args

feminism is not needed in the west

How, feminism wants extra rights for women, and why are you giving these statics I'm not saying there's male privilege, or these things don't happen so why are you giving me these statics

Feminism! Hooray!

Well... well I'm busy being... Prime Minister.... of Canada. So I'm busy with being more important. LOL Rape Culture The "specific issue" feminists claim to be campaigning for/about is equality. And one cannot achieve equality by focusing on one bad thing that happens to one sex. If feminists want to fight for equality, they wouldn't refer to themselves as feminsists, a word (obviously) routed from female. I haven't witnessed any radical egalitarians, have you? Egalitarians seem to be rational, sane, non-biased, decent human beings, both men and women, who acknowledge hardships of both men and women, and address negativity's that deal with gender/sex as a whole, instead of the gender/sex that it effects slightly more. If black people and white people both suffered from, some kind of disease, let's just say H1N5, but 80% of carriers were white, would you (or most people, really) consider it racist to only treat the white people? You're damn right they would. So why is it when a feminist does the exact same thing but in relation to gender/sex, it's "equality!!1!"?? No matter how you want to word it or look at it, treating only one gender/sex simply because they're affected more than the other is sexism - something feminists are "fighting against." This would not happen with an egalitarian. HOW FANTASTIC, YEAH FEMINISM! The rate of rape cases is on the decline [1], so if our culture is geared to "objectify women" - and in turn lead to more rapes... it's not doing a great job at it. "Objectification" is a different subject than rape culture - as rape culture is the idea that a group of people support rape for doing things that feminists don't like, such as ask simple questions pertaining to a crime. The people that do support rape are... well, rapists. And we have a police force to deal with them. I'm sure if rapists aren't afraid of life behind bars and getting the crap kicked out of them in prison, a group of angry women yelling at irrelevant men who are also against rape isn't going to do much of anything at all... oh and a side note - demonizing men who practically agree with the feminists - that rape is bad - for whatever reason - is detrimental to society and shows how useless, backwards and unproductive feminism really is. I've been called a rapist for trying to justify the sale of the game Rapelay. I don't support rape because a fictional game exists that I believe shouldn't be banned simply because it deals with extreme violence - I believe actual "wannabe rapists" can have a sort of release if they play a simulation of a rape, and it could very well deter them from actually raping someone. I know I feel better after I kill a few hundred men (men) in Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto... Which Brings me to my next point - the banning of Grand Theft Auto in Australia because women are killed. That's right, if you hadn't heard, GTA5 was banned in Australia because feminists seem to think it promotes violence against women [2]. Now as you and most rational human beings know, this is simply not true. Not only are you required to kill men to advance the story in GTA, but if you kill any innocent person - not just women, another instance of feminists asking for special privileges - the cops come after you, kind of hinting that killing innocent people is bad in general. But hey, feminists found a way to ruin the fun for millions of people, take away freedom of expression and speech, and cause a major company to lose millions of dollars - because they would like special privileges. Although rapists don't always go after the girl who's dressed the "least," when someone wants to have sex, sex appeal is kind of a factor, no matter how you look at it. Ensuring your own safety is never a bad thing no matter what your gender or ethnicity or whatever, and to say it's adding to "rape culture" or "promoting rape" or "enabling rapists" is just ridiculous. The men (and women) who say people in general should "dress to be safe" if they are out at night are basically the exact opposite group of people that feminists should be addressing, if anyone at all... And feminists not being able to make up their mind on if it's empowering or endangering the girl's well-being is detrimental in the sense that there's way too much stigma on how to dress to look good for yourself/men while avoiding dangerous situations while pleasing feminists while having a good time... let it go, be safe. Saying "be safe" is not enabling rapists. Here's a list of ways to avoid sexual assault [3] from a very reliable source. I'd say these are meaningful measures women can take without blindly thinking "don't tell me not to get raped, teach men not to rape" and carry on their way down a dark secluded alley in a miniskirt at 3am drunk and flirting with every random guy that walks by. When an entire group of people (feminists) say no to "safety first," I tend to consider that group of people detrimental to society, and at the very least, not a good group - as feminists are endangering the lives of their own kind by making them believe they should be able to do what they want without suffering consequences (and believe me, I'd love that as much as them, but unfortunately that isn't reality). Anita Unfortunately having tens of thousands of feminists support her (not only by liking and sharing her videos, but by donating money by the truckload) does actually have an impact on the feminist groups, and does show that a large proportion of feminists are just not well-rounded good people, even according to you, saying how Anita is "a damaging spokesperson for feminism," you acknowledge that she isn't that great of a person. Unfortunately with a backing of around two hundred thousand people, that means 200,000 people are damaging spokespeople for feminism... and unfortunately again, you can't just say "eh, brush those fifth of a million people to the side, as I disagree with their viewpoint, so it's not reflective of modern day feminism" - it actually is very reflective of modern day feminism, as that's quite a large chunk of society, let alone the feminist society of North America. Here's an example of a girl irrationally getting upset (at something people do to men and women online) and right off the bat pulling out personal insults [4] and calling the guy "retarded" and having "special needs" before he even says anything rude or sexist or anything. In fact, just go here [5] and watch some of the videos if you want. And keep in mind, a popular argument is "well guys shouldn't be mean to girls in the first place!" - unfortunately saying "don't be mean to this group of people" is asking for special treatment. And when the guys aren't "mean" (they're just trolling, something they do to everyone) and the girl flips out or the girl just starts off by talking trash or whatever, it shows that girls are also just as rude as guys online. Female Nudes Once again, let me show you [6] that male nudes also leak - the difference is that the media practically begs for them. If you just type in "leaked male nudes" into Google, the second hit has an article that says, referring to "the fappening" - "Unfortunately, NOT ONE of the affected celebrities was male." So in other words, "look at the bad things that happened to these women, LET'S MAKE SURE IT'S EVEN AND EXPLOIT MEN." You're right that it does affect women more, however women are talked about more than men. More people in general (including women) are interested in female nudes than male nudes. This is just natural human tendencies, something feminism cannot "fix." And it definitely cannot "fix" it by addressing only one portion of the entire affected group much like with the domestic violence. And no, leaked male nudes are not "incidental to the main target of the hack," especially when the main targets are male. Steubenville "General media attitude is undeniably gendered." The general media attitude is geared toward whatever will get the most attention. When it's in human nature to be attracted to something more than something else, and feminism tries to... well, deny natural human instinct/emotion, that's kind of just not right. Feminists fight for women's rights, not equality. Egalitarians fight for equality. Whenever a man is killed, it's "man gunned down on 1st and Main." When a woman is killed, the entire news broadcast is dedicated to the coverage of the entire event and story. Women are favoured almost everywhere, so what is it that feminists want again? Oh yeah, special privilege. By pointing out that the media addresses females more than males in certain areas. Pay Gap Obama said he wants women to get paid the same as men. Unfortunately he also misinterpreted the entire "pay gap" thing. Your quote refers to "lover pay for women," which is wrong - earning less is not the same as getting paid less. Women have the same opportunities as men. Everyone is bullied in the workforce, if the majority of people who take offense to that are women... then they should fight their way to the top like men instead of call it "sexism" or "discrimination" when it's not. I'd like it if you did take a look at the female privilege list I provided in the last round, just to give you a sense of how easy women have it in North America. And that a couple "bad" things happening to people in general (and sometimes mostly women, like domestic violence or leaked nudes) does not mean feminism is necessary. Thanks for a good debate, Cartige! [1] http://www.fbi.gov... [2] http://www.liveleak.com... [3] https://www.rainn.org... [4] [5] https://www.youtube.com... [6] http://www.thegailygrind.com...

Feminism killed Chivalry

Pro has not proven that chilvary could live, let alone die. Pro has not shown that in the event that chivalry died that feminism would be responsible... Ergo the resolution is negated.

Are women annoying hypocrites when it comes to feminism

Hello Pro, I am your Contender and today I would like to argue and oppose your topic. To start off, I believe women are not annoying hypocrites when it comes to feminism because one, feminism is definition means:" the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men" Now this is the true definition of a feminism and according to the definition, Pro's first point does not correspond well with the actual definition, so may I ask pro to provide an examples of how or why women are annoying hypocrites when it comes to feminism.

Feminism is still a force for good in western civilization

Observations: To truly answer this question we first need to define a "force for good" which I will define as achieving something that is a societial problem and "good" as beneficial for the society. Keep in mind force for good requires an actual method to achieve the goals. C1: Feminists leaders and vocal feminists are biased to the point where sexism is perceived to be everywhere. I will provide a video, keep in mind this doesn't represent all feminists, but as of now the leaders and representatives of feminism have turned it into a force of destruction and anti-discussion There are more videos of attempting to talk to these Feminists which result in name calling and ad hominem attacks frequently. My opponent may attempt to argue this saying this isn't "real Feminism," however, I would ask my opponent to take a stroll through Tumblr or any other Feminism site and you will soon see the double standards they set up. While Feminism might supposed to mean something else, at this moment in time it has a negative connotation due to the fact it's leaders are promoting anti-discussion and major biases. Therefore, Feminism cannot be a force for good when such biases exist. Feminists claim that feminism is about equality. That is not really the case. Feminism, as long as gender is concerned, is about granting more privilege to women. A noble cause, since women are known to be oppressed throughout history. But does it end there? In areas where women are underprivileged, supporting and giving them more power will indeed lead to equality and is something that is greatly needed but also majorly achieved in most countries of western culture. However, in areas where women are not underprivileged or even equally privileged, doing so causes just another imbalance which immediately leads to discrimination, this time against males. The kind of one sided and absolute view of oppression is distinct in feminism and not only in gender: The opinion that if a specific group is in average more privileged than another, that means that members of the same group CANNOT be oppressed or treated unfairly by the latter is quite popular with feminists, especially in the academic space. They demonise masculinity and have come up with the term "hegemonic masulinity" to reinforce this idea. Since feminism has never ACTED in support of underprivileged straight, white males against overprivileged females in cases where male discrimination is a really serious and prevalent, this alone tells me that feminism is really, really far from egalitarian. These three reasons (lost of focus, bias and scientific neglect) is why feminism isn't only irrelevant but also harmful to the western culture. C2: A Feminist point of view, with the connotation it currently has, cannot ever solve the problems it claims exist. There is absolutely no denying that genders are not equal, and there are problems that need to be solved, however, Feminism in it's current state cannot possibly solve for this. Looking at gender problems through the biased view point of Feminism can only cause more problems, instead, we need to look at both genders problems and help both male and female. You can't find a single article about men's rights in Feminist literature because, by definition, they are only concerned with the female gender. This creates problems, because instead of attempting to help both genders, they only want to grant themselves more "privileges" B) Feminism not only ignores but downright denies the impact of BIOLOGICAL effect on gender and race even if there are many studies to prove them wrong. Instead, they interpret the various social phenomena based on their own experiences and ideologies. The fact that such a scientifically inaccurate movement has thrived in the academic space makes wonder: Why has the patriarchy allowed this? Does the patriarchy really exist? So if feminism does not rely on science to reinforce its positions, then what does it rely on? Victimisation. Feminism is no longer just about gender equality (if it ever was). It has expanded to race,class, age, religion etc with the same feeling of self righteousness and bitterness it had when it started. However, if this kind of suspicion was once a strength of feminism, now it is its weakness. The need of feminism to constantly find enemies has led it to deplecity and ideological narrowness. It is no longer about truth but advancing an ideological agenda which is not powered by cold hard evidence but theorems and opinions as well as clearly biased interpretations of reality.

Feminism is ruining video games

While my opponent has listed several changes in which Feminism might have influenced video games, he has yet to A.) Affectively persuade me that they’ve ruined video games (singular or plural), B.) Prove that feminism is the direct root of the change he mentioned, and C.) Provide sufficient evidence that suggests these games are worse because of their depiction of women. I, on the other hand, will suggest an instance where Feminism might have positively influenced games. The example that first comes to mind is the Dragon Age series, which depicts feminine characters in a much more positive light than games before it. 1.) The characterization of Cassandra is both somewhat masculinized, but does not suffer because of this. The depiction of Women in Power, especially in that of Inquisition, could be seen as a direct change because of Feminism. To argue that this is a negative aspect of the game would be somewhat ludicrous, being that it bears no influence with how the story is told. However, my second argument is not based on feminism’s influence on games; it’s actually based on its lack of influence. It is my contention that society’s changing viewpoints of sexualization and objectification caused a greater need to have female characters whom are portrayed as far more than sexual objects and damsels in distress. If one were to look at films, television series, and games throughout the past few decades, female characters have undergone a very specific evolution in attempts to battle the Male Gaze. Because of this, it is only natural that a video game will mirror the rest of society’s thoughts. Lastly, my final rebuttal deals with a specific point made by my opponent. In regards to a sexualized character in Metal Gear Solid 5, my opponent stated, “There was a big controversy over Metal Gear Solid 5 because one of the females had a typical athletic but sexualized body. So what is a developer suppose to do, make a woman fat? Well they did with Fat Princess and that got heat for depicting woman as fat, even though there are plenty of comedic fat male characters.” My opponent erroneously thought the complaints were directed at the woman’s body, whereas they were actually directed at the woman’s clothing. Here is an image of the woman: This is clearly sexualization, if not objectification. My opponant assumes feminists had a problem with her body, but it is my conjecture that they were more disappointed with the clothing depcition of this woman. If the woman had been more naturally dressed, the issue would be far less severe. That's it for now. I look forward to my opponents arguments!