Feminism is based upon female entitlement to male achievements.
I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Prior to the presentation
of my argument, Con has asserted that any individual who regards themselves as feminist
must hold the belief of my proposition. As such, this is a fallacy of division and
is irrelevant to this discourse. As Pro, I assume the burden of proof in the resolution
and Con will attempt to refute my arguments as such that feminism is not based on
female self-entitlement to male achievements. The defining proposition of this debate
is predicated around feminism's most basic logical fallacy: If all people deserve
equal political, economic, and social rights, people exist together successfully.
Females exist together successfully. Therefore, females deserve equal political, economic,
and social rights. Categorically, there is a flaw in this ideological self-entitlement.
Notice that roughly half of the human species is not represented by feminism. Therefore,
feminists lay claim to equal treatment without having to reciprocate. This has been
accomplished in a myriad of ways, which will be defined throughout this discourse.
Argument 1: Human Biology defines Human Needs Citing the non-aggression principle,
one may arrive at this conclusion about the difference between human needs and human
wants: 1. If satisfying a human need is physiologically necessary to physical and
psychological health, then lack of provision and protection to humans results in physical
and psychological deprivation. 2. Wanting or preferential behavior is negatively correlated
with physical and psychological deprivation. 3. Therefore, provision and protection
are universally human needs which take priority over wanting or preferential behavior.
Argument #2: Complimentary Opposites If male and female exist as anatomically complimentary
to one another as per biology, then each of the sexes is of a specific physiological
disposition in nature, and thus, human biology has assigned them basic jobs to be
performed in the cycle of life and death. Males, given the task of provision and protection,
serve as agents of death (e.g. hunting/killing game, warriors, etc.). Females, given
the task of birth and nurturing, serve as agents of life (e.g. live birth, care-takers,
etc.). Therefore, in the interest of humankind to survive, a union must be struck between
agents of death and agents of life. This union has been historically called the family, and it describes a specific,
role-based architecture incorporated out of necessity rather than cosmetic appeal.
However, it is important to denote the distinctions in agency between the sexes before
addressing the family structure. Male biology, by default, is a competitive altruistic
agency[1] which entails personal sacrifice for the common good out of necessity. As
the agent of death, the male biology expresses itself via a significantly higher proportion
of testosterone when compared to females, as the average daily production of it is
20 times higher. Features are increased bone and muscle mass as well as facial hair
while the key behavioral feature is increased risk-taking. The brains of males are
also physically larger – myelinated fiber (white brain matter) length is approximately
176,000 km, whereas female reaches 149,000 km. Testosterone production directly increases
attention, memory, and spatial capacity.[2] Given this context, males are genetically
predisposed to perform risky tasks which require strength, agility, and dexterity
in the physical dimension; in the mental, males possess higher capacities of focus,
information recall, and third-dimensional imagery. By combining powerful physiology
with tactical psychology, one arrives at the conclusion that males do the hunting,
hard work, and remain stoic. Therefore, as the competitively altruistic male biology
dictates, the abilities males are born into are valuable, however, the male is without
intrinsic value and must demonstrate it by his utility in furthering the human race.
Self-interested behavior in men bares heavy consequences in society. Conversely, female
biology, by default, is a self-interested agency, in that females must survive for
humanity to thrive out of necessity. As the agent of life, the distinction to be made
is that each individual female is intrinsically valuable by nature of her biology.
The uterus and ovaries along with a thicker corpus callosum connecting the hemispheres
of the female brain are her vital differences from her male counterpart. A more empathetic
disposition, an emphasis on acting with the consensus, and the nurturing behaviors
of breast-feeding and child-rearing all demonstrate a more proportionate ratio of
testosterone to estrogen in the female physiology. Thus, where the female is praised
for expressing her sense of self and self-interest, the male is berated to remain
stoic and to hone his abilities as a societal and evolutionary reminder that he exists
solely for the purpose of female survival. From this complimentary balance, two truths
are born: there must be a leader and a follower to every human relationship, and that
if one is to be a leader, one must be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect
his follower(s): one's own life. Argument #3: Biological Theft As it is in the best
interest of humanity that females survive at all costs, the ones who must bear that
cost are the males. In return for his life, the female reciprocates with her service.
I have now defined the architecture of the family: a father as leader and a mother
as follower. History builds a vivid picture of what male achievements constitute:
Formal logic, which this debate hinges upon, was conceived by a group of competitively
altruistic males as it became a necessity in the growing Greek populace to discern
truth from falsehood, to provide an empirical and standard method of forming critical
thought, and to create the foundation upon which the modern legal format stands. History
does not remember these males on the simple predicate that they were men: it remembers
them because they conquered new ground and achieved for all humankind. Skyscrapers
reaching 100+ stories appear on several continents. Infrastructures such as road,
rail, canal, and air-travel have been tested and refined for thousands of years -
resulting in the losses of untold numbers of males in their testing phases and constructions.
Electricity. Pasteurization. Computers. Automobiles. Radio. Glass. Vaccination. Republics.
Combustion. Television. Internet. Physics. Economics. Geography. Science. And most
importantly, males gave birth to the concept of freedom. And that cost was high. This
and every creation, mental or physical, is founded upon this innate male agency to
provide provision or protection to society, and through that end, foster a male achievement.
1. If male sacrifice provisions and protects modern society and a comfortable standard
of living for humans, then modern life is comfortable. 2. Feminists deserve all the
rights of males, including male careers, male decisions, and male sexuality. 3. Therefore,
male sacrifice is unnecessary. I pose this thought in the rhetorical: remove all male
sacrifice in today's modern society. What's left? In the event that the female should
choose to disrupt biology and perform all the duties of a male and all the duties
of a female, she has committed to what is defined above as self-entitlement. Male
self-entitlement to other males' achievements produces jealousy, larceny, grand theft,
corruption, dictatorship, and warfare predicated on invasion. Female self-entitlement
to males' achievements produces feminism. Thus, female self-entitlement is based upon male achievements. [1] http://www.epjournal.net... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
