Topic space view
1031 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms
  • PRO

    IF, corporations can get away with paying women less for...

    Third-wave feminism is against gender equity

    We have all heard from the left about how, feminism is all about gender equality and gender equity. This definition that the left clings to is CORRECT....if we were still living in the 1950s. The third wave feminist movement has moved on from the basic principle that have guided the first and second waves. It has rather become a mean, spiteful, and man hating philosophy based off on not building up women but tearing down men. Not only do we see the replacement of peaceful protests with violet demonstrations such as the attack on women during Life-day. We currently see the result of such a transition in polls and figures done by many institutes. Women are abandoning feminism at an alarming rate not because of their supposed sudden transformation into racist and sexist bigots. These polls asked women if they supported gender equality and if they supported the third wave feminist movement. 85% of people when asked in the polls said that they support gender equality HOWEVER, only 18% of people said that they supported the third wave feminist movement. If, feminism in truly about equity as they claim, WHY wouldn't these people give the same answer to both poll questions. These polls are not done by some unreliable alt-right sources such as Breitbart. These polls are done by Vox, Huffington Post, CNN, etc. Modern day feminism is hated so much because they say one thing but, do another. My opponent might mention that women wouldn't want to be labeled as a feminist. In which my response is why and how did feminism get such a bad reputation if it wasn't for their actions and beliefs. Todays feminists are hypocrites in every sense o the word. My opponent would likely attempt to frame these debate as a force of good vs evil, equality vs oppression, etc. However, this is simply not the case as we see multiple deliberately misleading lies and actions done by third-wave feminism in an attempt to attack men and other women dissenters. We see their championship of the debunked gender pay-gap statistic and their completely unproven "1 in 4" rape culture data. Their magical concept of the modern day patriarchy conspiracy theories which deprives young women of the chance to improve on their failures and succeed in life. Feminism tells everyone that women are some oppressed class in America and demand laws to help themselves and punish all those who disagree with their agenda. Feminists lobbies the government for more affirmative action policies at college campuses and high-income workplaces. In reality, women have 2 to 1 advantage over men when applying for STEM jobs and are graduating college with more bachelors, masters and PHDs at a much more higher rate that their male counterparts. We see them demanding that women be entered into more STEM fields when, in reality women tend to avoid this type of expertise. The more developed a country is, the less percentage of women are willing to find a STEM job. Women tend to dominate fields of the arts and humanities not because there is some evil cult of straight white men secretly hypnotizing the women to be forced into homemaker positions but because of choice. This lack of women in the STEM field, combined with women's tendency to take more vacations, work less hours LEADS to the supposed "gender wage gap". My opponent may perhaps mention gender stereotypes and how they affect women's choices however, my opponent must explain why the evil patriarchy would discourage women from physics BUT not veterinary sciences. The supposed "wage gap" couldn't even be called a wage gap, the statistic is calculated when you take the average annual income and do basic division. If you look by the hour for the same job at the same location, BOTH genders are equal in pay. Simple economics can debunk this whole patriarchy and gender pay-gap argument. IF, corporations can get away with paying women less for equal amounts of work and labor, then why wouldn't companies just fire all their male employees and exclusively hire women. ALL companies want to maximize income and profit, that is the nature of capitalism. Perhaps you may note that sexism would prevent companies from hiring women however even that is not the case. The 1800s were a time of gender inequity but that did not stop companies from hiring exclusively women in sweatshops and other factories. This modern-day movement cares little of fairness or equality of opportunity but focuses completely on equality of outcome. Now, my opponent might protest citing arguments about how these feminists are just "militant" feminists but, unfortunately that is not the case. The feminist leadership and figures around the world openly support these lies and advocate attacks on males. People like Gloria Steinem are the new leaders and faces of this movement. While feminism itself is an ideology, third wave feminism is classified as a movement. A movement is best defined by it's followers. To attack men and delegitimize their status in society to bring about a "equality of outcome" does not bring about social progress but reverse sexism. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.pbs.org... http://www.news.cornell.edu... https://www.usnews.com... http://www.dailytexanonline.com... http://sundial.csun.edu... https://www.usnews.com... https://www.usatoday.com... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...

  • PRO

    3) 2. ... 7. http://web.archive.org... 8....

    3rd wave feminism has made notable progress for civil rights

    "Third Wave feminism and Civil Rights" A. - What is the Third Wave: In order to fully examine the impact of Third Wave feminism on the civil rights struggles of the last few decades, two things must be done. - Identifying the ideas of the movement. - Demonstrating an impact of those ideas. I will first seek to outline a few of the more universal ideals of third wave feminism, and explore their roots, then I will attempt to show the impact those cultural movements have fueled. It does bear mentioning that 3rd wave feminism is still a very young idea system, and as such is still very fluid and changing as more social concerns and injustices come to light. "In contrast to those voices (2nd wave feminist thinkers), thirdR08;wavers do not completely reject the agenda of secondR08;wave feminism (Heywood 2006a, 139); they simply seek to rid feminist practice of its perceived ideological rigidity." (1) It evolved from many long-established schools of thought which were part of the discourse of the 2nd wave feminist movement. "Feminism is itself problematic, because the theories that inform it are heterogenous (p.25). (8) Like any logical divergence from an academic school of thought, the evolution of feminist theory is an entirely natural progression of a social, cultural movement, and as such, the schools of thought share many similarities, just as they share differences. Additionally, many "modern" (still living) feminists hold beliefs from both 2nd and 3rd wave feminist theories. "Within the body of third wave feminist thinking, there exists strains and influences of other feminist epistemologies, including standpoint theory, queer theory, postmodernist, poststructuralist feminist thought and anti-essentialism." (8) There are still several "Ideals" which are selective to what is defined as 3rd wave feminism, which I will highlight below. I. - The Ideas of Third Wave Feminism: To best understand the nuances of Third Wave feminism, one must understand how it differs from the ideas which helped shape it. "Additionally, and perhaps because of the significant gains made by (1st and second wave) feminism, young women today experience sexism, racism, homophobia, and classism that is more underground, more insidious, and much more difficult to pinpoint than its previous incarnations. " (8) I will now highlight just three of the many facets of the movement. 1. Sex positivism: 2nd wave feminist thinking tended to err against pornography as detrimental and exploitative to women. Third wave feminists tend to subscribe to the belief that nudity and nude expression, even in pornography, can be empowering to women, so long as it is not exploitative. (2) There are many "3rd" wave feminists who do not share this ideal, but still subscribe to other ideas of 3rd wave feminism. However, sex positivity/positivism is widely practiced by 3rd wave feminists. This difference was analyzed well by Gayle Rubin (Rubin, 1984). To save space, the crux of the analysis can be found in the wiki source below. (3) 2. Transfeminism - transexual, transgender, gender-queer acceptance/advocacy: One stark contrast between previous feminist schools of thought and that of third-wave feminism, is the acceptance and advocacy of transgender and transsexual individuals, as well as gender-queer individuals. 2nd wave feminism was not wholly accepting of LGBTQ individuals who were female, nor was the movement overly interested in championing LGBTQ advocacy, this caused several splinter groups to form during the early stages of the 2nd wave. These groups would contribute to the formation of a more accepting and comprehensive third wave feminist viewpoint. 2nd wave feminism was not accepting of the LGBTQ movement, or those female individuals who were not hetero-normative or binary. (4) 3rd wave feminism takes a sharp divergence from this, and actively champions LGBTQ equality and acceptance. "This way of ordering the world is especially difficult for a generation that has grown up transgender, bisexual, interracial, and knowing and loving people who are racist, sexist, and otherwise afflicted. (Walker 2006b, 22)" (5) 3. Education and dialogue - Third Wave Feminism takes an active role in encouraging discourse within and outside of the various feminist communities. "Outreach education to trans youth has become an increasingly important endeavor as well." Some differences are categorized in this source under Education as a "Right to be Myself". (7) 3rd wave feminism has ushered in several organizations which focus on sexual education and health for women. - WHAM! - Voice - Fearless -Womanist -Students Organizing Students - FURY -YELL (8) B. - What has Third wave feminism done for civil rights: 1. Sex Positivity - "Moral authorities throughout Western history have shaped how we as a society view sex, labeling it as sinful and indecent..." (10) The sex positive aspect of third wave feminism has resulted in the mellinial generation becoming the most accepting of other sexual orientations and genders. "The surprisingly detailed OkCupid dating insights data suggests that over 34% of young men and women have either had a same-sex encounter or would like to " an increase that dovetails nicely with the 81% of people under 30 who now support gay marriage." (11) "A recent survey conducted by University College London found that we (millennials) in general have a broader sexual repertoire, and are more likely to be satisfied with our sex lives than older people. We're less judgmental of kink, and less likely to stigmatize around sex." (10) Of course, this cannot be attributed entirely to third wave feminism, as it is part of the greater struggle for civil rights, however this proves third wave feminism espouses ideas which have had a direct impact on civil rights. 2. Transgender Acceptance/ voice - Transgender identity was seldom talked about prior to the 1990s, but with the rise of gender equality discourse, and a greater examination of what it means to identify as male or female, these issues have come to the forefront. Here are examples of how third wave feminism resulted in the propagation of this civil rights discourse. "Enter jammer girl. A jammer girl is defined as a pre-adolescent or adolescent girl whose identity is not based on physical appearance and passivity, but on health and social activism." (12) Transgender, transsexual, lesbian and gender queer individuals now have a voice in the movement, bringing their issues to light. "thirdR08;wave feminism rejects grand narratives for a feminism that operates as a hermeneutics of critique within a wide array of discursive locations, and replaces attempts at unity with a dynamic and welcoming politics of coalition." (9) "The "grrls" of the third wave have stepped onto the stage as strong and empowered, eschewing victimization and defining feminine beauty for themselves as subjects, not as objects of a sexist patriarchy" (13) There are organizations now funding efforts to bring these civil rights issues more awareness "The RHJI has supported over 50 young women and trans youth-led groups across the country and their diverse range of strategies and tactics." (13) 3. A small list of achievements. 1994: The Gender Equity in Education Act (14) 2000: CBS paid $8 million to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit. 2007: The Gender Equality Duty of the Equality Act 2006 came into effect in the UK. 2013: The first woman to bring a gender discrimination lawsuit in China SOURCES: 1. http://www.jstor.org... 2. Wolf, Naomi. Feminist Fatale: a reply to Camille Paglia. The New Republic. March 16, 1992 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://beingfeministblog.wordpress.com... 5. http://www.jstor.org... 6. A. Mackinnon, Catharine. (1991). "Toward A Feminist Theory of the State." Harvard University press. 7. http://web.archive.org... 8. http://pi.library.yorku.ca... 9. http://web.archive.org... 10. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 11. http://urbanfifth.com... 12. http://school.credoreference.com... 13. http://www.thirdwavefoundation.org... 14. http://www2.ed.gov...

  • CON

    A3: Feminists show unbridled hatred for men Let me show...

    Feminism is for equal rights for all genders not just women.

    Thank you, VoiceforEquality. I will first continue my Negative Case, then I will address my opponent’s arguments. Negative Case Premise: The myth of gender equality Wholly untouched, thus it stands. A1: Unequal rights in STEM fields My argument that shows clear inequality forced by the hand of feminism is wholly uncontested. A2: Pay Gap Theory is inherently sexist against men One of the most common arguments espoused by feminists is that there is a roughly 0.75:1 ratio in pay between women and men. This is fallacious argument that relies on dishonest manipulation of statistics, which includes ignoring the varying factors in the gap (things like hours worked, types of jobs worked etc.) [5]. Mark Perry and Andrew Biggs, two scholars at the American Enterprise Institute, found that the differences could be explained in a similar fashion, “men were almost twice as likely as women tow work more than 40 hours a week, and women almost twice as likely to work only 35 to 39 hours per week. Once that is taken into consideration, the pay gap begins to shrink… 88% of male earnings” [6]. They continued, taking similar factors that would affect pay, and effectively reduced the gap to a negligible amount. An OECD report, The Price of Prejudice: Labour Market Discrimination of the Grounds of Gender and Ethinicity, found that when examining UK data, merely “differences in motivation, expectations and field of study can explain up to 70% of the observed wage gap” [7] [8]. When all factors are controlled for, the pay gap vanishes in the U.S. It is only through feminist’s blatant ignorance and/or manipulation of statistics is there an unjust pay gap between the sexes. Thus, once again, feminism pushes towards inequality by arguing that the “patriarchy” discriminates aganst women when it does no such thing here. A3: Feminists show unbridled hatred for men Let me show you what some famous feminists have treated us to, in terms of quotes involving “equal rights for all genders”: “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class is oppressing them” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo” – Valeria Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM (Society for Cutting up Men) Manifesto “Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex” – Valerie Solanas “The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness…can be trained to do most things” – Jilly Cooper, SCUM “I want to see a man beaten to a blood pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig” – Andrea Dworkin “The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men” – Sharon Stone; Actress “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race” – Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future – If There Is One – Is Female If feminism is about “equal rights for all genders”, then these proclaimed and celebrated feminists advocate man-hating as “equal rights for all genders”, which is clearly contradictory. Counter-arguments The faulty definition of feminism: equality of the sexes. I completely reject this definition on this basis that I have shown it is not reality. We are debating whether feminism is about equal rights of the sexes, so my opponent’s appeal to definition is fallacious in that it is purely a ploy at semantics, rather than a sustained argument as to why the definition should be that way. Eliminating of stereotypes because we do not understand human psychology Short-hair: My opponent declares that this is merely a “stereo-type” without providing a shred of evidence, thus making this argument a logical fallacy as it is a bare assertion [1]. Hair-length is one of the many facets that rated in terms of sexual attractiveness, according to evolutionary psychology. In his book The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, which collaborates research on the topic, David M. Buss describes how multiple studies have found hair-length is highly correlated with female attractiveness, due to long hair indicating good health [2, page 309]. “Starvation causes loss of hair, nutritional deficiencies in vitamins and minerals cause damaged hair… hair, therefore, provides an observable record of an individual’s recent health and nutrition”. This is why, as Etcoff (1999) found that long-hair is attractive across ALL cultures, despite the wild differences in cultures [3]. Once again, feminism has the incorrect context of “stereotypes”, instead of the correct context of “evolutionary psychology”, thus feminism, in reality, feminism ignores our instincts rather than pursuing any notion of “equal rights for genders” by fixing “stereotypes”. Make-up: The notion that women put make-up on purely because society tells them is to ignore the context in which inspired women to put it on in the first place. Again, have a look at evolutionary psychology. David M. Buss’ book elaborates on why skin quality is another facet in which human males looked for sexual partners. In ages where insect bites, diseases, infections and a host of other ailments brought ill health, men would choose for women with the least blemished skin as that was the healthiest (and thus, most likely to continue the lineage) [2]. As Grammer et al. (2002) found in his research involving men rating the attractiveness of naked women, he found that there was a large positive correlation between skin “homogeneity” (a symmetrical face without blemishes) and general attractiveness [2]. Similar findings were found in Fink et al. (2001): “[when subjects were presented] with faces whose shapes were standardized… [it was] found that skin texture significantly influenced attractiveness ratings” [2]. Finally, in another article published by Fink and Pento-Voak called Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Attractiveness, which summarised the findings of researcher’s work into the field, it was concluded that “these mechanisms [involving evolutionary psychology] are presumed to be highly resistant to cultural modification” [4]. As you can see, make-up use has its origins in wanting to be more attractive to the opposite sex, rather than merely being “stereotypes”. My opponent’s list of bare assertions “Feminism brought women out of the household — if they so chose. Feminism broke barriers for little girls with presidential aspirations. Feminism triggered the FBI to change the definition of rape to include men. Feminism enabled men to spend more time with their children. Feminism demanded that the media change its representation of men.” My opponent provides no sustained reasoning as to why you should believe these claims. Thus, they are bare assertions, which is the second time my opponent has applied this logical fallacy [1]. Even if any of these are true, my opponent gives you no reason as to why to believe that, hence these are insufficient as arguments in a debate. References [1] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com... [2] http://books.google.com.au... [3] Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the prettiest. New York: Doubleday. [4] https://www.uni-muenster.de... [5] http://www.marketwatch.com... [6] http://billmoyers.com... [7] http://www.avoiceformen.com... [8] http://www.oecd.org...

  • CON

    Outside of round 2, my opponent has failed to provide...

    The feminism movement should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts

    Closing Statements: 1. On feminism. The irony of this debate is that, Christianity could be said to be one of the earliest proponents of feminism, in that, despite the cultural perspectives on women, Galatians 3:28 [53] epitomizes the view in Christianity that women are spiritually of equal worth to men. Whilst, conversely, in "Politics", Aristotle states that, "The same holds good of animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a better nature than wild [...] Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior" [68], in which he reflects the Greco-Roman attitude of the inherent inferiority of the female sex, in comparing them to animals, in a section of the book wherein he is justifying slavery of those who are inherently inferior – coincidently to this debate, the American slave industry used similar justifications for their treatment of black slaves [69]. Which brings me back to round 2, in which my opponent suggests that economic prosperity is an indication of goodness, which is a weak argument, since once again, similar arguments would have justified the transatlantic slave trade, as slavery was a vital part of the economic system at the time [70]. And, one has to scrutinize the destination of the feminist movement, wherein feminists openly acknowledge the fact that feminism has not made women happy, rather it has caused a negative impact on women's happiness, with the justification being that unhappiness was to price paid for freedom [71]. However, the question arises on whether society has gone from an Orwellian pre-Suffrage system of oppression, to a Huxleyan system of oppression which gives women an illusion of freedom and choice, within the three waves of feminism [72]; which as Peter Hitchens wonderfully illustrates started forming during the second wave of feminism in the 60s, leading to a society in which women are encouraged into wage slavery to be exploited by the corporate machine [73], in the name of freedom, with the benefit of increasing taxable persons and state influence on children, by destabilizing the family unit – all of which has only progressively worsened with 3rd wave feminism. My opponent also off-handedly mentions that poverty and lack of sexual equality seem to be linked, whilst he himself admits that causation does not equate to correlation, he also misses the possibility that this situation may be explained by the fact that developing societies require male-dominated systems to progress, which unless we are provided with contrary evidence we can assume it to be so, seeing as no societies have developed with a female-dominated system [74]. Outside of round 2, my opponent has failed to provide arguments for his resolution in relation to feminism, and why it should not be impeded, whilst I have throughout this debate provided sufficient support for a case against my opponents resolution, in my criticisms of feminism; in fact my opponent has conceded to my argument against the feminist ideology holding any transcendental nature from other ideologies, rather he has simply denied and later ignored my conclusion in round 2. 2. On Bronze Age texts. On the case of Bronze Age texts, I have not only provided the basic argument against Bronze Age texts inherently lacking value and consequently the right to be used to impede feminism, by confronting ideologies that may arise out of feminism, with the ideologies that may be contained within Bronze Age texts, but I have given an example for a case wherein a piece of Bronze Age literature should be used to impede feminism. Once again, in this case, my opponent has not only failed to provide any sufficient refutation against my basic argument against my opponents resolution in regards to Bronze Age texts, but he has also failed to provide sufficient arguments against specific examples of Bronze Age texts, to length of ignoring many of my rebuttals of his claims against Bronze Age texts, namely Biblical texts, despite the fact that some of the original arguments from my opponent were not even of the strictest relevance. Not only has my opponent failed to meet his resolution or refute my arguments, but he has consistently made baseless claims that Bronze Age texts are outdated in their ideological content without providing any arguments or citations for such claims, in a means to argue against the validity of Bronze Age texts; that is, to the point of repeating the same generalized claims, despite the fact that I had previously refuted said claims, such claiming that women were universally only perceived as property, and in particular incubators, in Bronze Age societies, despite my refutation of this claim in my 6th rebuttal, in 4th round. He has also continually made the claim that due to sociological and technological differences in modern and ancient societies, that Bronze Age texts are somehow invalid, without actually making the link between the two things, let alone providing citations to support his argument. Also, my opponent, has stated that Christian (or Jewish/Muslim) texts should, along with feminism, not be above scrutiny, something which I'd obviously agree with on extra-Biblical Jewish/Muslim texts; in fact, I'd agree with him on Biblical texts also, since without careful examination of the Bible, aberrant and heretical doctrines can become manifest as seen in many religious communities, or seen in my opponents provided passages, which out of context supported his arguments, but scrutinized within their entire context were shown to reasonable. 3. On conclusions. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to meet the BoP of his resolution given my arguments in round 2, as clearly illustrated throughout this debate, and furthermore, he has failed to give sufficient rebuttals against my arguments for my assertion that feminism should be impeded on the basis of Bronze Age texts, in specific regards to abortion rights. I have given sufficient arguments to support the position that morally, open access to abortion should not be legal, with Biblical foundation, which would impede feminist movement in regards to the woman's right to choice in abortion; to which, my opponent has failed to provide any refutations, but rather he has simply chosen to ignore my arguments because "in [his] opinion", my arguments were not strong enough, without actually justifying his position. To sum up, my opponent has failed to provide any sufficient argument for his case, and has generally failed to refute my arguments, and has ignored my rebuttals, especially so in regards to the arguments which I provided in round 4, in support of Biblical texts. I would like to close with a verse from the Bible, Psalm 51:5 [75], "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.", which once again affirms the personhood of a fetus in the Bible, which in relation to Exodus 20:13 [10], would provide a Biblical argument against abortion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Due to unforeseen circumstances [76] my previous round was forfeited, however I had posted it online externally [77], and mentioned it in the comments section.

  • PRO

    I would argue the core of feminism is to organize in...

    Feminism is inherently bigoted.

    I would argue the core of feminism is to organize in support of women's rights and interests. No one denies that such areas exist where that is valid, but if you only care about one in a subset of two those will not be equal. That does not mean equality, unless it is your view that only women suffer from gendered problems. If we use America as an example, the male- to female suicide rate is at least 3-1 (1), two thirds of the homeless are males (2), 90% of work related deaths (3) and 93% o prisoners (4) are males. These problems are not seen as gendered, despite obviously being such, because they benefit the right sex. I'm not blaming feminists for these problems, I'm saying their lack of empathy becomes visible by their complete lack of interest in them. I was drafted, talk about objectification. Once again, my argument is not that women are privileged, these are just examples that feminists do not care about. The only laws that discriminate based on sex are instituted by feminists. Duluth policies created by feminists seem designed to ignore men being abused. The sitting foreign minister of America has the audacity to say that women are the primary victims of war, because they lose their husbands, sons and fathers in war. (5) Could you imagine the reaction if Obama had came out and said men were the primary victims of breast cancer, since they might miss their relatives? Feminism is not about equality, it never has. Could you think of one onerous situation where women wanted the obligation and the right, and not just the right? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org... 2: http://www.endhomelessness.org... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org... 4: http://www.bop.gov... 5: https://en.wikiquote.org...

  • PRO

    But I somehow find them interconnected, if not the same....

    Feminism is cancer of contemporary society

    I'm really grateful to you for explaining me the "shades" of the same notion. But I somehow find them interconnected, if not the same. They are as synonimous, as irony and sarcasm are. The latter is an "upgraded" version of the first one. So basically, you're saying, that there are soft men-haters, mid men-haters and hardcore men-haters. Well yes, women were considered to be mistreated in the past, but are they now? Sure, there are countries in the world, that have certain traditions towards women, and they're not going to accept western gender agenda, but what about the rest? Women have all the rights to occupy prestigious positions (google Zaha Hadid, Theresa May, Patty Jenkins) , to earn a decent paycheck (maybe less than men, but still decent enough to live a life, and if it's not enough, then how much is enough?), not to raise children or give birth at all (for example, like in Denmark). But it turns out, that that's not enough. That's why I'm saying, that the goal was surpassed, there is nowhere to move on. Or is it? Should we have mixed-sex football teams? Man vs Woman MMA fights (actually, there is such thing as WWE, and there women sometimes fight men, google it too)? Women soldiers, that would lay their bodies on the battlefield, defending their country? Maybe we should have, but that's arguable. Now, rape. Yes, men do sexualise women, especially when women wear revealing clothes, which is now a common thing with most women. But that doesn't mean, that every man is capable of doing that. Plus nowadays cases of false rape accusation are gaining numbers. Only in these cases men are always on the losers' side, and most of the time men should do a spell in prison for something, they've never commited. The best part of these "rapists" are virgin, by the way. How cool is that? Does it mean I could be put in jail for rape too, though I've never had sex with a woman? I guess, this is a ture justice and equality according to feminists. "But I somehow find them interconnected, if not the same. They are as synonimous, as irony and sarcasm are. The latter is an "upgraded" version of the first one. So basically, you're saying, that there are soft men-haters, mid men-haters and hardcore men-haters. Well yes, women were considered to be mistreated in the past, but are they now? Sure, there are countries in the world, that have certain traditions towards women, and they're not going to accept western gender agenda, but what about the rest? Women have all the rights to occupy prestigious positions (google Zaha Hadid, Theresa May, Patty Jenkins) , to earn a decent paycheck (maybe less than men, but still decent enough to live a life, and if it's not enough, then how much is enough?), not to raise children or give birth at all (for example, like in Denmark). But it turns out, that that's not enough. That's why I'm saying, that the goal was surpassed, there is nowhere to move on. Or is it? Should we have mixed-sex football teams? Man vs Woman MMA fights (actually, there is such thing as WWE, and there women sometimes fight men, google it too)? Women soldiers, that would lay their bodies on the battlefield, defending their country? Maybe we should have, but that's arguable. Now, rape. Yes, men do sexualise women, especially when women wear revealing clothes, which is now a common thing with most women. But that doesn't mean, that every man is capable of doing that. Plus nowadays cases of false rape accusation are gaining numbers. Only in these cases men are always on the losers' side, and most of the time men should do a spell in prison for something, they've never commited. The best part of these "rapists" are virgin, by the way. How cool is that? Does it mean I could be put in jail for rape too, though I've never had sex with a woman? I guess, this is a ture justice and equality according to feminists. "Women have all the rights to occupy prestigious positions (google Zaha Hadid, Theresa May, Patty Jenkins) , to earn a decent paycheck (maybe less than men, but still decent enough to live a life, and if it's not enough, then how much is enough?), not to raise children or give birth at all (for example, like in Denmark). But it turns out, that that's not enough. That's why I'm saying, that the goal was surpassed, there is nowhere to move on. Or is it? Should we have mixed-sex football teams? Man vs Woman MMA fights (actually, there is such thing as WWE, and there women sometimes fight men, google it too)? Women soldiers, that would lay their bodies on the battlefield, defending their country? Maybe we should have, but that's arguable. Now, rape. Yes, men do sexualise women, especially when women wear revealing clothes, which is now a common thing with most women. But that doesn't mean, that every man is capable of doing that. Plus nowadays cases of false rape accusation are gaining numbers. Only in these cases men are always on the losers' side, and most of the time men should do a spell in prison for something, they've never commited. The best part of these "rapists" are virgin, by the way. How cool is that? Does it mean I could be put in jail for rape too, though I've never had sex with a woman? I guess, this is a ture justice and equality according to feminists. "Feminism also seeks to bring down all those patriarchal opinions that men should constantly prove their masculinity and ever shed a tear". But who said, that men cannot and shouldn't shed a tear? And what do you mean by "constantly prove their masculinity"? But this is how it actually works in the nature. The strongest one wins. Men are taught to be strong, in order to be able to keep family in tact. Let's take another perspective. Ask women, wether they would choose from two absolutely the same men, but one of them is stronger than the other, the weaker one. The thing is, they would not do that, because preference falls upon the stongest one, apparently. And it's absolutely normal, as this is in our instincts. We tend to stay close to the strongest. Now, feminism is trying to demolish this tendency. But who would benefit from it? I assume, no one, neither men, nor women. All I'm saying is that feminism has nothing to do with the notion of equality. It's all vice-versa. It deals too much damage to contemporary society, by imposing even more injustices and inequalities, than it should get rid of.

  • CON

    Not every feminist applies these ideologies effectively,...

    Feminism is a flawed ideology and has made women much more miserable

    The problem here is you're just making a broad statement about all feminists. There are at least 3 mainstream versions of feminism. Not every feminist subscribes to a specific version. Most feminists have their own views on what their tenants should be. You specifically say that the ideology of feminism is flawed. The ideology behind feminism is equality for woman. Do you have a problem with equality for woman? The tenants of modern feminism are simply drawn from this ideology. Not every feminist applies these ideologies effectively, But many do. Overall, Your argument is far too vague and unless you're in favor of woman being unequal to men, Then your argument won't even get off the ground, Let alone fly. Your floor.

  • CON

    I don't see where the confusion is? ... Sources: [1]...

    Humanism is a better ideology then Feminism

    You seem to be confused what the wage gap actually means. It means that a man and a woman working at the same position are paid less. This isn't about spending habits, or maternity leave. This ambiguity isn't present, and this whole maternity leave and periods being factors against hiring a person is stupid. The US has the one of the shortest periods for maternity leave, and there is no national program for mother's on this leave[1]. Uh, the point is that females make up at least half the population but have a fifth the representation in it's governing body. You claim there to be a grey area here my rapid, instantly assuming feminist brain is looking over, but unless you expect for me to open my heart and gain this information, I'm going to need an examples. Uh, no, that's a patriarchal ordeal. I don't know if actually read my argument, but there were SEVEN HUNDRED bills proposed to regulate the bodies of women. Now, I know republicans are persistent, but are you saying there were 700 bills on abortion alone? And the idea that because there are men and women that disagree/agree with abortion makes this NOT a gender issue is laughable at best and a poor attempt to sweep this under the rug at worst. Do you know what makes this a gender issue? There were 700 bills about the bodies of women, and none about men! I don't see where the confusion is? What did you even say here? Are you saying females dominate rape? You could back up your position with facts and resources but I guess you couldn't be asked. The point was that victims are blamed when they shouldn't be. Uh, you said feminists are lucky to have any ground in politics. You never say modern feminists, or extreme feminists, you just say feminists. From such a vague statement I thought you mean past feminism that got women's rights. So there wasn't a strawman there. It was you failing to specify which feminism, probably because you couldn't be asked. You can disagree with feminists, but to say they are lucky because they found a foothold in the modern day is plain disrespectful and dishonest. You say feminists aren't equipped to handle issues in Africa (not even sure what that means), though I'm assuming you got this information from one of the voices in your head because you don't even try to back this up. You even admitted in some round that humanism probably can't solve issues in Africa either, so what is even the point in saying this? I didn't contradict myself. Feminism is a movement for gender equality and to stop sexism. Women are often the victims of sexism, so women's rights are often what is fought for. I'd like to point out again that you seem to really dislike feminists but MRAs are cool in your book because the voices, I guess. Again, you are taking the exception and making it the rule. So your next paragraph can be summed up with, again, taking the exception and making it the rule. Being calm can get one's point across, but it isn't the only way. Also, you contradicted yourself here. You say feminists made enemies of the MRAs, not the other way around. However, go back to the second round, and you admit the MRAs say feminists are their enemies. Which is it, bud? You quoted him as if he was an authority on the subject. He's not, and he's definitely not qualified to be talking about such issues. May I also point out here that you are getting your ideas on gender politics... from a comedian? Sources: [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...

  • CON

    Victories such as gaining the vote, the right to an...

    Feminism Has Plenty More To Achieve

    Feminism has no more battles left to fight. Victories such as gaining the vote, the right to an abortion(in most of the northern hemisphere) and the right to equal pay were important and worth winning. But given that sexual equality is now - rightly - enshrined and protected in law, there is nothing left for the feminist movement to do in most western countries. It may still be useful in parts of the world where women still lack basic democratic and other rights. However, in western society the feminist cause in no longer needed.