen from Stockholm University published a book calling, not for 200 men to be convicted of rape each year but 25,000. "The average Swedish man should ideally spend a year of his life in gaol [jail] due to poor sexual interaction with women." In the blind insanity amongst the political classes the drive for "one upmanship" has left Swedish citizens with no electoral choices as the different political parties seek to show off who can be more feminist by calling for ever stiffer penalties against men only. Sex is not illegal to sell, only to be perceived to buy. The dark tide of tyranny, directed at a single sex has created a misandric paradigm that can only be described as psychotic as the Nazis or Stalinists ever were. Sweden is a dream society for radfems where a man, accused of rape, has to prove his innocence. Anyone with an ounce of logic will know that to prove a non-event is extremely difficult. So why is Sweden like this? The answer is, of course that when the feminist movement gets into power. It is never the equal rights seeking peace lovers that make it there. it is the Radical Feminists. I show you this to show the importance of the Egalitarian movement. **Domestic Violence** I find it interesting that you are absolutely determined to make DV an issue only to women and show only men as the perpetrators. I have never said people are not violent. What I have said is that it is a two way street. Yes, Sharia'a law is backwards and ignorant. However it doesn't make this a male only problem. I'm also going to bring up something that you might not have ever considered. What if, just MAYBE men in these countries didn't report domestic violence against themselves because they would be considered weak for it. Having been to both Iraq and Afghanistan I can guarantee that most males who live in a society that practices Sharia'a law would never do this. When discussing cultures like this you have to look at both sides of the coin and bring up societal normalities such as the gender stereotype of the men having to be the "Big tough provider" **These cases serve to illustrate what a wide spread problem domestic Violence is in the world. Even if 70% of the initiators are women in the US, we must consider the fact that they are physically weaker also.** Really? Must we? Here in the south we have a phrase for a little guy who tries to pick a fight with a much bigger person. We call him an idiot. And I don't see any reason to to treat a woman any differently. (we're going for equality here right?) If a woman steps up and strikes a man on the jaw, I would say she should be ready for a counter strike. Whether she is weaker or not ceases to be an issue. She initiated contact and she will be the one to pay the consequences for her actions. Conclusion: If we want equality, we must be Egalitarians. A world where one gender is carried around on the shoulders of the other gender is not equal. It is privileged. I propose that instead of affirmative action which degrades a woman's ability to conduct herself as a completely independent and competent member of society we take up the rallying cry of equality for all. One final point. Feminism is anti-democratic. It wants to silence all opposition, and has no respect at all for the principles of free speech that are essential for liberty. Why is it so insecure? Why does it fear, that if people hear alternatives points of view, they won't subscribe to it's ideology, if it's ideology is so wonderful? (brettcaton) I suspect it's in the position of the Catholic Church, determinedly arresting anyone who pointed out that the Earth is not the centre of the universe. 1. http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au... I would like to thank my opponent for a very interesting debate and would like to thank all who have read and voted. Very Respectfully, -Whiteraven252

  • PRO

    But there are also many real feminists who really believe...

    Feminism

    Those people you are talking about are not real feminists, which I was saying in my first post. The real feminists are the people who believe in equality, not overpowering. I know that there are many people who call themselves feminists when they are really not, they have made real feminists seem like they are controlling, man haters. But there are also many real feminists who really believe in equality. Like Emma Watson, who has made numerous speeches for change in not just the U.S. but the whole world. People like her are real feminists who try to make a change.

CON

  • CON

    Extend.

    Feminism

    Extend.

  • CON

    Quite simply speaking, the modern feminist movement seems...

    Feminism

    Quite simply speaking, the modern feminist movement seems to be doing more evil then good. I am yet to here a groundbreaking argument that is irrefutable and I cannot find a logical point to contest. I argue that women are not only "un-oppressed" or systematically put down, but also that women (not to refer to all women collectively) are privileged in North American Society

  • CON

    Let alone necessary. ... Sources: 1]...

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

    Why feminism? A 2013 HuffingtonPost poll found that while most people agree that men and women should be social, political, and economic equals, only under a quarter actively identify as feminists [1]. Seems a bit contradictory, doesn't it? While this does show for a fact that feminism is not necessary to prevent us from descending into androsupremacism (not that it rescued us from such a prospect in the first place - the expendable male trope did not spring forth ex nihilo), it does raise the question of why so many actively reject the label. And, statistically, women don't seem to be facing any pressing concerns. Aside from the fact that women now routinely ouperform men in school, they seem to be legally privileged as well. For kust one example, in the case of the US, only men have to sign up for the Selective Service - which includes the draft - in order to vote. Additionally, family courts appear to be routinely biased in the favor of women. Feminist groups such as N.O.W. have fought against attempts to remedy the prospect [4] It certainly doesn't seem as if though feminism is beneficial. Let alone necessary. A single father struggling to barely get by would be inclined to disagree. Regardless, this leads us to ask: What has feminism done? To kick off a very brief recap of feminism's track record, it's reasonable to start with women gaining the right to vote. It is virtually indisputable that this was specifically and necessarily a feminist act. Certainly, it is not difficult to justify in the abstract. Women are human beings (who are neither children nor foreign nations), and it is in their interests to obtain democratic representation. However, he rise of women's suffrage does not seem to have brought forth any radical improvement towards our political system. In fact, trust in government has been declining since the middle of the 20th century [2]. So while gaining the right to vote seems like a good idea in the abstract, it's might to be more of a token gesture than anything. Is there any empirical evidence to suggest humanity has objectively benefited as a result of women's suffrage? This question becomes particularly important as the consequences of other feminist "accomplishments" begin to manifest. As political commentator Vox Day wrote in a column [3] critical of first-wave feminism: "Consider the two great laments of the modern American woman. For the unmarried woman, it is the reality that she must marry later in life than ever before, if she is able to marry at all. For the married woman, it is that unlike generations of women before her, she cannot afford to stay home with her children unless she is fortunate enough to have married to a man of the financial elite. Both of these developments can be traced directly to women’s rights. Men’s increasing unwillingness to marry stems primarily from two causes — the feminized family court system that transformed marriage from a mutually beneficial contract into a financial and emotional liability, and the removal of paternal responsibility for the sexual behavior of young women. Ergo, the need for marriage has been eliminated while its liabilities have increased. As Blue America and de-Christianizing Europe increasingly show, in the absence of religion there is now very little impetus for marriage. And few indeed are the women who understand that their present need to work is inextricably tied to the societal expectation that they will do so. When women began to enter the work force en masse in the latter half of the 20th century, the overall supply of labor increased, obviously. As per the iron law of supply and demand, over the last 60 years, this increase in supply has somewhat outstripped the growth in the economy and the attendant demand for labor, which is why real wages are still lower in 2005 than in 1973. Combined with the ever-increasing tax burden, this decline in real wages is why both husband and wife must now work when previously the husband’s labor alone would have sufficed." [3] Feminism can only be said to be "beneficial" to the modern world, if one considers throwing marriage, the family unit, the wages of millions, rights of men, and continued existence of modern, civilized society under the bus in order to maybe remedy some societal disparities. Sources: 1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2] http://www.people-press.org... 3] http://www.wnd.com... 4] https://archive.is...

  • CON

    I am not condemning social norms, because a member of...

    Feminism is irrelevant, unjust and flawed. It should be stopped.

    I have stated in my past arguments and am reasserting now that men and women must bear an equal portion of blame. I am not condemning social norms, because a member of either gender may follow them or not if they so wish, but rather speak against the stereotypes that one gender imposes on another. "Men are pigs!" or "Women are insane!" Again, both men and women are guilty of this. Furthermore, addressing the teams chosen at recess, not all young boys discriminate against the girls who want to play. Some are very polite and accepting, but it is the ones who are not who will grow to be biased if their opinions are not changed. Some girls tease and shun boys, as well. And those are the people who will be more likely to lean towards misandry, if they never grow out of it. I have to disagree with your opinion on how men are portrayed in the media. They are not typically "evil sex-craving addicts," as you say, but characterized as strong, intelligent, masculine, and independent. Heroes, or at least lovable underdogs, are a common role for males in movies, whereas the supporting female lead is normally only beautiful, one-dimensional, and waits to be saved by the male. (Watch a bunch of superhero movies; you'll see what I mean). There are exceptions to all stereotypes, however. Lastly, women and men are not equal. The fact is, a portion of both men and women continue to exalt their own gender and vilify the opposite sex. These misguided opinions are why Some are very polite and accepting, but it is the ones who are not who will grow to be biased if their opinions are not changed. Some girls tease and shun boys, as well. And those are the people who will be more likely to lean towards misandry, if they never grow out of it. I have to disagree with your opinion on how men are portrayed in the media. They are not typically "evil sex-craving addicts," as you say, but characterized as strong, intelligent, masculine, and independent. Heroes, or at least lovable underdogs, are a common role for males in movies, whereas the supporting female lead is normally only beautiful, one-dimensional, and waits to be saved by the male. (Watch a bunch of superhero movies; you'll see what I mean). There are exceptions to all stereotypes, however. Lastly, women and men are not equal. The fact is, a portion of both men and women continue to exalt their own gender and vilify the opposite sex. These misguided opinions are why feminism remains relevant and just. Although men and women are different, both physically and psychologically, their equality is achievable. It just has not happened yet, and both sides have some work to do.

  • CON

    It would be good if people did get sued for that but that...

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

    It would be good if people did get sued for that but that does not always happen. According to the Guardian, there is not a country in the world where women get paid the same as men. {I am assuming they mean on average}. There are several reasons for the pay gap and it can be hard to just prove a specific law has been breached. For example, when men and women first join a law firm and the company decides on pay the woman usually gets less. When a alot of women join an industry the pay for everyone goes down. That is not discrimination {in a legal sense}. It is their work being valued less. https://www.theguardian.com... There might be times when people believe that a particular group of people are privileged. And of course, as you point out that is not always true. There are plenty of men that do not do well in life. This does not mean that there are men that don't get an advantage because they are men. For example, men could vote before women could. There is still discrimination against women, etc. I would argue though that For example, when men and women first join a law firm and the company decides on pay the woman usually gets less. When a alot of women join an industry the pay for everyone goes down. That is not discrimination {in a legal sense}. It is their work being valued less. https://www.theguardian.com... There might be times when people believe that a particular group of people are privileged. And of course, as you point out that is not always true. There are plenty of men that do not do well in life. This does not mean that there are men that don't get an advantage because they are men. For example, men could vote before women could. There is still discrimination against women, etc. I would argue though that feminism holds different views on the status of men. Therefore, not every feminists believes that it is as simple as men being privileged. For example, "all people are both privileged and non-privileged in certain aspects of their life. Furthermore, since dynamics of social status are highly dependent on situation, a person can benefit from privilege in one situation while not benefiting from it in another.". https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com...

  • CON

    My mother was born in communist Czechoslovakia so I have...

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

    Sure equal opportunity is part of feminism. But so is equal treatment. If a woman performs the exact same amount of work as man it should follow that she gets the same pay. I cannot see any way you could logically justify the opposite. As to affirmative action, I find those just as un-feministic as the wage gap. 2 & 3. I was a bit unclear in this specific part of my argument. A woman is physically unable to work for maybe 2-3 months due to pregnancies and the immediate post-pregnancy, maybe a bit longer if the baby refuses breast milk from a bottle. After that she is perfectly capable of working again. And yes, during those 2-3 months it would be irresponsible for a husband/boyfriend/father to quit their job. It is what comes afterwards that bothers feminists. As a child is a result of two people the taking care of that child should be split equally. But sadly it is not. Just like the link you posted in the first round women spend twice as much time caring for children than men. And it is not only childcare, housewives are in general is so much more common than househusbands. It shouldn't be culturally acceptable for people of one gender to be the sole income earner just because they are of that gender. Also, I am not 100% certain of how thing work in the US, but I have heard that women only get like 2-3 weeks of maternity leave and therefore have to use their vacation time to be able to cope. Which I assume would then go into your statistics. 4. Communism has many faults, but gender equality is not one of them. When it comes to gender equality I'd say the Soviets kicked US's asss all through the cold war. When it comes to education and work gender didn't really matter for the Soviets because it was the citizens patriotic duty to do their part for the motherland. So when the commies rolled in three things they made sure everyone had was a job, healthcare and education. My mother was born in communist Czechoslovakia so I have a first hand source on this. Also, the link you posted agrees with me and it says nothing about the supposed sexist and oppressive nature of the Soviet Union that you claim. As to the women having brains wired in a different way, this is the most sexist thing I think I've heard all year and isn't true in anyway. Women choose arts and humanities because society says so. If you go all your life hearing that women aren't good at math and science and stuff you're obviously not gonna pick it when you eventually get the choice. And as I quite clearly stated, feminism isn't forcing companies to hire women, companies want women but can't get them because their is a serious lack of them on the labour market. Things that are rare usually becomes sought after. Want to fix the problem? Push your daughter to become an engineer. Make sure that in the future, applicants for jobs are 50/50 men and women. 5. That source you posted about women getting more doctorates is laughable. I will not take a source which literally says "Silly me, you can't be sexist against men" as credible when it comes to an argument about feminism. I can't give you any other proof of women getting less masters and doctorate than my own personal experience. I study at Sweden's largest university (Lund University if you want to google it) to become an engineer. I can tell you that on the engineering campus only about 30% of the students here are women. My friends who study physics and chemistry tell me it's just as bad for them. Medicine and biology do the best, with almost 50%. Please tell me how it is possible that women gain more masters and doctorates when they are quite clearly a minority? 6. I've covered this twice now and I don't want to repeat myself again. 7. Why would I want to prove that? It sounds like a load of cr*p. It has nothing to do with this discussion. 8. Yes, they all earned their wealth. And no one is saying anything about protesting or forcing their way into successful corporations. But if feminism is about equal opportunity as you yourself said in the first point, why then is the list made up of a majority of men. If men and women truly had equal opportunities then that list would be 50/50. If you disagree to that you must believe that one gender is superior to the other, which would make you sexist. As to the majority of men being low income workers, you did not give me any source about it and I couldn't find a reliable one that either confirms or denies that point. 9. How is it a woman's choice if her boss decides to give her 5% less hourly wages than her male counterpart? It's the boss' choice. 10. I don't want to waste characters to refute these because we are getting a bit off topic. But, my point was, which you apparently agree with judging by you last sentence, that "Ideology is ideology, regardless of practice" (very nicely put btw). Just because a person claims to be feminist does not make all their actions feminist. Neither does the feminist ideals of gender equality change because the word is being misused by "feminists". 11. You throw together a lot of metaphors and it eventually ends with a statistically incorrect statement. If half the population (men) and half the population (women) were equal, their wages would be to. That's how statistics work. Once again my opponent closes with pretty much the same finisher as last time. Just because you have met some crazy sexist women who claims to be feminist doesn't alter feminism. You are confusing individuals with a movement that has a very clear definition and an even clearer set of goals. And judging by some of the arguments you have made you are very clearly not an egalitarian (for example the women having brains wired differently argument). This however does not change the definition of egalitarianism, because you are only one person who missuses the word. But following by your logic, egalitarianism now should include some misogyni, because you as a follower of the movement have strayed from its core ideal

  • CON

    In the regions of the Middle East and North Africa, East...

    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...)