args

Feminism should not have been created in the beginning.

The Pro asks what I am referring to when I say status quo. By status quo, I am referring to the status of women prior to the development of feminism when women could not vote or own property. The Pro then claims that "You don't need an unbalanced diversion to solve and unbalanced way of life" and cites the work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This seems to ignore the work of Dr. King as Dr. King clearly understood the civil rights struggle as the "Negro struggle for freedom," as he preferred to it in the 1963 letter from Birmingham jail. The Pro seems to believe that in order to achieve equality you must look at both sides equally, however, in order to do this there must be equality. The reason that the struggle for racial equality focuses so heavily on the African American community is because the African American community is at a disadvantage, while White people are at an advantage. The goal of feminism is the balance the equation when men are at an advantage. In order to balance the equation, therefore, you must add to the side of women and give them parity with men. The pro then concedes that feminism has brought about major positive changes but then asks if feminism was really the best solution. This is a concession of a key point in this debate. The pro is trying to prove that "Feminism should not have been created in the beginning." By conceding that feminism has made positive changes, the Pro has undermined her own argument. If feminism had not been created these changes simply would not have been seen because feminism is the reason these changes happened. Additionally, the Pro asks if feminism is just the solution that became popular, but this ignores the fact that feminism is the name given to the movement that pushed the solution. It was not one of the several options, it was the only option pushing for those changes. https://web.cn.edu...

Feminism Isn't Actually for Women's Rights.

Thank you for that! Also, oops. Terribly sorry. I suppose I misunderstood. I guess the last round also must have passed over my head...? Anyways, I will now take this time for rebuttals to your arguments - I guess this kind of messes with the structure of the debate, but we'll go with it. (1) Feminism is necessary because men are not victims as often as women. (1a) There are many fields and layers of society in America where both men and women equally suffer, or where one suffers more than the other. In legal institutions, men tend to be more victimized than women of injustices stemming from their anatomical sex. For instance, in custody dispute cases, men tend to be viewed as womanizers and as the aggressor; whereas women tend to be viewed as fragile, weak, and as dependent on the legal system. Therefore, in accordance with social norms as well as gender appropriation, women tend to be aided more by the system with biases because they are viewed as unable to protect themselves without some means of affirmative action. However, this is changing, and therefore demonstrates that men do not necessarily require any assistance in this particular field or an expansion of their "rights". An article by Villainous Company perfectly describes it with numerous studies across a few states in America; the results were chilling and bore a stark contrast with public perception on the issue. For instance, in their first study (Massachusetts), 2100 cases were analyzed where fathers wanted to dispute in court for custody of their children. 29 percent of fathers got primary custody, where only 7 percent of women got primary custody. That is a large gap. Women clearly need assistance in legal institutions, contrary to popular belief. Therefore, I ask that you dispel the notion that women do not need feminism. (1b) Several sources across the internet have reported that men are raped more often than women - when accounting for all prison assaults. However, accounting for street harassment and sexual violence faced by women, statistics have shown that women are raped 5.6 times more often that are men. During wartime, rape also disproportionately affects women, whereas men are considerably less victimized by rape. This is all explained by the Women Under Siege Project's article. The rape culture surrounding men also only tends to be sharp during times of war, but the average is sustained as 1 in every 71 men in the U.S, according to an article by Wikipedia. According to the same article, in 2013, 28 percent of heterosexual and 48 percent of bisexual women were raped - and that was between the ages of 11 and 17 alone. These figures are substantially higher. (2) Radical feminism does not represent the whole movement. (2a) It is undeniable that radical feminists - those who wish to institute a matriarchy into society - do exist. However, it is not true that these people represent the entire movement. The distinction to draw comes down to two categories of feminism; one is 'radical feminism' and the other is 'liberal feminism'. Radical feminism seeks to install a matriarchy - a society where women are dominant and men are subordinate. The reason for this demand is two things; 1) the general distaste for men because of objectification and 2) the current society where men are institutionally superior to women. While this theory is wrong, it has some sentiment shared with liberal feminism, which is expressed in a much less extremist fashion. Liberal feminism seeks to implement legal policy which diminishes biases and stigmas faced by men or women stemming from their anatomical sexes. The following quote from 'Radical vs. Liberal Feminism' perfectly reflects this general concept, "Liberal feminism is rooted in the belief that women as well as men are rights bearing, autonomous human beings". Once more, liberal feminism demands that all genders are treated equally within a given society, whereas radical feminism demands the institutionalized supremacy of women over men. (2b) It is true that feminism is losing its popularity, where only 20 percent of women openly support the movement. But there are many factors to take into account; for one, there is a severe radicalization occurring over the internet. People often perceive feminism's ambitions because of radicals on Tumblr and other social media outlets, and therefore conclude the movement is the same. This scrutinizes even just the name of the movement, and surely discourages people from joining it. But there is also the fact that feminism is an opposition to the status quo, and those who reap the benefits will often socially suppress opposition to their means. Those above - mainly within corporate America - will pay politicians to run campaign platforms that pertain to their interests - especially when their privileges are being questioned. This also pushes people away from the movement; propaganda and the fact that the movements are gagged by media and other important ways people communicate. (2c) Feminism is not just advocating for gender equality within the United States, but generally within the world. Just because there are feminists in America does not mean they only serve the interests of American women. Conditions faced by women within the Middle East only goes to show that there is a global need for feminism and its corresponding legislative implementations. Forced genital mutilation upon women across various countries, particularly within Africa, are the kinds of things that empower feminism. There is still a global struggle for women. Just as for instance, LGBT Rights Movements would also be vocal about the conditions LGBT community members face in other nations where they are under harsher conditions (i.e Middle East, Africa). You made the following talking points that I would like to individually refute. 1. Women have the right to genital integrity in America? Of course they do. Unlike with men, it is not necessarily feasible to demand that your daughter be circumcised, considering nothing of interest or particular significance would linger there to be cut. With men, that's a different case entirely. But this is also omitting the underlying concept behind circumcision; when a man has no foreskin, it reduces discomfort, enables them to clean themselves easier, and decreases risk of infection (i.e smegma). 2. Selective Service does not quite mean men are absolutely required to join the military if the government sees fit. The draft, a system wherein people are sent to war by force, no longer exists because it is not seen as constitutional. Forcing people to fight and die for America's [fraudulent] causes does not particularly seem reasonable nor within the basic human rights of our citizens. Therefore, there really is no right to complain about Selective Service, although I personally would say that neither men nor women should have to register in it. Sources Cited: (1a) http://www.villainouscompany.com... (1b) https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.womenundersiegeproject.org... (2a) https://apakistaninotebook.wordpress.com...

This house believes radical feminism is just

Thanks to my opponent for raising this interesting subject. My role in this debate will be to demonstrate the absurdity and inherent injustice contained within Feminism (including Radical Feminism). Radical Feminism is not defined by my opponent. I will use the Wiki definition with some small changes: "Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical reordering of society in which an assumed male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts. Radical feminists seek to abolish what they see as a patriarchy, by challenging existing social norms and institutions, rather than through a purely political process". Feminism is a strand within the Social Justice Movement (SJM). Whilst so called first wave Feminism correctly fought for equal representative rights, the next waves were given a Radical boost in the 60's after the rise of Post Modernism, which sought to challenge the values of the Enlightenment. Its founders were Marxists who (after the well documented failures of Marxism and Socialism) knew the game was up for the failures of the Left. However, as with most religious convictions, they needed to hold onto their shattered worldview and did this by cleverly altering the dynamic. Out went the Proletariat/Bourgeoisie narrative, in came the Opressed/Oppressors narrative. We can still se the remnants of this today as most people in the SJM (including Feminism) are Leftists (probably without even knowing why). The new narrative created by the Post Modernists is now seen in these terms: Black/White, LGBT/Straight, Disabled/Able bodied, Muslim/non-Muslim and of course Women/Men (at a deeper level it is almost an infinite fractal pattern of Opressed/Oppressors built from these narratives). I will outline 3 fundamental objections to Feminism: 1) Foundationally, 2) Methodologically, 3) Rhetorically 1) Foundationally To challenge the norm certain tactics have been adopted by the followers of this quasi-religions. Firstly institutions or commonly held beliefs are deconstructed and contextualised (in the case of Feminism) as male created, self-serving, Phalo-centric and Patriarchal. The argument is therefore put forward that because of this they are institutionally sexist, therefore invalid and should be torn down and rebuilt. Here is the first obvious philosophical problem with Feminism. Jacques Derrida the founder and proponent of Deconstructionism was himself a man (even worse perhaps for SJM a white man), meaning we can deconstruct, deconstructionism rendering it invalid. It is as invalid Foundationally as a Logical Positivism. Removing this from the armory of Feminism, renders it adrift on the Philosophical seas floating free of foundations, morally or otherwise. Biologically it fails to accept the differences between men and women caused by in-utero testosterone. In general men and women have complimentary but different outlooks, capabilities and skills. Whilst there are masculine, females and feminine, males that hybridize these skills and capabilities to some extent, most of the population formally fit into a Care/People/Subjects orientation common in Females, or a Drive/System/Objects common in Males. Denial of this well understood biological difference is a faith based position found only in religions. Anthropologically Feminism fails to recognize humans as social, primate mammals which exist in a dominance hierarchy. These hierarchies are subtle, complex, sophisticated and effective. But tend to lead to domination by males. Feminism must deny these basic facts about primate mammalian societies, to maintain its arguments. 2) Methodologically The underlying weakness of Feminism is its reliance on outcomes analysis. Outcomes are put forward as a factual basis for discrimination be it the so called wage gap, representation of women in certain fields of research, lack of women in 'place favourite cause here' power group. However, not only is the data put forward bogus (fixed to try and prove the assertion of the Feminist), it fails a basic test. As all social scientists know 'correlation is not causation'. Even if a wage gap can be proved (and it cant on a like for like basis), a correlation does not prove the asserted causation, nor does it eliminate the possibility of a third variable. For example rates French suicide rates can be correlated with US steel production. So what? Are there general conclusions one can draw from this, clearly not. However this is exactly the approach of Feminism. It is to draw invalid conclusions, from invalid data to their pre determined Derridian assertions. But that tactic does nothing to validate those assertions. Worse still analysis of the underlying data if anything show the disadvantaged group to be males (more on this in subsequent rounds) actually rendering Feminist claims absurd when measured against reality. Studies have shown that Females applying for Engineering and Science are favored over Males at a ratio of 2:1. This is merely the action of Administration departments trying to meet arbitrary targets. But has real impacts on talented Male individuals who are denied University access in favor of less talented females. A clear example of affirmative action and an individual injustice, to try and rectify a non existent problem. Because whilst one might conclude that the under representation (25:75%) of women in graduate engineering is evidence of institutional sexism. This is just false. Overall the population of females at higher education exceeds males, and particularly in professions where Care/People/Subject interests are maximized over Drive/Systems/Objects (clearly Engineering is the latter). In other words left to their own devices Males and a Females choose the paths they feel suit them better, but this is not sexism. We can even even find country patterns. Norway is amongst the most egalatrian places on earth. Most background variables affecting the sexes have been eliminated. But in Norway the differences between Male and Feale professions are even more sharply divided. They are free to follow their own paths, but those paths are the ones dictated by biology and not by a Feminists view of what they should be doing. 3) Rhetorically The Feminist rhetoric is normally abhorrent to those who treasure the Enlightenment. Hopefully my opponent can on this occasion be the exception to the rule. Normally anyone not representing the Feminist lines are slurred as Sexist and possibly other pejoratives. Amongst the present third-wave feminist movement, it is the norm to shame men for negative traits assigned by feminists to the entire male population. A reprehensible tactic, which if reversed would be rightly condemned by Females. The aim appears to be to shut down debate, and throw so much 'mud' at the opponent that something inevitably sticks. There is something decidedly sociopathic in this approach. But even on a deeper level Feminism fails rhetorically. Justice as a concept is transacted between individuals. I can be just to a fellow human, they can be just to me. But how can a whole population be just to another population? Most of the individuals within and between the populations do not know each other and are unaware of each other's existence. It is impersonal, and as such an impersonal process has no concept of justice or being just. Just like the price mechanism responds to demand and supply. It is impersonal and the price is the price, and cannot be judged as just or not. I do not blame my opponent particularly here, because no-one in the SJM has defined what Social Justice really is. It appears to be a set of hollow claims, without foundation in philosophy, empirical data or even in language. The people who are its mouthpiece want to claim victim status, whilst peddling leftist ideas. Until my opponent can demonstrate otherwise this is where we stand, and I conclude Feminism is absurd and deals in injustice not justice

Modern feminism is cancer.

I accept this debate in the name of The Brotherhood. I contend that Modern Feminism is NOT cancerous to society.

Feminism: Equality of the Sexes

Thanks for the prompt response (I understand the whole "no life" predicament). "People who identify as feminists but, for the purposes of this argument, are in fact NOT feminists include..." While I would love it if there was some sort of sub-movement for people who agree with the traits you listed, the fact of the matter is you can't simply eliminate members of a movement because they don't follow the perceived proper agenda. The members of the Westboro Baptist Church, while renounced heavily by most other Baptists, are still technically Baptists. Similarly, even though misandrist "feminists" don't follow the proper tenets of feminism, they are still technically feminists. "[A]nswer the debate's original question: 'Is feminism a positive movement for women globally, or a negative movement that 'belittles' and 'threatens' men?'" Sorry, I (evidently wrongly) assumed that your question was whether or not feminism was about equality of the sexes. belittle [1] verb 1. to regard or portray as less impressive or important than appearances indicate; depreciate; disparage. threaten [2] verb 1. to utter a threat against; menace. 2. to be a menace or source of danger to. The definition of feminism, like I said, separates society into two categories: men and women, with women as the disadvantaged group. And as I demonstrated, the reality of things is much more complicated, with race being the more prominent problem than gender. Does this belittle the struggles of men, particularly MOC and those in poverty? Yes, it does portray their problems as less important than those of their female counterparts, seeing as feminism is a movement geared toward getting women's rights equal to men's, and not vice versa in situations in which that might be necessary. Proving that feminism is "threatening" to men is more difficult, as it is generally a subjective opinion what a person finds threatening. The Taliban found Malala Yousafzai and her quest for girls' education to be threatening and attempted to assassinate her, but most people, particularly those in the West, think of equal education not as a threatening matter but one that is a no-brainer. So I, as a girl, could never prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that feminism was threatening to men. However, there is a law in the UK that could possibly show that feminism is a threat. It is summarized very well in the opening paragraph of The Telegraph [3] article on it: "Men accused of date rape will need to convince police that a woman consented to sex as part of a major change in the way sex offences are investigated." This law a) doesn't provide any legal protection for men who might have been wrongly accused, b) perpetuates the stereotype of a male rapist and a female victim, and c) completely throws the right to be innocent until proven guilty out the window. There is also a lot of confusion as to how one is supposed to prove consent, especially if it is spoken consent. While rape is an abhorrent crime, this new law is literally taking away people's rights. "We are using the definition I first provided- not the definition you are trying to impose into this debate." You said that, "feminism is the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes." I said that feminism is "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." While there are slight semantic differences between the two, they are similar enough that it wouldn't provide much issue. I was simply trying to provide a definition with a source. I'll continue with your definition, though. "Later in your argument, you provide resources that indicate that the women in this country (United States) make less than their male counterparts. Therefore, from a monetary standpoint, men are superior to women." The wage gap calculation doesn't take into account different professions. The statistics I provided were made with averaged salaries for individuals of a certain gender or race across the US. Women are statistically more likely to choose lower-paying majors during college, and even those who choose more lucrative majors still go into lower-paying professions [4]. Generally in middle- to upper-class families, men are the primary breadwinner, perhaps leaving women with less of a desire to pursue a high-paying profession and instead go into one she enjoys. It could explain why whites and Asians have a higher gender gap than African-Americans and Latinos. "[I]t seems you are grouping a Noah's Ark of white men and white women, Asian American men and Asian American women, African American men and African American women, and Latino men and Latina women- they seem, in your argument, to be on completely different levels of possible equal income...which is not what feminism advocates for at all." I was equalizing it the way I did to make a point that racial discrepancies in the wage gap are more significant than gender discrepancies. Of course true equalization would never work to separate the races so much. "'NOW is a multi-issue, multi-strategy organization that takes a holistic approach to women's rights. Our priorities are winning economic equality and securing it with an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will guarantee equal rights for women; championing abortion rights, reproductive freedom and other women's health issues; opposing racism; fighting bigotry against the LGBTQIA community; and ending violence against women.'" While I understand that NOW is an organization advocating women's rights, the polarized focus on women is exactly what I was talking about when I explained how feminism is belittling male problems. Though 77% of murder victims are male [5], and victims of assault are more likely to be male than female [6], NOW advocates ending violence against women and says nothing of men. "I do not mean to offend anyone who does not consider themselves male or female." Me neither, but for the purpose of this argument, debating cis men and women is easiest. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [4] http://www.npr.org... [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [6] http://www.bjs.gov...

Feminism Is Needed in America Today

I accept the challenge. I wish you the best of luck and hope for a proper debate. Since Pro has went ahead and stated their case, I will now state mine, and state a rebuttal. My case will follow a format as such: 1- The change in definition 2- Gender Wage Gap 3- Why feminism today is immoral My rebuttal will follow. Feminism has changed since the mid 1960"s, the original term for feminism meant for equality between the genders. A little over 50 years ago, the world of the American woman was limited in almost every respect. From the home to the workplace. Women were legally subject to their husbands law and authority(1) and they were technically "property" of their husbands. Their wage, and property were controlled by their husbands. In the workforce, women were paid less than the men. In the 60"s, women strived to be the same to men, to be paid equally, be able to vote, open a bank account, and serve in combat(2). The definition back then was to be equal. The feminists of today believe that women are better than men, most hate men in general just because of the past. They also believe that women are the victim which they should be thinking about empowering them. Which they already are empowered because of the past feminism. Feminists discriminate men with stereotypes, and terms with the prefix "man" such as mansplaining(3). Unlike the past, they have a strong opinion on the men"s personal behavior. From the way they talk, the way they approach relationships, even the way they sit. Feminists do not even fight for equal rights anymore, which they already have equal rights, they fight to be better than the men. As for the gender wage gap, this is a myth for two reasons. One reason is because of normal women choices. Most women don"t work full-time like men do. Also, women don"t work the same jobs that men do, the top five jobs for a woman in America today are as follows; Secretary, nurse, teacher, cashier, and nursing home aid(4). The top five jobs that men work are as follows; Logging workers, Automotive repairs, Cement masons, diesel engine specialists, and electrical powerline installers(5). The jobs that men work normally pay more than the normal jobs of a woman. Of course, men and women can work opposite jobs, this is just the statistics. Reason number two is genetics. Men are generally born with larger upper body strength so men can work jobs that require strength such as a construction worker, as they need to lift heavy things. Feminism of today is immoral because they discriminate men instead of empowering the women to make the genders equal(3). Feminism is the 60"s empowered the women in politics, and social life. And they got it done as you can easily find evidence to prove this(2). They couldn"t do things in the 60"s as they can do today in America. Feminists should be pushing to further make the genders equal while still considering the gender differences such as genetics. Rebuttal "Feminism is necessary in America today because women are still far more disadvantaged than men" Since Pro did not produce any evidence, I must only assume that this is an opinion. I would like to see some proof to back up this claim to why it"s true. You try being a woman in these countries, I dare you: (7). "91% of rape victims are female, and 1 out of every 6 women has been a victim of attempted or completed rape." I still do not see any evidence. I will produce evidence for this. 82% of all juvenile victims are female, and 90% of adult victims are female(6). Why Pro is focusing on why females are rape victims instead of males is beyond me and immoral. The real focus should be stopping rape in general. "many people think that it calls for better rights for women over men, when it simply calls for gender equality." I agree with Pro on this statement. The Merriam-Webster dictionary says this(8). But I don"t think modern feminists are even following this, as I said earlier, they discriminate men(3). "Feminism is necessary because it can be empowering for women, and it needs to exist so that men will be called upon to face the consequences of their sexism." Women are already empowered, there are many empowered women in today"s society. In Pro"s second claim, he/she explains that men need to face the consequences of their sexism. This is stereotyping and since Pro does not have proof to back this up, i assume this is an opinion. Not all men think women are lower than them. Almost all men (such as me) do not think men are lower than them and deserve an equal profile in society and politics. (1)-https://tavaana.org... (2)-https://www.littlethings.com... (3)-https://www.washingtonpost.com... (4)-https://www.aol.com... (5)-http://www.thedigeratilife.com... (6)- https://www.rainn.org... (7)- https://www.theneweconomy.com... (8)- https://www.merriam-webster.com...