args

Feminism: Equality of the Sexes

feminism [1] noun 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. 2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women. 3. feminine character. The definition alone separates men and women into two binary categories, with men assumed to be in a position superior to women, because if this was not true, the advocacy of women's rights would be pointless. However, this is too simple a generalization. If we are sticking to definition-specific feminism, then it does not take into account racism or classism both women and men face in addition to sexism. Race and economic class complicate the matter of equality, so simply advocating gender equality is not actually advocating true equality of the sexes. Allow me to explain what I am trying to say, using the wage gap as an example. The racial group with the lowest average annual salary are African-Americans, as it has been for the entirety of American history [2]. Second lowest are Latino people, then white people, and finally, the highest-earning racial group are Asians. The average white salary is nearly double that of the average black salary, at $57,009 and $33,321, respectively. Women's salaries as a percentage of white men's salaries also varies as well [3]. Latina women earn a meager 53% of a white man's average annual income, then black women at 64%, then white women at 78%, and finally, Asian women at 87%. The gender wage gap, if all races are taken into account, is that women earn 85 cents for every man's dollar. While this information is presented, please keep in mind that the average white and Asian person, regardless of their gender, *always* earns more than the average Latino or black person. Feminism applied in this instance is confusing. Equal pay is a hot issue among feminists, but even if you were to equalize all the gender earnings--Latina women were earning the same as Latino men, white women the same as white men--you would still have the issue that Asians are making twice as much as African-Americans, so there's no possible way that the sexes are equal then, because you still a whole heap of racial differences holding minorities back. You might argue that feminism *would* work to equalize races as well, but it does not seem to be paying any attention to it currently, and the definition is to vague to say that the "definition-perfect" feminists would pay attention to it either. You have probably heard the common myth that women make a mere 77 cents to every man's dollar. Not only is this not true--for any of the races, though whites and Asians come close--but it is also, once again, taking the racial component of the wage gap away from it. Black and Latina women both earn approximately 90 cents for every dollar earned by men of their race, but earn around 80 cents for every white woman's dollar. Advocating women's rights in this situation leaves the question: which group's rights are we actually trying to get? What I am trying to say is, saying ALL women are economically worse-off than ALL men is leaving out important class and racial nuances that skew the data into all kinds of different directions, making feminism ("the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men") not actually equalizing women to men. In summation, though feminism is, by definition, equality of the sexes, the reality of the movement and how this equality is being attained is not going to achieve what it advocates. As you can see, dealing with only one issue provides a lot of variables and idiosyncrasies in the data, all caused by class and consequently, race. Simply separating the population into two groups, male and female, and then trying to equalize one to the other is not going to garner the intended results. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com... [3] http://www.aauw.org... (If I had a nickel for every time I said "race" or "advocate" or any of its derivatives...)

Feminism Does Not Equate to Equality

Feminism is still relevant today. Whether my opponent realizes it or not, women are still being oppressed. The definition for feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social an economic equality to men." And so far women are still not treated equal to men. Therefore feminism is still relevant today. When slavery was declared illegal in the US was it suddenly stopped? No, slavery continued but under the pretence that now your slaves were "servants". It took a long time until slavery was actually stopped and this is the same with gender equality. So now some women are allowed to vote, allowed to go to school, allowed to play sports, etc. But they're not allowed to be in leadership roles, nor are they allowed to have certain jobs, nor are they going to be paid fairly if they become a professional sports player or have a job. How is that equality? Yes I do believe that feminists fight for equal treatment and for society to change their views. Isn't that the point? My opponent seems to find the fact that women are still fighting for equality annoying. Well sorry for the inconvenience, they're trying to change the world. If society had never changed their views, if you were living in America, you'd still have a slave if you were well off. Equality is for everyone as my opponent states and so far in the context of gender equality, women are the ones that fallout. Then my opponent states generally that that rape is injustice. Yes rape is injustice but then my opponent goes on to say that catcalling is injustice. Catcalling discriminates whoever is receiving it therefore putting the person on a lower lever than that of the person who made the catcall. That is not equality and since my opponent refers to men doing all the catcalling, that is discrimination against women and not equality. This is the same as if a man goes around and gets a lot of girls he is called a "player" and congratulated for it. But if a women did the same, she would be called some derogatory names and would probably be made fun of. How is that fair? Therefore feminism is relevant to catcalling. Then my opponent makes the mistake of saying "the abuse of women" is not gender discrimination. So if it weren't gender discrimination, then what is it? That's practically like saying, being racist against black people is not actually being racist. Gender discrimination is based off of a persons gender, therefore the abuse of women is gender discrimination. The fact that some people can't even label what women's abuse is actually quite frightening. My opponent then blames women's abuse on social hierarchy. Social hierarchy is a ranking of people based on status. This is exactly why feminism is still relevant today. My opponent basically implied that women are inferior to men because he/she blamed women's abuse on social hierarchy. The fact that a human being could consider a person inferior based on something that they didn't choose to have is saddening. And I'm not just talking about gender equality now. This is exactly the issue. People think it's ok to judge other just because of their gender, or just because of their ethnicity, or just because of their skin colour. Then my opponent says that both genders are being discriminated. To that I say "are men fight for their rights?" No, and why is that? Because they don't have to. They already have all their rights. For thousands of years women have been told that they are to shut up and look pretty in the corner. They have been told that they actually aren't a person and are just an object for men to fancy looking at. And all because women fighting for their rights, suddenly men feel uncomfortable because of what? The fact that women may actually be right? The fact that women actually may be just as intelligent as a man? Women all around the world are being oppressed. Just the other day I heard a testimony from a woman who wanted to have a leadership role in a church. But she was refused all based on the fact that she was a woman. And this was in Canada. My opponent refuses the fact that woman's equality is still an issue today. You know the saying that goes "Whatever women must do, they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good." Well it's true. Otherwise the saying wouldn't exist. My opponent claims that women's rights are equal to men's but has nothing to back that up. Feminism are still relevant today even though some may choose to ignore the fact that the problem still exists.

Feminism is still necessary today

Alright just gonna point this out here, you did not give any sort of difference between rights, power, and opportunities that women don't have as men. You failed to point out something like the wage gap, completely bogus, which says that women are payed differently in their work field than their male counter parts. Before you attack me and say something about the wage gap and how it's true, you might wanna do some research first for the wage gap has been created because women say that they earn 77 to 78 cents compared to every dollar man earns. This is false for the wage gap is only determined due to the job choices selected by any given person as you need to consider: 1. Hours worked 2. Field in which someone works 3. Is the selected field high paying or low paying The wage gap has been used by feminists in an attempt to making a point rather than randomly saying things in hopes that they make a point across and even though its been busted many times before, it is still being used by feminists today. "Therefore feminism is still necessary today because women and men do not have the same right, power, and opportunities as men." I agree, men don't have the same opportunities as men, but women do. If this debate were to be taking place in the 1800's then I could see why you would actually say this but this is the 21st century. Women are able to vote, go to College/University, and a woman can actually work outside of the house now. An example, in 2013 a little research was put into a University that had a higher percentage of female students graduate in a 6 year graduation plan. According to the research, the 6 year graduation rate was 56 percent for males and 62 percent in female and it was higher for females in both public (60% V. 55%) and private non-profit institutions (68% V. 62%). This shows that women have the same opportunities in education as men do. Moving on to rights, women are allowed to vote, get a divorce, own a bank account, equal pay, stand for an election, work, religious office, and quite possibly the biggest of all, women can join the army. Women were not able to vote which was one of the key motives behind the start of feminism, no wage gap, no army, no divorce, voting was the number one cause of feminism and under the 19th amendment that was ratified on August 18, 1920, all women have the right to vote. Let's jump forward to when women wanted to begin joining the army, women were outraged by the fact that they were not able to join the army which led to another reason why women wanted feminism. Let me just show you the timeline of events that led to the introduction of women into the military, 1973 - The all male military draft ends and more opportunities arise for women to join the army, 1976 - Some of the first women are admitted to the service academics 1978 - Women in Navy and Marines are allowed to serve on non-combat ships 1991-1992 - 41,000 women are sent to serve in the Persian Gulf War where 2 women are captured 1991 - Congress authorizes women to fly in combat zones 1993 - Congress allows women to serve on combat ships 2000 - Captain Kathleen McGrath becomes the first woman to command a U.S. Navy war ship 2008 - 16,000 women are sent to fight in the middle eastern countries such as Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq and other countries such as Germany and Japan This timeline shows and puts an end to another reason women claim that they "need feminism" and that women do not have the same rights as men. Women also have the same power as men as many women have been members of the supreme court (Sandra Day O'Conner, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg just to name a few), some women are state governors, and some women are even running for president as we speak (God please not Hillary Clinton). Face it, due to the history and changing of America's times, more and more groups of people are gaining rights, feminists are just another apple in the basket that are begging for the attention even though they no longer have anything to fight for. So in conclusion, we do not need feminism in the American society for the rights and differences that have been discussed here have been proven either false or have been fixed over the years and feminists no longer have anything to fight for. Thank you for the wonderful debate even though you never claimed what you were fighting for and with that being said, here are my final citations: https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.history.org... http://lifestyle.allwomenstalk.com... https://nces.ed.gov... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Humanism is a better ideology then Feminism

I am a sir. I want to get this out of the way because, and I am not going to say that you were going to do this, some people think feminists are "crazy, man-hating bitches." So, I am not crazy to my knowledge, I don't hate men (that'd be a horrible existence, right?) and I am not what the theoretical speaker means by bitches. Your definition of humanism contradicts with what you say humanism is in your last paragraph. Humanism advocates for the "attachment of prime importance to human rather than divine matters". Nowhere in here do we see how animals fall under this scope. Unless you would say that animals are human matters, and I am sure most vegans and vegetarians would disagree. I don't really have a problem with your definition, but it is rather simplistic. Just like how you can give a definition for Christianity, but this doesn't really explain what a person means when they call themselves Christian. I'd say that definition is more of a mission statement, and how it is achieved is by dismantling systematic patriarchal values, where men can also be damaged as well. Patriarchal values are where masculine ideals are seen as more valid in many ways from feminine characteristics. A way this can hurt men is that a certain shame is placed on men that are victims of rape (saying they should have fought back, should have enjoyed it, can't be raped, etc.) and molestation, especially by an elder (saying they should have enjoyed it, what's the problem, etc.). It sounds like feminism and humanism are compatible, and with such a negative connotation of feminists, why would people choose to be considered a feminist and not a humanist? I'd like to point you to an excerpt from an article[1]: "In a perfect world that prospect [humanism] would be enough and we could declare feminism redundant but that would also be a world in which women were running circa half the countries and institutions. It would be a world where violence against women wasn’t of epidemic proportions. It would be a world where women occupied an equal amount of Fortune 500 jobs or had an equal chance at some of the world’s biggest honours such as the Nobel- or the “Man” Booker Prizes. Alas, we are light-years from such a world. Especially in Africa. And it is often in dispute of feminism's appropriateness to African traditions that the irritating question, “Why feminism, why not just humanism?” is posed to me. In truth, ours is a continent for men by men to men at men with men ALL about men. In fact it bemuses me that while in many other parts of the world the word ‘man’ is being increasingly replaced with ‘man and woman’ or simply with ‘people’ when actually speaking of human beings of both genders, in Africa, oh no no no, Man is capitalised. Man eats, Man breathes, Man thinks, Man shits. Man na Person! Woman, well she picked the incomparably short end of the stick. Tough luck? Well, yes, but, you see, thanks to feminism she no longer has to hope that men, however humanist they may be, shall some dazzling day fight for all women to have equal access to basic human rights such as education, anti-discrimination or inheritance laws. Instead she can use feminist tools – and she has done – to be able to vote, get a bank account, even – if she is lucky – to wear a mini skirt (yippie!), let alone to fight for access to powerful positions in society." You say that MRAs fight for equality, and feminists "claim to", giving the impression that Men's Rights Activists are more legit than feminists. Other than you bold assertion that you are right, can you back this up? As for why they are opposed, I'll just borrow from what I said in the comments. "Uh, the reason they disagree (and it seems you buy into MRA being more legit than feminists, give me a break) is because MRA, wait for it, ADVOCATE FOR MEN'S RIGHTS AND FEMINISM ADVOCATES FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS! Wow, it's almost like we could look at the definitions for these two ideologies and see the difference!" Before I sign off, may I say that the burden of proof is on you to show that Humanism is better than feminism, and all I have to do is negate you. Good day. Sources: [1] http://www.msafropolitan.com...

Feminism is no longer beneficial in America

CONTENTION ONE: SUBPOINT A: Pro: "My CONRAD study made addressing your first 4 sources obsolete." Well, then I guess didn't even need to respond to CONRAD -- because my studies all offered evidence against Pro's conclusion. Pro: "The judges do not have to accept them as true. I'm new to this site, but I've never seen any sort of a debate where one of the debaters tells the judges what they have to do." This is standard debate practice in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and Public Forum Debate. When one side fails to respond to ("drops") one of the other side's arguments, that argument becomes "true". SUBPOINT B: Pro: "I do not have the burden of proving that there are biological differences that result in men working more full time jobs than women, this burden of proof relies on "Con". Er, Pro has the burden to prove that men are equally privileged to women. Not Con. The fact is, if society is messed up, then feminism is useful. The only way Pro can get around this is some inherent difference between males and females -- such as genetics. Since Pro has not done so, you must vote Neg. Pro: "As for your second point, it seems like you are asking me to prove that having a child is a biological action - I'll let that question answer itself." Pro doesn't seem to get it. Child birth is genetic, which I accepted and accept. But this part of CONRAD's study also included "child care and elder care", neither of which is genetic. A man can care just as well for kids as a woman. The only reason women do more child care and elder care is societal inequality, which feminism seeks to redress. I mean, come on, isn't this one of the big MRA talking points Pro: "Third, the CONRAD study answers the question of why mothers work less while they have a child, as does my previous source." Pro asserts this, without showing us where. I have shown that women are unfairly treated compared to men when they have a kid: Even excluding for pregnancy, mothers get only 79% of what fathers get [5]. This is societal injustice, and must be corrected for; thus, feminism is relevant. Pro: "The CONRAD study does not support Con's point that women are "unfairly treated in promotion"; you cannot prove unfair promotion bias unless you examine the resumes of every applicant." Right. Which is why, even though women attain equal or slightly higher levels of education, men get promoted 3 *times* as often. I guess men are just *inherently* 3 times better at, well, everything. Pro: "Con failed to investigate my source for my assertion that women are biologically disposed to not seek higher paying jobs." Pro's "source" was to assert that women turn themselves into victims of a nonexistent patriarchy. Pro also failed to investigate my evidence that pointed out that there's nothing women can do to get ahead. I quote myself: "Females that more aggressively pursue better pay or career advancement are discriminated against [6]." CONTENTION TWO: SUBPOINT A: Pro: "Gamergate can be summed up in one video." Pro: "If Con had taken the time to view my videos, they would have seen the blatant examples of violence committed by feminists." You mean the videos of total length 45:00? This is why videos are a bad source -- they waste people's time. By the way, everyone, just watch this video [13] and you'll SEE that feminism is true! You have to watch the whole thing though, it's only 10 hours or so Pro: "Also, Con is using "rationalwiki" as a source; using rationalwiki as a source is akin to using conservapedia." Con provides no evidence that RationalWiki is a bad source, merely asserting that it is comparable to another bad source, Conservapedia. RationalWiki and Conservapedia have pretty forking different viewpoints: Conservapedia bans literally everyone they disagree with; RationalWiki bans those who spam. RationalWiki has been cited directly over 50 times in published works [11][12]; Conservapedia has been cited only as an example of a "Conservative" Wikipedia, almost never as a useful source of knowledge. Furthermore, my opponent might have a point if the RationalWiki article I've cited here wasn't a ridiculously well-cited piece, using over 360 different sources [8]. Pretty much no statement in that article isn't backed up by, y'know, reality. SUBPOINT B: 1. k at your k 2. Pro: "Strawman. I never said that there was a feminist conspiracy." Just a lie dissemination network, right? Pro: "As for The Amazing Atheist's rape jokes, they are just that. Jokes." When a joke degrades sexual assault for the purposes of weak humor, I think we can safely hate on the jokemaker. 3. Pro: "I am not an advocate for the Republican party." And nor did I say so! My point is that the Republican party does criticize feminism, without media censorship. 4. MY OPPONENT CONTINUES TO IGNORE THE CRUCIAL ARGUMENT OF SAMPLE TEXT [5][17][2]. VOTE CON ALL THE WAY [9]. 5. Prefer my Gamergate source over his [9]. It's forking ridiculously well-cited and I've summarized it here for those who can't bother to read it. His is just some annoyingly long video, which he doesn't actually summarize in-round. 6. Pro: "Critiquing the word "feminism" is impossible, because even though they don't agree with each other, the majority respond to criticism in the same way." See 3. 7. Pro: "I'm quite sorry" A is the interp: Debaters must not be exclusionary. B is the violation: Pro can't undo the exclusionary harms of anti-blindism. C is the standards: Exclusionary rhetoric shuts out debaters from debate, which destroys it as an educational activity and removes its fairness. D is the voters: Gotta be fair & educational mang 8. Pro: "Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if it had been two feminists protesting, and a man slapped one of them? It is a total double standard. That video highlights the hypocrisy of feminism." OH NOES SOME FEMINISTS ARE HYPOCRITES I guess that means feminism is hypocritical Oh. Wait. That's not how broad political movements work [14]. SUMMARY Pro: "Am I being trolled?" Trolls don't exist. Only lulz. Pro: "You also made your opening statement a rebuttal, which was quite unfair. .... Also, I'd like to repeat that I didn't know I was supposed to open with a full on argument, and someone in the comments even reprimanded Con for doing so." Next time, say "first round acceptance". The rules don't exist unless you state 'em in your 1st round. Them's the rules about rules. VOTING ISSUES Conduct: Nobody's at fault here. All fun and games. Grammar: i hav liek 1000% bettar grammer then h3 duz, vot mi yp plz Arguments: Solid Con vote. A gender gap has been proven to exist, and it's the only major issue in this debate. Even Pro's sources agree with Con about this. The only other issue is the "feminist juggernaut", which was such a messy debate that I think nobody wins there. Thus, the only issue you can vote on is a gender pay gap, which is clear Con ground. Sources: Solid Con vote. Con has provided numerous published studies to back up Con's points; Pro has tended towards YouTube videos and blogposts. Furthermore, Con has 14 sources, compared to Pro's 13, of which many were effectively different videos of the same thing. THE ONE THING YOU NEED TO READ BEFORE VOTING A gender pay gap exists. CONRAD agrees; the Bureau of Labor Statistics agrees; the Joint Economic Committee agrees; the Government Accountability Office agrees. Pro has never proven that the gender pay gap is 0% -- instead, Pro has merely proven that the gender pay gap might be more like 5%. As long as the gender pay gap isn't 0%, feminism is relevant. [11] https://en.wikipedia.org... [12] https://en.wikipedia.org... [13] [14] https://en.wikipedia.org...