args

Feminism more like sexism or more like (Female supremacy).

My opponant is getting the wrong idea of feminism. I am a feminist, and I am not sexist. Feminism is just the idea that women have rights. The same way a neurosurgeon specializes in fixing your brain is the same way feminists specialize in women's rights.

Modern feminism is beneficial to America, and does not cause harm.

I am going to be arguing that the title of this debate is NOT true. My opponent will attempt to give an argument as to why modern, 3rd-wave feminism is beneficial to America, and does not cause any harm.

Feminism is a useless movement in the U.S. in todays political landscape

I think that feminism should be in order because women are the best of many of the genders. We all know there are many genders but women are the top of the food chain! #Hillary4president

Modern Feminism (Third-Wave Feminism) Destroys Men and Their Families

I am eager to debate against my opponent, seeing as he, admittedly, is a well-dictioned, mature debater. I anticipate debating with you. My arguments will consist mainly of how Modern Feminism has benefitted society through acts such as donations, peaceful protests that advocated women's rights for areas such as the Middle East, etc. I will be sure to back my claims with valid sources. I ask that my opponent does not use pictures of feminists with short hair, candy red hair dye, screaming at a crowd calling for the extermination of all men to back up his claims... Good luck, and may the odds be ever in your favor...

Feminism is and has achieved equality. 3rd wave feminism is oppressive.

To say that feminism has achieved equality is nonsense. First, let's clarify what we mean by 'feminist'. 'Feminism' is a broad, umbrella title that covers a lot of different types of feminism, each with differing goals and each with different ways to achieve them. It's like saying someone's a Christian. There's lots of types of Christianity, each with different beliefs and different ways of practising their beliefs. Second, let's clarify what third wave feminism (TWF) actually is: In short, TWF is mainly to do with challenging gender norms (e.g. why do we associate pink with girls and blue with boys. Feminine appearance vs masculine appearance, etc.), calling for reproductive rights, and celebrating sexuality as a means of female empowerment. Also, of course, TWF challenges norms of language (e.g. why is it the accepted way to use 'he' as a general pronoun, when 'he' is clearly male?) TWF has different views and different beliefs, but, generally, these are the main topics. Thirdly, I dare say some TWFs are oppressive - the extremist types. There are also extremist Christians, extremist Muslims, etc. Are you going to say that all Christians or all Muslims are extremist because of a few you see on TV? No. That's silly. Similarly, you wouldn't call all TWF extremists just because of one or two. You haven't actually given any reason or examples why you think people view TWF as a "controlling tool and a movement of aggression, lies, misinformation and manipulation". You just stated it. Asserting something isn't an argument. Nor does it make it true. Please provide reasons beyond anecdotal evidence. You may only have heard the words "male privilege, wage gaps, misogyny, slut shaming" etc. from feminists because they are the ones who notice it or want to bring it to our attention. You're proving their point if you ignore it. They mention it so that it is brought to our attention so we can do something about it. Pretending such problems don't exist doesn't mean they'll go away. Feminists bring them up so they can be challenged. And they're right. There IS a certain type of privilege for men over women. Employers are more likely to employ a white male over a black female. Or even more simple, every day examples - men are allowed to show more skin. Men aren't stigmatised if they go around topless. Women are. In 2013, women made 22% less than men in almost every occupation (source: http://www.iwpr.org... ). Wage gaps are real. 'Slut shaming' is a problem that harkens back to male privilege. There's a double standard. A guy can have sex with lots of girls and be called a 'lad' or a 'champion', having 'conquered' the female body. If a girl does it, she's a 'slut' or a 'tramp'. Such issues are real problems. That's why you hear feminists talking about them. (Though are they feminists and they talk about them, or are they feminists *because* they talk about them?) These are things that TWF clearly wants to get rid of - the male privilege, the double standard between sexes, the pay gaps. They also want to challenge more than that. It's also a matter of girl privilege and boy privilege. Girls can play with pink dolls when they're younger. If a boy does it, he's told he should play with the blue army toys. A boy would be told off for playing with girl toys or dressing in 'girl' clothes, such as dresses or skirts. These things are gendered. TWF tries to challenge this. They believe that everyone should be free to play with whatever toys or wear whatever colour without the stigma attached. (OF COURSE, blue/pink or boys toys/girls toys are just a small example of the issue, but that's the most obvious, easiest example to illustrate it with.) And... Women have asked to be able to do what they want before. And men have stopped them doing it. There was a suffragette movement in the UK for a number of years before the government conceded and gave women over 30 the right to vote. Women in Ireland have argued for the right to contraceptives for years before being given it in 1980. Women are STILL arguing for abortion rights. So to say "Did they ask before and were denied, not to anyones knowledge!" is false. Women have asked and they HAVE been denied. Many times. And "if men were so bad to woman, why would we even pass a bill to allow woman to do what they finally asked to be able to do?" - There are many answers to this question, the main two being: 1) Not all men hate women. That's pretty clear. Extreme feminists might, but then we're discounting them because it's clear they're crazed. We're talking about the more moderate types of TWF. 2) I'll assume you mean the right to vote? Because otherwise you're not making any sense. Women have asked for many different things and they haven't got it all. But they have the right to vote in many Western countries. They got the vote in the UK after a while and after wearing the UK government down. The suffragettes were quite active during World War One. This put more pressure on the UK government to get a deal done because they were taking their attention away from the war. David Lloyd-George's house was set alight, for example. The Representation of the People's Act 1918 was passed after the suffragettes became quite aggressive. It was a calming measure. (People also say it was to thank the women for the work they did during the war. That might be part of it, but the aggression from the suffragettes certainly helped.) It isn't called 'egalitarianism' because they have different origins. Feminism initially meant to advocate women's rights. Since then, it has changed massively. Now-a-days, they roughly are the same. Feminism, however, has different emphasises - things particularly to do with gender and sexuality, etc. But they aim for, relatively, the same goals.

Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries

Now before I get started I would like to point out that I explicitly stated that no rebuttals are allowed in the second round. Pro did not follow this rule. Therefore any rebuttals she made in the second round should be disregarded of. If Pro wishes to restate those rebuttals in this round where they were meant to be, that's fine by me. However anything she said in round 2 that was a rebuttal does not count and the voters should not consider nor read. Ok now onto my rebuttals for Pro's statements. " To first prove this contention, I will briefly define what feminism is: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." " This literally proves nothing. This is a terrible and close minded defense of Feminism. Please do not take this the wrong way, I am insulting the argument, not you. This is like responding to someone saying the US is very split by saying "But it's the UNITED states, how can it be split if it's called United? " Words and movements will almost always differentiate from their original purposes and definitions. Feminism's meaning and definition should not be what some person wrote down and instead what their actions reflect. So we are to judge Feminism by it's actions and not by it's dictionary definition. "Need I remind anyone that feminism - that being the advocacy of women's rights - has allowed women to serve in the military and to vote" This debate is about modern feminism. What feminism did decades ago has no relevance in this debate. "both from the black populace and LGBTQAA populace." Gendered issues are incredibly different from race and sexual orientation issues. For example with race it's incredibly different for something I believe is called the tribal effect. What this means is issues with gender are completely different from issues with race because during tribal days men and women had the most intimate relationships, father, mother, husband, wife, brother, sister etc. As a result any issues they have aren't really issues of hate, but issues of stereotypes. For race on the other hand back in tribal days there were no blacks and whites sharing intimate relationships on a mass scale, this lead to tension for the others are different from themselves. This is what some issues are stemmed on. Because of this it's fairly ridiculous to compare gender and race issues as if they were the same thing. "Feminism is also responsible for the social awareness of different double-standards that impact both men and women." Feminism also caused many of the double standards they chose to ignore. Mostly aimed towards men. "Again, feminism is about equality for all genders. " As I have went on and on about in round 2 the movement's actions do not reflect this. You are still yet to prove that feminism actually does this, for all the evidence you have really offered is an irrelevant definition. "http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... " Some of the examples this article gives kind of fascinate me because it's like the author is living in a completely different world. On the other hand some of these issues are spot on and legitimate. However I think it's fairly clear the author tackles the issue with a complete misunderstanding of the problem. For example, some of the things this author talks about really haven't been serious issues for decades. Many of the other issues the author really implies are gendered issues caused by sexism, but in reality the problem really isn't with society but instead the problem is with something deep inside ourselves. Jealousy, insecurity, the list goes on. Why do you think some people will judge others for dressing too revealing or too prude? Is it sexism? No, it's personal insecurities. A lot of these issues just stem from people wanting to be something they're not. Instead of tackling the issue themselves and trying to make themselves better they blame it on sexism. Honestly, it's kind of sad. "I would like Con, as well as the audience watching this debate take place, to look at the following article explaining 23 ways that feminism has better improved the lives of women." So I read the list and have a few things to say. 1. Many of these hold no relevance to this debate for it is not about modern feminism so I have no response to those. 2. So let me call out this one gem in the article. "They called out rape culture." Rape culture, it's been a long time since I have heard those two words. So let me ask you this, do you honestly think we live in a rape culture. I'm legitimately curious. We live in a society that views rape as one of the most disgusting and horrible crimes. In a society that views rape that way, rape culture clearly does not exist and it blows my mind that people think it does. There's a lot of articles/sources you can read up about this, but here's one http://www.usnews.com... 3. Many of these really just aren't true. 4. Many of these are irrelevant to feminism or don't reflect the movement as a whole. 5. The rest of these aren't exactly helping us reach equality or weren't done by the feminist movement. "And then to also take a close look at this next article explaining how feminism is truly an interest mutual to more than just woman - but to men" Interesting. Was feminism mutually beneficial when they painted men as the primary perpetrators for DV which has about equal male and female perpetration? Was feminism beneficial to men and women when they train law enforcement to be biased against men? Did feminism improve the conditions of men when they biased family courts to strip fathers away from their children regardless of whether they were the parent that could offer the best care to their child? No, feminism is not mutually beneficial to men and women. There's only one group of people feminists benefit. Feminists. Not women, just feminists. Now as I stated before no rebuttals were allowed in Round 2 so anything after this point should be disregarded of. Now to extend my arguments. many feminists defend their movement when someone brings up the issues men face is by saying either 1. That feminism helps men's issues by destroying stereotypes. 2. That men's issues are completely separate from female issues. One analogy I heard was "that's like saying someone who cured breast cancer hates the effort to cure lung cancer". Well the reason why both of these defenses are simply wrong is because feminism doesn't just help solve men's issues or do nothing about them. Instead it makes the problem worse and the movement as a whole tries to stop anything from being done about male issues. For example, consider this article/video: http://www.avoiceformen.com............ In this video there is a woman who talks about her efforts to bring awareness to men's issues is shut down and censored by Feminists. Clearly Feminism, as a whole, is not helping us solve men's issues. As I stated before it is making the problem worse. Now a lot of people (probably feminists) will refute this and say "Well not all feminists are like that"or "They aren't true feminists". The thing is I am asking the question of whether the movement as a whole is helping society, not if all feminists are bad. Also the thing about saying they are not true feminists is that people like them represent the face of feminism. They are usually the ones who control the policy in place, they control the movements and they control what the movement actually changes. A perfect example of how feminist policy has hurt society and driven us further from equality can be found here: http://www.avoiceformen.com............ . This article by Karen Straughan talks about how once domestic violence (Let's us DV for short) started getting public attention there were two main approaches to solve the problem. One of them saw it as gender neutral. This was lead by a woman named Erin Pizzey. She founded the first battered women's shelter. What she found while running her shelter was 60% of the women were as violent or even more violent than the men they were fleeing. And then there's the second approach, the feminist one. This model says that men are always the violent ones and are beating their partners to oppress them and to make their partners fear them. This model is based on what is called "patriarchy theory". This model became entrenched and seen as the most common and correct model by law enforcement, social workers and judges. This model is adopted by many of the 1st world, western countries including the US, Canada and the UK. In other words this model is the status quo. Despite being seen as the model that fits almost every case of domestic violence, in reality, it makes up the smallest minority of cases. The feminist model overtook the more benevolent model ran by Erin Pizzey, despite Pizzey's model being far more accurate and helpful. The feminist model has resulted in male victims of DV being seen as a joke and offered little to no help. Feminism did not help the issue. Feminism made the problem worse. Feminism is not helping 1st world countries reach gender equality, hence the resolution. As Karen Straughan put it, "If society was feminists, and blacks were men, they would scream ever louder that blacks are the primary offenders and that other races almost never commit such crimes, that the crime itself stems from "toxic, hegemonic blackness", they would ignore the evidence, suppress the evidence, intimidate or shun researchers who produce the evidence, engage in threats of violence against researchers who publish the evidence, and continue their attempts to entrench their view of blackness being integral to said crime into legislation and policy." To put what she said in other words: The way feminists view men and women in DV is dangerously similar to how racist whites view blacks in crime in a way that justifies systematic oppression. To you pro

1st world (thrid wave) Feminism has not merit in the 21st century

I'll accept that debate & thank JediDude for the posting of it. Since first round is acceptance I won't post arguments but I will share definitions for "First world" & "Third Wave Feminism." If Pro does not concur, I hope to see alternate definitions in the 2nd round. "First World" seems like an anachronism of Cold War rhetoric, roughly corresponding to well-developed NATO allies. Wikipedia suggests that since 1991, "the definition has instead largely shifted to any country with little political risk and a well functioning democracy, rule of law, capitalist economy, economic stability and high standard of living." [1] I suspect that definitions of "Third Wave" Feminism vary according to perspective but are best understood as a continuation of and simultaneous reaction to Second Feminism. If First Wave Feminism is understood as Suffragism and the struggle to overcome the legal barriers preventing enfranchisement and Second Wave as the social struggle to achieve cultural parity, then Third Wave Feminism might be seen as the struggle to reject the paradigms of patriarchy and define a more inclusive set of social identities in reaction to a transformed social order. Susan B. Anthony is a generally accepted icon of the First Wave. Mary Tyler Moore might be seen as an icon of the Second Wave, asserting her value in the workplace, rejecting the necessity of marriage or motherhood as part of her contribution to society. A Third Wave feminist icon might be Buffy the Vampire Slayer- achieving a heroic value unattainable by men while assembling a network of family, friends, & lovers to satisfy the needs of her calling, her identity in defiance of the patriarchal Watchers. In response to Pro's argument, I intend to argue that Third Wave Feminism has at least some merit for women in the 21st Century. Hope the definitions help. I look forward to Pro's argument in the second round. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...