args

Feminism is cancer of contemporary society

Well, I don"t really agree with this, feminism has never been about advocating the rights of one gender over another. Just because there is a "fem" in the term feminist doesn"t make it so, you can call it anything you want, it"s still means equality. Feminism to me is a movement that seeks to empower women to take control of their lives. The goal is for both men and women in society to understand that anachronistic restriction on the male and female roles have no standing in modern society and to work towards a more equal society.

Feminism Does Not Equate to Equality

I accept the challenge and will be arguing that feminism is relevant.

Feminism is no longer beneficial in America

CONTENTION ONE: NO SOURCES It's fine, I'm just an impolite human anus who doesn't care about rules. CONTENTION TWO: INEQUALITY SUBPOINT A: Pro has not addressed any of the 4 studies I cited in Round 1; judges must now accept them as true. SUBPOINT B: The CONSAD study: A: CONSAD accepts that a wage gap exists: "There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent." Thus, even adjusting for Pro's variables, women still earn 4.8-7.1% less then men for comparable jobs. Using Pro's sources, Con has fulfilled their burden; as long as there is *any* non-inherent inequality that women face, feminism still has purpose in America. Vote Con. B: Let's look at how CONSAD "explains" 70% of the wage gap. First: "A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work." Pro has the burden to demonstrate that this difference is wholly inherent in being male/female, and not a product of how women are raised and treated in society. If this is a product of society, then feminism has a role in reforming society to treat and raise men and women equally. Also, look to [5] -- even in part-time jobs, women earn 58% of men. Second: "A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of children in the home." Again, Pro must prove this is inherent, not societal. Third: "Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” workplace policies more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly, the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation." Again, Pro must prove this is inherent, not societal. Further, look to [5], which proves that mothers with child earn 79% of fathers with child, showing unequal burdens in the home and in work [6]. And that's all the variables included: "[I]ncluding some additional variables ... is not feasible ... with available data bases." Thus, the CONSAD study provides Pro basically no reasons to win. Furthermore, the CONSAD study states: "Blau and DeVaro found that, all other things being equal, the promotion rates of men exceed the promotion rates of women by 2.2 to 3.1 percentage points. However, there was no discernible difference in the rate of growth of salaries between the genders." This supports my point that women are unfairly treated in promotion. In response, Pro states: "[W]omen are less likely to seek higher paying jobs, apply for promotions, work as many hours, and even request raises. .... As for the "promotion bias", just because men are more likely to be promoted, does not mean that there is a bias among employers; it is more likely that the men in question were simply more ambitious or prepared for the next rank up." Let me quote myself: "Females that more aggressively pursue better pay or career advancement are discriminated against [6]." Women *cannot* pursue promotion, or they get *less* promotion. Subservience is key! Furthermore, women who see female leaders are more likely to succeed [10], which helps correct promotion bias. Feminism provides this since it promotes women as leaders. Pro: "Many modern day feminists like to attribute this to the so called "patriarchy"; however, no such thing exists. Women are more likely to victimize themselves than men, which leads to the internal feeling of oppression." Yep, not gonna respond to this. It doesn't matter what women feel, because I don't care and I have never used women's feelings to show that women are discriminated against. Unless Pro can link feelings of oppression to something useful, it's null. CONTENTION TWO SUBPOINT A: LYNCH Pro describes feminism in the media as a "cyber-lynch mob" that "harasses" people, without citing evidence. On the other hand, I'll support the idea of a "cyber-lynch mob" called "Gamergate" that opposes feminism. To enforce this viewpoint, Gamergaters have harassed hundreds of persons, doxxed (revealed personal information, such as address and bank records of) dozens of men and women and driven more out of journalism and gaming. And in terms of being an actual lynch mob, Gamergate comes far closer. One of Gamergate's favorite tactics is SWATting -- calling the police and telling them that there's a hostage at the address of one of Gamergate's targets. Police are obligated to send in a SWAT team, which often ends in injury or potentially death. Thus, Gamergate *actually* tries to hurt people [8]. Feminism in the media just verbally harasses people for not being feminist, kind of like how capitalists disagree with communists. SUBPOINT B: CHECKLIST 1: Yep, that's fine. 2: Pro states: [Feminism] is spreading lies so efficiently, that even the POTUS has quoted the false wage gap statistic. Right. Feminism deceived the POTUS. It's not like he just didn't check his sources or anything -- no, it's an evil feminist conspiracy to spread LIES. Pro states: Critiquing feminism will lead to harassment and possibly violence - as soon as feminism garners an outspoken opponent, they are berated and shunned.[6][4] Both of Pro's "sources" come from YouTuber The Amazing Atheist. I'm just gonna drop a link here [9]; The Amazing Atheist has shown overt and insensitive misogyny and joked about rape in the past, making his claims of getting *unjustly* shunned pretty forking weak. 3: Pro states that it's impossible to criticize feminism in the media and this destroys freedom of speech. Right. There's a political party called the Republican Party, which opposes equal pay acts, seeks to reduce access to reproduction-related objects, and generally is anti-feminist. But yet, somehow, unless a Republican drops a "rape is God's will" line, they never get publicly castigated. It's almost like Pro's talking through his hat. 4: Pro has COMPLETELY DROPPED POINT FOUR: "Sample text". This is a crucial loss for Pro. My argument of "Sample text" COMPLETELY TURNS HIS CASE. "Sample text" is proof that not only is feminism necessary in the United States, but the entire galaxy. A loss of this magnitude sinks the ship of Pro's case. Wait, can you hear that? What's that sound? *blub blub blub* IT'S PRO, DROWNING IN DEFEAT! 5: Juggernauts can be criticized, from a safe distance. Like what if you had a dragon, but the dragon was stuck in a pit, and you told it yo mama jokes. WHAT THEN?! 6: Let me just quote Pro on this: "Feminism is not a unified group at all". A juggernaut, by definition, cannot be divided in on itself and not unified. Thus, feminism cannot be a media juggernaut. That's like saying that whites in America are a media juggernaut. Yeah, they have almost all the media power, but they aren't a monolithic, singular entity. 7: Maybe I'm blind and can't see 8: Pro proves that physical feminists might get slightly violent when a forking "Meninist" protest goes down. However, Pro has to prove that feminists in the media are actually causing this violence. SUMMARY Pro has no reasons to affirm, having failed to show that women are equal to or greater than men in current society. Con has multiple reasons. Vote Con. SIDE NOTE Why'd DDO filter all my forking profanities?! REFERENCES [8] http://rationalwiki.org... [9] http://rationalwiki.org... [10] http://digest.bps.org.uk...

Feminism should not have been created in the beginning.

The pro argues that feminism should not have been created in the first place, however since Feminism was first established in the 1830s, the movement has brought about many positive changes, many of which we may take for granted today. Prior to the inception of Feminism, women had very little rights, personal, social, political or economic. Women were not allowed to vote, own property, inherit money or divorce their husbands. Feminism first arose to address these and many other issues and with great success. Had it not been for feminism the status quo for women would have been maintained. As Fredrick Douglas said "Power concedes nothing without a demand", and in the case of women's rights feminism was the demand. The issue with the pro's argument is that she argues that Feminism focuses on the issues of women and this does not lead to balance and gender equality, however this means that there must be equality, to begin with, however as I pointed out, prior to the dawn of feminism, women were in no way equal to men and were in every way subservient to men. The Pro thinks that sexism will always exist because there are two sexes, however, the issue with this is that feminism is not about resolving individual prejudices, but about power structures which create inequality. http://people.howstuffworks.com...

The world needs more feminism

Arguments: 1. Well, Australia was used by you, and I simply pointed out that there is not a domestic abuse problem there. Then pro, most likely understanding his point was done, went on to accuse me of being immoral... Simply because I said women are essentially equal in Australia. Did my opponent not say something as ridiculous as "the women is not considered equal in Australia". What planet do you live on? 13 people dead of domestic abuse is not a wonderful figure because even 1 is bad, but 13 is not exactly civil war. Australia is actually one of the most accepting countries. And quick note, women are not a minority. They make up slightly over 50% of the population in Australia. To sum up this point, I would like to draw attention to pro freaking out, asking how I could look someone in the face and tell them that women don't matter. This is laughable.. All I acknowledged was that 13 people dying is a low figure, and he is acting as if I hate women. On the contrary, I respect women to a high extent, and people dying is unacceptable. But let's please try to be civil here. And if you're going to be that picky about 13 people, then why are you not outraged that about 40% of severe domestic abuse victims in the US are males? Hypocrisy at its highest. 2. What are you talking about here? "I see nothing wrong with marriage at all unlike my opponent"..... Making up arguments out of thin air is not a genuine way to debate. I would appreciate if you read my defense of marriage in the last argument. I never said people have to stay married. If you would have read my argument, you would have noticed that I said feminism is encouraging young people to discard traditional relationships, causing the divorce rate to grow higher. This is because people still feel compelled to marry (which they should), but they marry someone they shouldn't, and feel that if they ever have a problem, they can bail. This is no way to live. 3. I sigh. Forced labor and slavery? In the mid 19th century America, sure. But let's actually critically think here, and bring ourselves to the mid 20th century. I understand the racism of the times, but you have to think about the situation. Black people did not dominate gangs, did not have the highest murder rate in the US, and were making peaceful strides towards more liberty. But what holds the most weight today are the movements of Malcolm x and black panther. While Martin Luther King is more widely celebrated, blacks and whites don't exactly intermingle as peacefully as he foresaw. I know you live in Australia, but in the US many blacks have a strong feeling of dislike towards white symbols of authority, mainly the police. African-American marriages and families are in ruins, and violence is at an all time high. This is attributed commonly to the breakdown of the family unit, causing chaos in the development process. You seem to be blowing off this societal distructure, when it is causing many of the problems we have today. Hopefully that summed up my example on marriage in a correct way. 4. Pro misinterprets my argument. I am not arguing for more feminism in the west, I'm arguing against it. Women's rights and feminism have been staples of western society for a long time, and this is a cause of that. Now if TRUE support for women were to come about, it would be accepted. It would not be anti man, make political statements, or use bullying tactics to demean those who do not agree. It would simply be for women's rights. And now that they have equality under the law, there is no point in having this hate machine around. Now, REALISTICALLY, feminism is not even close to that model. It's a pro liberal, Marxist organization that preaches hate against conservatives and those not agreeing with them. And along with that, it encourages females to be independent of men, and I would say most feminists would view traditional marriage as a way that the male has dominated the female, which is ridiculous. You say "Because the way I see this this is an equality issue". This dependance on feminism that you have to solve all equality problems in the world is blocking your view of how to fix the issue. "Feminism" is a similar word to "Nationalism", which many times today holds a negative connotation. It is not being just pro-country, or pro-woman. It means that you only have the interests of your country in mind. This holds the same for feminism.. they are not about fixing equality, they are about elevating the woman to the same level or above the man by employing the federal government to do their deed. Let me ask my opponent something. Are all basketball players equal? Legally they have the same opportunity. And technically, it should be possible for anyone to be a professional. But the NBA is 81% players of color [2], while the general population is 64% white. And just as many white kids play basketball young as other races. Does this mean whites are being discriminated against? Of course not, but by this feminist logic, shouldn't it be 50/50? Conclusion: Here pro takes massive assumptions and leaps of faith. First of all, let's be honest here. Pro did not "prove" feminism is the best way to lift countries out of poverty and raise the quality of life. That is utterly ridiculous and no legitimate economist can vogue for that. If you honestly believe women's empowerment is holding own third world countries, you may be too naive. The reason those countries stay down are due to the regressive ways they run their countries, where the rules intentionally hold their citizens back to keep their own power. And as an example from the west, we can easily see that feminism, if it even does anything, has made our economy weaker. Since the late 60s, when feminism took root, we haven't exactly experienced a great deal of economic success. Other than the 80s (which was the weakest point for feminism) and the technology boom of the 90s, our economy has been mediocre at best. Hopefully this is a testament to how "great" feminism made our economy, considering it even had an effect. I believe I have answered the question of whether or not we need feminism. To answer it more thoroughly, is encouraging women to be more independent and be critical thinkers good? Yes. Is giving women the same opportunity as men good? Yes. But is creating a female/"nationalist" organization that encourages women to act the same as men, and to not "submit". This places false ideas of how the world works into ignorant people's minds. The result of feminism in the west is social disorder and chaos, a breakdown of the family, and economic struggles. To finish off this debate, I will redefine definitions of equality, so we can re evaluate my opponents last statement. In math, equality is "having the same quantity, value, or measure of another" [1]. This obviously means exactly the same. This could pass for the communist definition of how the world should be. But if you believe in democracy and liberty, and the freedom of people, then it is oppressive to make everyone exactly the same. That creates a dull and grey society, where no one can flourish to their supposed potential. Now, the way we use the world equality in our terms, is more about "having equal opportunity". This is far different, because, even though my opponent will be hesitant to admit it, we DO have equal opportunity. I have to ask him, is he looking to create a socialist society, where all people are treated as equal machines, and not individuals, or a free society that allows personality to take over. Legally, we cannot be treated differently, so there is no argument. And like I said before, you cannot force someone to change their mind, so if someone does not want to vote for a woman, you can not make him vote for a woman, or else you cross the line between liberty and oppression. [1]- http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]-http://www.tidesport.org...