args

The world needs more feminism

I thank my opponent for his argument and for using good sources. Sorry, I'm rather late as well. Here is my opening statement While the Oxford dictionary may define feminism as such, I will also consider what feminism actually is in the United States, and the impact it has had on the western world. Also, I would like to point out quickly that if someone considers everyone equal, they must also be considered meninists (or whatever you may consider this to be)as well as feminists, and so on. The premise of my argument is that feminism is an unnecessary and contorted association, that does no good for women or men alike. I would like to first define being "equal" as having equal opportunity, because in this country that is what matters. If you say "equal" as we refer to it in math, that is leaning towards a communist government where each person is treated as another robot, and the individual does not exist. This point here should not be too debatable, that when we say we are equal, we mean we have equal opportunity. Now, because the topic is about the world in general, I will also address the western world. And my first contention is that, well, we have equal opportunity here. We technically have the same opportunities and benefits, and the law prohibits discrimination against someone due to sex, so legally they are covered. Women are equal under the law. BUT, beyond this, I belive western feminists have gone too far, and are now promoting a more socialist agenda of radicalism rather than equal rights. If we begin to define equality as simply "equal", we come out with the idea that humans are exactly the same, and should be treated as such. This is where regimes stifle individualizations and living your life how you want to see it lived is simply a dream. So, here, I just want to show that women are legally equal, but if you venture into personal equality, you start to go down a path of socialism. Because you cannot, no matter how hard you try, force someone to change his or her mind. People are seperate and individual, and we have our own thoughts because we were meant to, and shutting that down is a violation of our rights as human beings, at least here. Sorry I didn't quote definitions here, by the way. I figured these simple ideas didn't need an official definition, because of he different ways we use it. Although the far majority of the population believes in sexual equality, and legally females are equal (in the western world), feminism still has a chokehold on how we think, and I would like to point out a major effect of this movement- the degration of the value of a woman: think about a relationship in the 50s- a guy would usually need to court a girl and win her trust before anything happens, and parties were more of a social interaction than mass orgies[1]. Today, girls are treated as absolute objects, only serving a temporary purpose before the guy moves on to his next choice. Divorce rates are at about 50% [2], showing that women and men alike are not being taught how to preserve a sustainable relationship. In conclusion, I would now like to say that developing countries would have more of a problem than a solution with feminism. Great societies have been built on traditional relationships and standards, and to be honest, I don't believe I need to cite a source here, the west has only experienced decline and relative turmoil since the liberal/feminist push began. In developing societies, what is necessary is the traditional roles of men and women, no matter how much it sounds bad. It is psychologically and sexually [3] beneficial to a couple to sustain normal gender roles. I don't believe a lack of feminism has anything to do with keeping developing nations down, being more about influence of the west in these nations and not allowing them to develop on their own power. Feminism is, beyond equal laws, a Marxist organization that shows itself to support equal rights, when instead it really represents the idea that everyone is the same, and people are no different from one another. [1]-http://www.plosin.com... [2]-http://www.apa.org... [3]http://www.mercatornet.com...

Feminism fights to harm men.

Rebuttal to Opening Argument: To begin, I would just like to note that Pro's opening statement is practically a concession. By stating that the resolution is 'Feminism fights to harm men', then saying that you are only arguing against radicalism within the ideology, instead of the ideology itself, it a concession. Also, by only limiting their arguments to the western world, it is again a concession. The resolution is 'Feminism fights to harm men', not 'Radical misandry fights to harm men in the West'. However, I will still continue with my arguments. I. My opponent says that today's society is feminist, when it clearly isn't. The definition of feminism, as provided in my opening argument, is the abolition of patriarchy in favor of gender equality. Even if we were living within a female privileged society, it wouldn't be feminist. Since there is simply a new hierarchy that would've been established (matriarchy) instead of gender equality. II. My opponent bases his first point on an unsourceable event. Saying that you have been the 'victim' of feminists, then speaking about such event isn't a legitimate source. It is completely biased by your view of the event. Even then, these people you speak of aren't exactly the most prominent theorists within feminism. III. My opponent stereotypes that all feminists 'assume that men are predators'. This is a complete association fallacy, just because some feminists have a certain radical quality (misandry) doesn't mean that all feminists have a radical quality (misandry). IV. My opponent did not provide a source to back up point 3. V. There is evidence that shows that the number of women incarcerated has actually increased. The number of incarcerate women has increased fivefold from 2001, partially due to lack of treatment for women who violate laws. Whereas men have more accessability to such treatment.[1][2] VI. Solanas was both mentally insane, and highly criticized by fellow feminists. Solanas suffered physical and sexual abuse from both her father and grandfather[3][4], and would later in life be diagnosed with schizophrenia and be sent to a psychiatric hospital. Betty Friedan, who is noted as writing the famous book, The Feminist Mystique, said that Solanas' views were far too radical and polarizing.[5] VII. The Violence Against Women Act does not imply such by title. The Violence Against Women Act, by title, implies that women have been the main target of domestic violence historically. Women have only started to be seen as actual human beings with feelings rather than just house-keepers since the end of the Victorian Era. Which has been roughly 100 years. Pro also did not provide a source for point 6. VIII. Many of men's problems, such as homicide, are not caused by class struggle within a gender context. The statistics my opponent has mentioned are not directly caused by patriarchy, so why should strict (meaning they only adhere to this one ideology, that being feminism) feminists deal with such an issue? Are some of the numbers involved in those statistics caused by patriarchy, yes. However, saying that they don't care about men because their ideology isn't able to deal with every problem is baseless. However, most of those numbers were caused by different struggles within society, such as poverty. IX. Male rapes are also the result of patriarchy. Male-male rape usually occurs when one male either a) fails to meet the standards that the male gender has set upon them, and are seen as 'weak' and are more likely to be raped, or b) is seen as a means of achieving sexual satisfaction in a place (such as prison) devoid of females (which by many men can be seen as sex objects) and are used as a substitution. Male rape commited by females also occurs due to patriarchy, since males have to meet a standard of 'becoming a man' and are sexually assaulted by women who seek to gain sex out of such under this guise. This itself can actually cause some men to grow up hating women. Many feminist articles have been published in favor of ending male rape and female rape. Even then, it doesn't matter who gets raped more. Feminism is about trying to end patriarchial culture that harms both women and men. What feminists argue for is to stop rape and rape culture in general. X. The last few paragraphs provided by my opponent were just a copy/paste job.[6] Rebuttal to Second Argument: My opponent starts by reposting some of which they already posted in the first argument, please see above for my rebuttals to such. I. A dictionary definition cannot be 'tainted'. The radical feminists you mention are only more 'popular' since media can make more money by creating a story that is completely out of proportion and spread dishonest information than by telling the truth. Ideological definitions don't just 'change', anyone who is a misandrist or believes in feminine supremacy isn't a feminist by the definition I provided, since they obviously don't support gender equality. Also, your 'proof' doesn't 'defeat' a dictionary definition. Sources: 1- http://en.wikipedia.org... 2- Zaitow, Barbara H. and Jim Thomas. Women in Prison: Gender and Social Control. Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003 3- http://en.wikipedia.org... 4- Watson, Steven (2003). Factory made: Warhol and the sixties (1st ed.). New York: Pantheon Books. pp. 35–36 5- http://en.wikipedia.org... 6- http://anti-feminism-pro-equality.tumblr.com...

THBT feminism has failed

"Thank you for your point. Researchers found that women with a degree born in 1958 earned nearly three times as much as women in unskilled jobs born in the same year - compared to a difference of less than half between men in the same groups. We see that it is unfair for women because they have to work twice as hard as men to achieve a professional status in the society. We believe that we should reap according to what we have sown and it should be the same for everyone, no matter who they are. Some may say that we are too idealistic, but we hope to improve the problem, no matter how little a step we take." If we put this to your original statement, you have said that feminism has failed because women with a degree born in 1958 earned nearly three times as much as women in unskilled jobs in the same year - compared to a difference of less than half between men in the same groups. This is interesting because you did say you hope to improve the problem, no matter how little a step we take. So I believe the floor would agree that if I find an example of how this has been improved upon, no matter how little it is, or how this is actually an improvement, no matter the scale at how the situation before was worse, then I have won this round. So I bring you a series of facts to prove you that feminism hasn't failed, according to what you said. http://www.bbc.co.uk... - Please take time to read this article. "The mid-point salary of graduates aged 22 to 64 was "29,900, compared with "17,800 for non-degree holders, the Office for National Statistics found." You stated that women people born in 1958 earn three times more than women without a degree. Well over time, this figure is now 1.6. Here is an improvement, helped by the ideology that women are equal to men, which started with first-wave feminism, also known as the Suffragette Movement. This is an improvement, so feminism hasn't failed. Also, the percentage of women in a non-agricultural field of work is 44% in Europe and 48% in the United States, according to the World Bank(citation below). As you can see, I don't need to extend my point on how this is an improvement to your second point. This is fairly similar in the western world at least, and back to what I said in round one, you didn't specify a region or specify much, so in the world, this is still an improvement. You may think it is small, but you stated yourself you hope to improve the issue, no matter how little the step. So again, it isn't a failure. Finally, in case the floor still is skeptic, I should find an example of how what you said was still an improvement on before, and I will take you back to Sweden, in 1947, where only here were women allowed to have an equal salary. Unfortunately, you didn't specify, so in the whole scheme of things in the world, the fact that women had the chance to try to work was an improvement. Various countries only started opening universities which allowed women not too long before 1958, so the fact that women could get a degree is a success. For a list of successes for women's rights, view this article: http://goo.gl... (The article link wouldn't work) Everything here is a success, there isn't more at all I need to say, other than you weren't specific enough and said yourself that every little win is a success, and with successes of such a high magnitude, feminism has not failed. Read my sources as well. http://goo.gl... http://datatopics.worldbank.org... http://datatopics.worldbank.org... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.ilo.org...

Feminism: Positive or Negative

I am obviously against Feminism, because I feel it's no longer just a movement for equality, but a movement implying that all men are misogynistic pigs, which I obviously refute. There are no rules in this debate. Whoever wants to debate, accept the challenge and post your argument.

Modern Feminism Is Pointless

1) This is not a debate regarding the ethics of abortion. But the legalization of abortion isn't an issue of female superiority. The lukewarm rape exception completely spits on the rest of the anti-abortion arguments. You say killing an unborn child is murder? Well, what aspect of rape makes it non-murder? Abortion is immoral? How does the pregnancy's origin somehow make it moral? Nobody ever says why abortion is a must in those cases and not others. The anti-abortioners just don't want to see someone getting off (ha) scot-free. But really, a rape victim gets an abortion for the same reason as the girl whose condom broke: they don't want a child. "Take responsibility" is purely an emotional opinion. Should we restrict treatment for smokers' lungs because "they knew there was a risk of it physically happening"? Sure, keeping it may seem more humble and responsible, but the fact that abortion is lazy isn't enough of a reason to illegalize it. 2) Well, yes, the feminist movement needs a major overhaul. But, in case you weren't able to tell for the entirety of the debate, I have been referring to the philosophy of But really, a rape victim gets an abortion for the same reason as the girl whose condom broke: they don't want a child. "Take responsibility" is purely an emotional opinion. Should we restrict treatment for smokers' lungs because "they knew there was a risk of it physically happening"? Sure, keeping it may seem more humble and responsible, but the fact that abortion is lazy isn't enough of a reason to illegalize it. 2) Well, yes, the feminist movement needs a major overhaul. But, in case you weren't able to tell for the entirety of the debate, I have been referring to the philosophy of feminism, not its visibly notorious practices of some current members. I don't know where feminism has insisted its problems are worse than others, and the facts you've shown to "prove" feminism is awry aren't even the faults of feminism. You never specified how Jodi Arias, lazy servicewomen who don't want to combat, and women making their husbands lose their property are products of feminism. They appear to be merely products of anti-man sexism. And of course it's not necessary to start a national protest when a woman is wronged, but when women at large are systematically wronged for an injustice directly related to being a woman, there's a problem that needs to be addressed. 3) "Prove the stereotypes wrong" is an utterly problematic argument. It's still unequal--under this approach, a man can act how he wants and not have that impact how he's viewed as a gender, but a woman will have to conform to specific ideals in order to look "respectable." It also shifts the blame--instead of answering accusations of sexism with "Oh, I have a really crappy view of women as a gender, I should change," it's changed to "Well, your group has a crappy view, YOU should change." Um, what were the women doing wrong in the first place? If anything, the prejudiced folks are the lazy ones demanding respect without changing themselves. It also stereotypes women and puts them into a limiting, defining box--under this approach, if some women are prominent and successful, then all of them have the potential to be viewed that way. The right to equality is determined by society's impression of women, not from merely being a human like everyone else. If that's not prejudiced, I don't know what is. The point? By being people, we're all entitled to the basic birthright of respect. There's no "working for" something deserved by default. Let's quit the bizarre justifications and start being decent human beings.

Modern Feminism is dead

Thank you for responding, I will refute what you have said in two ways. 1: You offer no source for your definition, and you never said in your first speech, meaning that my definition of dead was the first one, as well as the only one with an actual source. This means that my definition beats yours. 2: Even still, with the definition of "dead" being essentially none, all I have to do is prov that there was 1 legitimate act of 1: You offer no source for your definition, and you never said in your first speech, meaning that my definition of dead was the first one, as well as the only one with an actual source. This means that my definition beats yours. 2: Even still, with the definition of "dead" being essentially none, all I have to do is prov that there was 1 legitimate act of feminism recently (so, let's say in the past 6 months). With that in mind, let's look at the "One Billion Rising Revolution". In the past four years, this organization has helped feminism in huge ways. In 2016, "activists in 200 countries rose up to demand an end to violence against women and girls as part of the global One Billion Rising movement. Using dance as a form of protest – events, rallies, flash mobs, artistic uprisings, panel discussions, and concerts took place in locations where women felt safe or deserve to feel safe, in community with other activists or alone, with people of all abilities, demanding justice and systematic changes, or reclaiming their bodies, their lands or their narratives." This quote was taken straight from their website, where they describe what they are doing this year. Here is the specific link: http://www.onebillionrising.org...; So now I have proven that there is at least 1 actual feminist movement. This means that even real feminism is not "dead". I win even on your definition.

Feminism is not an ideology of equality

"The problem with that definition, and the philosophy it describes, presupposes that men have superior rights than women in every single case." The definition presupposes no such thing! It merely states that feminism is a philosophy of equality between genders. There are cases where women get more rights than men, and vice versa, but this is not actual feminism. You have not provided any of your own definitions, so I had the burden of providing them. I provided them, from a dictionary, and you have provided none. "That's not true. Men are not treated anywhere near fairly when it comes to child custody and child support cases [1]. Women are sentenced to 40% less prison time than men, for equivalent crimes, and more likely to avoid conviction altogether [2]. Prostate cancer, despite having a more-or-less equal rate of mortality and severity, recieves drastically less funding than breast cancer [3]." I never said that women were treated worse than men in today's society. There are double standards on both sides, and the aim of GENUINE I never said that women were treated worse than men in today's society. There are double standards on both sides, and the aim of GENUINE feminism is to get rid of both. By definition, any movement which does not demand equality between men and women is not feminist. "The term 'equality for women' is a contradiction in and of itself." Nonsense! It simply means getting rid of gender-related double standards. Not implementing them on one side, but eliminating them altogether.