args

Feminism is cancer

Who knows, if you win that's fine with me, but I am not feminist and I am not against it . But when you made your first statement, "that But when you made your first statement, "that feminism is cancer." You're trying to give me point that kind of makes no sense in my opinion, but I could give you a chance, so you can explain your opposition to Feminsim. So let's get to the basics, feminism is an advocacy for woman's rights and believes in the equality for both sexes. Now it's your turn to bash me all you want for the sake of this debate.

Modern Feminism is Necessary

Dietorangesoda and I have talked before about the necessity of feminism in the west, and have happily agreed to have a debate about it! So here we are now. For the sake of this debate, we have agreed that we will only refer to feminism in America and Canada. I'm more than happy to agree that feminism (or a form of women's/human rights movements) are needed in many parts of the world, especially developing countries. But for this debate, we are talking about the necessity of feminism in USA and Canada. I don't believe feminism is necessary anymore, as women are treated equally (arguably better than men in many cases), and there is no systematic sexism/discrimination against them. Obviously Dietorangesoda disagrees with this. Let me point out that the definition of feminism has little to no impact on this debate, as it's the actions and reasons behind those actions that represent a movement/community. So without further ado, let's get on with this. I'll allow Dietorangesoda to present her opening arguments, I'll argue against them in R2 and bring up my own arguments, and we'll continue this all the way to the end. Thanks, Dietorangesoda, for accepting this in advance and hopefully we'll have a great debate! :)

Feminism is not sexist.

I would like to thank my opponent for their rebuttals. Issue with the Definition? To begin, I shall address my issue with PRO's use of the definition of Feminism; I made no accusations, I simply pointed out a fact. As mentioned in my Rebuttals, I made the point that PRO has neglected the first clause of the definition. This clause is crucial to my arguments as to why Feminism is sexist. "Advocacy [or support thereof] of women's rights" (emphasis added). PRO does not take this into account. The reason why this is crucial to my arguments, and truly this whole debate, is that it leads to the support of laws that are made to support women's rights. Such things as protection under the law and voting are some rights that can be, and have been, advocated for. As such, they fall into the realm of "feminism", and if the grounds for feminism is equal rights, then it should not be the case that A) primary aggressor laws disporportionately affect men, and B) that women are not subject to compulsory public service, as men are, in order to gain the right to vote. My opponent effectively drops this argument, instead relying upon the second clause "on the grounds of the equality of the sexes". Why is this problematic? It takes away the fact that it is the advocacy of women's rights that Feminists advocate for, per the definition. It is not the fact that PRO uses the definition that is an issue, it is the fact that PRO fails to utilize the entire definition. PRO argues that advocating for policy X is not sexist, but neglects the grounds upon which those laws were put in place. I mentioned these in my arguments, and PRO does not address them. I agree that we are addressing the IDEA of feminism, however, rather than argue that the focus of Feminism on women's rights specifically is sexist, i chose to argue that the laws that are supported in order to give women equal rights in America is sexist. This would be similar to stating that "Christianity is homophobic." While there are some Christians who are not so, the dominant nature of Christianity, as a religion, as an IDEA, is against homosexual activity. The Christian Bible calls such things "abominations" [2]. If we are to take Christianity at face value, and look solely at what the religion, or belief if you prefer, puts out, through the documents that are in support of it, or supported by it. PRO's Analogy Pro's analogy seems very weak to me. To compare Atheism, an ideology based on disbelief or lack of belief, to Feminism, an ideology based on advocacy (or support thereof) of rights, does not create a strong analogy. This would be similar to comparing the Civil Rights Movement (henceforth CRM) to Atheism. The basis of the CRM was to give African-Americans various rights that they previously did not have, but that "whites" at the time did. Atheism, being an ideology based on lack of belief, or disbelief, does not compare in a strong way. What do atheists advocate for that is definitive of atheism? What advocacy do atheists support that is definitive of atheism? Perhaps the only thing that could be argued here, in relation to advocacy, would be a removal of religion from major institutions. This might be considered advocacy on behalf of rights, insofar as freedom of (and from) religion is concerned. However, this is not a crucial part of the atheist position. Some atheists may be opposed to this idea, and might prefer religion to be permitted everywhere, as this is freedom of religion. None of this is crucial to the position. Again, PRO is, whether on purpose or accidentally, neglecting the first clause of the definition, which specifically states that feminists, in any strain imaginable, at the very least support the advocacy of women's rights. PRO's analogy does not display a connection between feminism and atheism. PRO then provides us with a straw-man of my argument. Support of laws based upon advocacy of women's rights and violence based on atheism are not comparable, specifically because violence is not an intergral part of the atheist position. We could not argue that Christianity, as a religion, supports same-sex marriage because some Christians support it. That is not an intergral part of Christian Theology, however, we could argue that Christianity is homophobic, or at least discriminatory against homosexual persons. For this analogy to be strong, it would have to compare such things as Abolitionism and the CRM to Feminism, as such things have advocacy and action as key components of the ideology. PRO's Rebuttals PRO tries rebuts my arguments by attempting to argue that since Feminism does not support the VAWA, it cannot be sexist. If the VAWA specifically targets men as the perpatrators of domestic violence and makes women the victims, it becomes biased. As such, given that it is biased against men, and toward women, it is sexist. PRO states that they would have to do more research to determine this, however, I have provided sources for this assertion. PRO says that "[The VAWA] is absolutely irrelavent to the topic of this debate..." Feminism is indeed not the "support of the VAWA", however, feminism is the support of women's rights, and the VAWA is supposed to be a law, or policy, that intends to ensure that women's rights are protected, or rather, ensured. PRO also drops my points regarding sexual violence. In relation to the Draft and Selective service, again, my opponent brings up Atheism. "...is atheism sexist?" Once again, my opponent conflates belief and action. Atheism is an ideology based on though, Feminism is an ideology based on action or support thereof. I did not argue that feminism was sexist for allowing the law to come into place, as the law was already in place, what I am arguing is that the "right to vote" is unfairly granted to women, essentially free of charge, whereas a man can have this right revoked due to failure to sign up for Selective Service. The argument is not for prevention of the law, the argument is against misapplication of rights. If atheists were to advocate for special spaces, wherein they could discuss science and philosophy with free-of-charge food given to them by the government, but Christians were not given free-of-charge food by the government, this would be discrimination. Another example: If I am in a store and purchase a $1 product, then pay $1.10 for it, I would assume we had a 10% sales tax. If the person behind me buys the exact same product, but only pays $1.01, there is something going on. If I ask the cashier why the other individual only had to pay 1% in sales tax, and I am told that the 10% sales tax only applies to men, and the other person was a woman, that would be discrimination, as the sole reason this individual had to pay the 1% sales tax is that they are a woman, and I am a man. The same applies to the Draft, Selctive Service, and even sexual violence laws. PRO's remaining arguments are either qoute-mined, or carry no support, and shall not be addressed. I have no CX Question for my opponent. [1] http://www.scholastic.com...; [2] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

Feminism: Positive or Negative

I find the maxim "All people, regardless of gender, race, age, sexuality, should be held equal under law" to be worth ignoring. Under the law men and women are generally equal, so this maxim is irrelevant. I was trying to think of examples most feminists bring up as an argument towards this. One example is gender pay gap. The ever-changing wage gap has many fallisices (see this source: http://dft.ba...). The point here is that there is barely any wage inequality. But by focusing their outrage into a tidy, misleading statistic, feminists have become jaded. In the source, she brings up that after mixing in different variables, a women makes 91 cents to a man, even then there are other undiscussed variables like maternity leave among others. Plus I am not sure 9 cents is something to throw a hissy fit over. Now I will move on to "a feminist is not feminism". I am not mixing them, but rather doing the opposite. I clearly said I was talking about radical feminism. Because by going with regular feminists who just want equality for all sexes, it's hard to think who disagrees with that. The basis of In the source, she brings up that after mixing in different variables, a women makes 91 cents to a man, even then there are other undiscussed variables like maternity leave among others. Plus I am not sure 9 cents is something to throw a hissy fit over. Now I will move on to "a feminist is not feminism". I am not mixing them, but rather doing the opposite. I clearly said I was talking about radical feminism. Because by going with regular feminists who just want equality for all sexes, it's hard to think who disagrees with that. The basis of feminism is almost unarguable from my point of view, because I want equality for both sexes. That is why I am going by the radical feminist point of view, because that is something I strongly disagree with. Here is an excerpt from the wikipedia page of radical feminism: "A common criticism against feminism on the internet argues that radical feminism promotes a victim mentality amongst young women, inciting protests against events that have little to do with feminism. Susannah Breslin, a Forbes contributor wrote "Feminism claims to be about empowerment. In fact, over the years, it has increasingly devoted itself to promoting the image of women as victims. Victims of men. Victims of pop culture. Victims of sexism. Victims of discrimination. Victims of other women."

Feminism is Wrong

You are correct. I'm stating reasons as to why I believe in feminism. No, I am not a strong feminist. I just believe in the rights of man and woman. I mean, for example, you go to play a game such as Battle of The Sexes. Then, you notice how sexist to both genders it really is. That's the type of stuff I promote to fight for. "Now feminism is nothing but making women superior." In some cases, it is. But in most cases over 60 percent of people don't even want anything but to be equal to men. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . If you don't believe me there's an article. " There are many feminists who are outright man haters (Andrea Dworkin) ." Yes, but do you even know how many women/men are even feminists? less than 30 percent. https://www.washingtonpost.com... . However, women who want to be superior to men are NOT feminist, that is actually called Misandry, the hatred of men Look in to many reasons. Don't judge off the first thing you see. Feminism is the equality of the sexes. Thank you for this debate. Hope to see you in another debate.

Feminism is not an ideology of equality

"I fail to see the point of providing definitions for terms that are generally clear, because I assume that most people are educated, intelligent human beings who know what words mean. Until they prove me otherwise." I have provided a dictionary definition. I would assume that that is the first place to look for "what words mean". "You're right. Demanding equality can mean that one party is inferior to another, and the superior wants to be placed in the same category as the inferior. The problem there is that that is not feminism. That's called humanism, or more accurately, egalitarianism, which is generally included in the beliefs of most humanists, like myself." I agree, except for the "that is not feminism" part. Feminism is a part of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is equality for everyone, Feminism is equality for men & women. You can be feminist without being egalitarian, but you can't be egalitarian without being a feminist. "Why don't we stop inventing seperate [sic] categories for a universal problem and start addressing the issue as a cohesive unit?" The debate is not called "should we address different types of discrimination separately?" I would be glad to address all forms of discrimination in one unit, but that does not mean feminism is not a philosophy of equality. "Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal by focusing solely on the issues of one of them." I already gave you the definition of feminism, and from a dictionary. It has nothing to do with giving one side more attention. Show me a reputable source saying that this is the DEFINITION of feminism, and I might be willing to accept it.

Third Wave Feminism is unnecessary

I'd like to start by summarizing what I and many other feminists find to be the purposes of the waves: So, First wave feminism was about basic civil rights. Second wave feminism was generally focused on complete equal rights. Third wave feminism is about equal treatment of both sexes. It is undeniably true that men and women have equal rights. I will admit that much. However, It would be a complete and utter lie to say that men and women are treated equally, And equality of treatment is what third wave feminism is all about. I would like to add that equality of treatment means equality of opportunity, Not equality of outcome. A brief look at statistics (which I can procure if you wish) shows that men and women are far from equal. Men are more likely to commit suicide. Women are more likely to be murdered. Men are more likely to become homeless. Women are less likely to become politicians. Third wave feminism seeks to close these gaps, And that is why it is necessary. Women are abused, Segregated and oppressed in many third world countries. Female genital mutilation is legal in most of these countries. Women are stuck in arranged marriages, Little more than payment. Third wave feminism seeks to end that, And that is why it is necessary. Note: A lot of people have their view of feminism tainted by hardcore Social Justice Warriors, That many love to portray as the archetypal feminist. The latter is an immature practice as old as the feminist movement itself, The former are not feminists. They believe in the superiority of women, Which goes against 'men and women should be equal', The core belief of feminism.