args

Feminism is no longer beneficial in America

I'm gonna break it (his argument) down, with logic [1]. CONTENTION ONE: NO SOURCES My round one argument is: "Pro provided no sources" [2]. However, "you need evidence to win" [3]. Thus, Pro cannot win. CONTENTION TWO: INEQUALITY IS REAL Pro: There is inequality among both genders. Women are just as privileged as men[.] Just because both genders aren't treated fully fairly does not mean the levels of inequality are the same for both genders. For example, women face a significant pay gap. The Bureau of Labor Statistics states that females in the U.S. on average currently earn 81.2% of male earnings [4]. The Joint Economic Committee states that the gender pay gap persists across all occupations, such as physicians and surgeons (64.4%), salespersons (70.6%), truck drivers (76.4%), attorneys (80.5%), and management personnel [5]. A recent Government Accountability Office study, accounting for a wide variety of observable differences between male and female management personnel, found that female management personnel on average earn 81% of male earnings [5]. The Joint Economic Committee states that the gender pay gap persists across all educational levels [5]. The gender pay gap cannot be attributed solely to familial responsibilities, because a recent Government Accountability report found that management personnel who are mothers earn 79% of management personnel who are fathers [5]. (Furthermore, even if the gender pay gap can be attributed in part to familial responsibilities, the fact that females currently perform 66% of household tasks [6] is merely another example of male privilege.) Part-time jobs exacerbate the problem, because female part-time workers earn only 58% of male part- time workers [5]. The gender pay gap results in part due to the lower average wages of professions that females are employed in [7]; however, (a) the pay gap persists accross occupations, as mentioned, and (b) the skewed representation of females in certain professions results from institutional bias against females in those professions [7]. At all levels, a promotion bias of 2:1 exists for males [6]. Females advance slowly in male-dominated fields [6], while males advance quickly in female-dominated fields [6]. Females that more aggressively pursue better pay or career advancement are discriminated against [6], which helps prevent changes to this status quo. Thus, women are NOT just as privileged as men. CONTENTION THREE: "MEDIA JUGGERNAUT" Pro: [F]eminism is becoming a dangerous juggernaut in the media. Pro has to prove the following things: 1: The Bureau of Labor Statistics states that females in the U.S. on average currently earn 81.2% of male earnings [4]. The Joint Economic Committee states that the gender pay gap persists across all occupations, such as physicians and surgeons (64.4%), salespersons (70.6%), truck drivers (76.4%), attorneys (80.5%), and management personnel [5]. A recent Government Accountability Office study, accounting for a wide variety of observable differences between male and female management personnel, found that female management personnel on average earn 81% of male earnings [5]. The Joint Economic Committee states that the gender pay gap persists across all educational levels [5]. The gender pay gap cannot be attributed solely to familial responsibilities, because a recent Government Accountability report found that management personnel who are mothers earn 79% of management personnel who are fathers [5]. (Furthermore, even if the gender pay gap can be attributed in part to familial responsibilities, the fact that females currently perform 66% of household tasks [6] is merely another example of male privilege.) Part-time jobs exacerbate the problem, because female part-time workers earn only 58% of male part- time workers [5]. The gender pay gap results in part due to the lower average wages of professions that females are employed in [7]; however, (a) the pay gap persists accross occupations, as mentioned, and (b) the skewed representation of females in certain professions results from institutional bias against females in those professions [7]. At all levels, a promotion bias of 2:1 exists for males [6]. Females advance slowly in male-dominated fields [6], while males advance quickly in female-dominated fields [6]. Females that more aggressively pursue better pay or career advancement are discriminated against [6], which helps prevent changes to this status quo. Thus, women are NOT just as privileged as men. CONTENTION THREE: "MEDIA JUGGERNAUT" Pro: [F]eminism is becoming a dangerous juggernaut in the media. Pro has to prove the following things: 1: Feminism wasn't a juggernaut in the media in the past (or else "no longer" no longer applies) 2: Feminism is a juggernaut in the media 3: Feminism being a juggernaut in the media is a bad thing 4: Sample text 5: "Juggernauts" in the media can exist 6: Feminism is actually a unified group that uses its power to silence other views within the media, rather than a set of people who share an ideology, comparable to the near-universal support of near-universal free speech in the media 7: Juggernaut is a definable term, and not some "scary" term 8: The feminist juggernaut poses "dangerous" threats to people; merely saying words isn't dangerous, so Pro has to show the feminist juggernaut physically threatens people [1] (Break It Down, by Logic) [2] https://www.google.com... [3] https://www.google.com...; [4] bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2011.pdf (p. 52) [5] jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9118a9ef-0771-4777-9c1f-8232fe70a45c (p. 9-11) [6] gender-competence.eu/files/IntConf/5.pdf (p. 6-7, 11) [7] iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination

Feminism is ruining video games

I accept this challenge. As a gamer, I"d like to think feminism has heightened the stakes for female roles in video games. Because Pro initiated this debate, I"ll allow him to start and lay down any rules he wants. Let"s enjoy this remarkably unique topic!

feminism is marxism

"My use 'Marxism light' was to address that issue. It is true that we live in a representational democracy. It is also true we have in socialist policies in place. At what point do we say that we are a socialist country? When the government spends 50%? 75%? That I think is where some of our differences exist. I do not see feminist today espousing free market economics. Nor do I see a let the individual decide policy prescriptions. What is happening is, feminist are trying to push through more government control of not only regulations but economic resources. What is unavoidable is that they do promote in large part socialist policies." We are nowhere close to 50% socialist, and even if we do all the things that are relevant to the feminists we won't be all that closer, we will still be solid capitalists. "The second area I think you disagree is the notion I put forward that you can only have socialism if you have marxism. As pointed out in my previous post, one can only have a redistribution of economic resources if one identifies classes and uses collective action to force the redistribution. In this way, as pointed out by von Mises, Fascism is really no different from Socialism." Okay, but fascism is irrelevant, you didn't prove that socialism is Marxism. "All of these points have been addressed. I will expand on them. Production is not only items that are traded for currency. Other production can include labor in the family. Much of the economic conflict argued by feminist occur in the home. The division of labor where women produce economic output at home forgoing currency based imployment outside of the home, is considered 'slavery' by many feminist. Only true freedom is believed to be possible where the woman has equal income to the husband and home duties are shared equally. Specialization is considered a loss of 'power'." You dropped my rebuttals for 1-3, and even with your arguments, the major difference is that Nor do I see a let the individual decide policy prescriptions. What is happening is, feminist are trying to push through more government control of not only regulations but economic resources. What is unavoidable is that they do promote in large part socialist policies." We are nowhere close to 50% socialist, and even if we do all the things that are relevant to the feminists we won't be all that closer, we will still be solid capitalists. "The second area I think you disagree is the notion I put forward that you can only have socialism if you have marxism. As pointed out in my previous post, one can only have a redistribution of economic resources if one identifies classes and uses collective action to force the redistribution. In this way, as pointed out by von Mises, Fascism is really no different from Socialism." Okay, but fascism is irrelevant, you didn't prove that socialism is Marxism. "All of these points have been addressed. I will expand on them. Production is not only items that are traded for currency. Other production can include labor in the family. Much of the economic conflict argued by feminist occur in the home. The division of labor where women produce economic output at home forgoing currency based imployment outside of the home, is considered 'slavery' by many feminist. Only true freedom is believed to be possible where the woman has equal income to the husband and home duties are shared equally. Specialization is considered a loss of 'power'." You dropped my rebuttals for 1-3, and even with your arguments, the major difference is that feminism does not require the dismantling of capitalism permanently, they simply want gender to be irrelevant in capitalism. "I will agree with you that economic considerations are not the only area that feminist argue for. The fact 'patriarchy' is specified does not mean that they are not marxist/socialist, especially when they use Marxist methods to come to their positions. In both word and deed, it is clear feminist are Marxists." Marxist methods are effective revolutionary method, its not odd that they use them. The difference is that they feminism ideology is different than Marxist ideology, ergo they are not the same thing.

is feminism good for the world

Feminism seems to be only bad for the world as it spreads the idea that your personal failures are out of your control. Thinking in this way helps no one and lets people just work less and feel good about it. Also the "riots for equality" are almost always violent. Also we all know that the "great big bad patriarchy" just doesn't exist

THBT feminism has failed

Thank you for your point. "when we have to decide who has to stay home and look after the kids between the mother and the father, who will you choose? Mostly we choose the mother because we believe that the mother is inferior to the father, and she is not the dominant one. This concept proves that we do not consider women on the same level as men, and this is a very basic concept. But feminism still didn't change it after fighting a battle for 4 decades!" Sorry, but this is all wrong. First of all, as I stated before, feminists aren't looking for equality of outcome. As I stated, equality is about opportunity and treatment. You have no basis to prove that mostly we would chose women. There are 317,000,000 people living in America[1]. And only 5,100,000 are stay-at-home mothers[2]. Where is the inequality? Yes, there are 176,000 stay-at-home dads[3], but that is for one important reason. Tradition. Traditionally, it was the common belief that a women should stay at home. It was viewed as a good belief, the right belief and had very little negative connotations, after all, the bible, which has been predominant in setting traditions on multiple occasions, talks about the duties of a wife. See here: http://www.openbible.info... So if we establish that it was a common view, and only, as I take your word for it, up until fourty years ago, then this tradition would be very hard to break down. But hasn't it already? Remember, feminism is about equal opportunity, not equal outcome, because that doesn't include those who still agree with the tradition or those who want to be a housewife/househusband. So equal opportunity is what we're looking for. To break the tradition that a wife should stay at home, there has to be an equal chance for women to go out and get jobs themselves, and for that information, please refer to my previous post. There is an equal, or at least more equal opportunity for women to get jobs, so this belief that a women's role is in the kitchen has deteriorated. The outcome? Well it is for sure decreasing. In the 1940s, only 28% of ladies worked[4]. My figure for today has proved that something has changed and helped change this, to bring it back down, and that is partly due to feminism. A success. [1] http://www.census.gov... [2] http://www.infoplease.com... [3] http://www.infoplease.com... [4] The 1950s, by William H. Young