args

Today's types of Feminism isn't needed

Todays feminism isn't needed, They have no rights that they need to fight for, And are establishing a bad name for feminism, As if when some of them think that all men should die and that sort. Women have the same rights as men do, So change my mind.

Feminism is still necessary today

Because men and women are still not equal in some ways I believe that feminism is still needed today.

Feminism is no longer necessary

Feminism is no longer necessary Or to be precise on the full Resolution: The feminism movement is no longer necessary for the developed countries. Society Debate | Shared BOP | 4 Rounds | 72 Hours Reply | 9.000 Characters | 7 Point Voting Definitions Feminism {1} 1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests Limitations This debate is aimed to focus on part two of the given definition and questioning the theoretical legal equality of men and women is not the point here. Also, we won't talk about undeveloped and developing countries as the legal and cultural differences with developed countries would make this debate rather complex ad shift the focus. Sources {1} http://www.merriam-webster.com... Debate Structure In terms of fairness, we’ll start with a round of arguments only and end with a round of rebuttal only. Which means my opponent can choose to have the last word with a first round of acceptance or open the debate immediately and end with a forfeit. I don’t mind pictures as additional media, but please don't include (youtube) videos in your argumentation. They are just a pain, unreliable and sometimes have different copyright issues for different countries. Looking forward to having an enjoyable debate I say welcome and good luck.

Gaming and Feminism

i accept. by the way here are the actually dictionary definitions of those terms according to dictionary.com: Feminism: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Sexism: 1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles. 2 . discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.

feminism is marxism

Definition and focus: I would like to focus this debate to a subsect of feminists, those that Christina Hoff Sommers referred to as 'Gender feminists'. Considering the unpopularity of being called a feminist, many have tried to expand the definition of feminism to include nearly anything a woman does to her advantage. This is not to debate the libertarian strain of 'Equity Feminist', as I do not believe they are Marxist. Moving forward, I will use 'feminist' to mean 'gender feminist'. Argument: The purpose of the initial post was to instigate a response to a well known document in feminist circles. Ms. Hanisch clearly espouses collective action and tries in her paper to expand the 'class' by including women who felt they were removed from her Marxist based movement. She identifies two groups of feminist: The first are women who are in 'therapy'. The second are the Marxist who are trying to affect political change. This second group, she clearly admits it's roots in Marxism: "Recognizing the need to fight male supremacy as a movement instead of blaming the individual woman for her oppression was where the Pro-Woman Line came in. It challenged the old anti-woman line that used spiritual, psychological, metaphysical, and pseudo-historical explanations for women's oppression with a real, materialist analysis for why women do what we do. (By materialist, I mean in the Marxist materialist (based in reality) sense, not in the "desire for consumer goods" sense.) Taking the position that "women are messed over, not messed up" took the focus off individual struggle and put it on group or class struggle, exposing the necessity for an independent WLM to deal with male supremacy." But,you are correct, one person makes not a movement. Feminism (American brand), is based on class struggle. It assumes men and women are the same. All differences are attributed to oppression by the patriarchy. In this, feminism argues that we are not a product of our biology and environment but rather purely by the environment. By assuming that men and women are the same, they come to the conclusion that the differences that exist are due to personal (and as Ms. Hanisch describes, this means it is political) oppression by the patriarchy. Consider these areas of interest to feminists in the economic area: Universal healthcare Affirmitive action Paid daycare Equality of Outcomes, not the Equality of opportunity If one is a capitalist then one would allow the free market to determine prices, supply and demand. Feminist outright reject the free market and try through political action to establish socialism to benefit their class at the expense of the rest of society. One could point to this as classic rent seeking, and I would agree that it is rent seeking, but by Marxist who have replaced the Proletariate with Women.

Feminism is not equality

My opponent uses the definition to see what feminism targets, which is supposedly equality, actions speak louder than words, feminism is also not required since women have plenty of privileges which we don't have. "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests". It's equality, why not everyone with the same rights? Women have plenty of rights we don't have. 1) Women have the right to genital integrity Regardless of how you personally feel about the practice of circumcision (I personally find it barbaric, cruel and completely unjustifiable), the legal fact is that infant girls are protected against any genital cutting of any kind and infant boys are not. Many feminists will argue that female genital mutilation (FGM) is a magnitude of brutality beyond male genital mutilation and while that may be true, I do not find the "it's only a little bit brutal" argument to be very compelling. It's like saying cutting off a toe is okay because cutting off a foot is much worse. Ultimately, the argument is immaterial to the fact that women have the legal right to be protected from having their body parts sliced off. Men do not. 2) Women have the right to vote without agreeing to die In the US, citizens are free to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to democratically choose their own leaders through the process of casting a ballot in an election once they reach the age of 18. Women achieve this right by the simple act of surviving 18 years. Men may not actualize their basic rights as a citizen without first signing a Selective Service card, in which they agree that at the discretion of the democratically elected government, they will take up arms and die to defend their liberty and way of life. The draft. Men may vote if, and only if, they agree they will face death if required. Women have no such obligation, but they do get to vote for the governments that can potentially send men to meet death. Again, regardless of how you feel about the draft, women have the right to vote without agreeing to be drafted. Men don't. 3) Women have the right to choose parenthood I've written about this before, but it is worth repeating. Women have three options to absolve themselves of all legal, moral, financial and social responsibility for children they did not intend and do not want. Women may abort the child before it is born, they may surrender the child for adoption without notifying or identifying the father or they may surrender the infant under Safe Haven laws and walk away from all responsibility and obligation. Women cannot be forced or coerced into parenthood, but they are legally allowed to force men into financing their reproductive choices. In many states, men can be forced into financial responsibility for children whom they did not biologically father. As long as a particular man is identified as the father, he will be held accountable. Paternity fraud is legal. In no state is legal paternal surrender permitted without the express agreement of the mother. Again, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with legal paternal surrender, the fact remains that women have the legal right to choose parenthood. Men do not. 4) Women have the right to be assumed caregivers for children When parental relationships irretrievably break down, current custody laws assume one primary caregiver (almost always a woman) and one tertiary caregiver (almost always a man). In order to win equal or shared custody, the tertiary caregiver must litigate to prove they are worthy of equal parenting, a proposition that is not only very difficult to "prove", it is also very expensive. The legal presumption of shared parenting upon divorce "that children have a legal right to an equal relationship with both their mother and their father following relationship breakdown" is strongly resisted by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other feminist organizations who know that women will almost always win custody of children under the default laws. In actual fact, men who can afford to purse legal remedies and challenge primary custody stand a good chance of winning, because women do not have the market cornered on loving or caring for children. So while the law does not specifically indicate that custody will be awarded to women, the de facto result of primary/tertiary caregiver custody law is that women have a legal right to be assumed caregivers for children. Men do not. 5) Women have the right to call unwanted, coerced sex rape The original FBI definition of rape specifically identified women as the victims, excluding the possibility of male rape victims. When the FBI updated that, it did so in way that includes a small minority of male rape victims but excluded most male rape victims by retaining the "penetration" clause. Penetration of any orifice must occur for rape to have happened. The FBI does collect another set of statistics though, under the category of "other sexual assault", it's the awkwardly named "made to penetrate" category, which includes men who were coerced, tricked or bullied into penetrative sex with women they would otherwise not have had sex with. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey similarly considers the two types of assault separately, despite the fact that occurrences are virtually identical. 1.27M women report rape (p.18) and 1.26M men report "made to penetrate" (p.19). By collecting the information under separate categories, following the legal definitions, women have the right to have their rapes called "rape". Men do not. Why does any of this matter? Feminism is under attack in the popular media for failing to address real problems that have real consequences for real people. Despite insisting that feminism cares for everyone, and wants equality for everyone, the facts suggest the opposite is true. Women have more rights than men and those discrepancies need to be addressed. But more importantly, gender is just one thing that defines who a person is, what advantages and disadvantages they might have, what opportunities are in front of them, or foreclosed. Class, wealth, race, ability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, all of these things have a profound influence on individuals, and the only way to understand how a specific person can be helped or hindered is to see that person as a human being, first and foremost. Perhaps the reason I don"t need feminism is because what I really need is humanism. And maybe you do, too. Women can accuse men of rape without evidence Yes they can and it has happened a lot of times, when evidence is proved that they have not done the crime, the one who did the damage faces nothing and goes away freely. Is this fair? I don't think so. When men report rapes without evidence, they'd get laughed at or they'd get told something like "Bet you enjoyed it" or some rubbish. "Guilty until proven innocent" What's this supposed to be? Anyone who is accused must be guilty? Is this fair as well? Don't think so, actions speak louder than words, if feminism is truly equality, then it barely exists, it's just a definition not being used. Why aren't feminists complaining about the problems men face? My opponent only uses definition for evidence, but feminists seem to be using otherwise? Funny how feminists will run to the dictionary to argue that "feminism" is about equality but shy away from analyzing what a root word and a suffix add up to. And let's assume that feminism DOES mean "equality". Fine. Now it's up to every so called "feminist" to prove they measure up. The problem is, very very few of them do measure up. Christina Hoff Sommers comes to mind as one who does measure up. {1} http://thehill.com... {2} http://thoughtcatalog.com... {3} http://womenagainstfeminism.com...