Feminism is based upon female entitlement to male achievements.
I noted that in order to prove that based on the blanket wording of the resolution,
my opponent needed to prove that all feminists hold this belief. My opponent countered
by claiming that this is a fallacy of division. Unfortunately, he does not grasp the
nature of the fallacy of division, which holds that if an object has a property, then
claiming all of its parts must have that property is fallacious. Let me give examples
to explain why this fallacy does not apply. If I claim that a Boeing 747 can fly unaided
across the ocean and that a Boeing 747 has jet engines, and then conclude that one
of its jet engines can fly unaided across the ocean, I have committed the fallacy
of division because I am assuming that part of the object has the same property as
the whole. In this case, the parts of the object are not independent entities; rather,
the engines, wings, etc. literally come together to comprise that object. Now, suppose
I have a tablet computer and a desktop. Both are independent objects that we categorize
with the set name "computer". If I claim that in order to prove that computers as
a whole have touchscreens, both desktops and tablets must have them, my opponent cannot
claim that I am committing the fallacy of division since the two types of computers
do not come together to create a computer; rather, they are independent objects that
we describe with a set called "computer". Similarly, different feminist ideologies
are not parts of a feminist theory; rather, feminism is a term used to describe a set of independent theories with specific characteristics.
In order to prove that the set used to describe all of the objects has a characteristic,
he needs to prove that every object in the set has that characteristic. Feminist Separatism
is an ideology that advocates the creation of female-only societies without any materials,
objects, inventions, etc. from males. This ideology does not advocate using male achievements,
so the set of theories fitting under feminism do not all have that characteristic. My opponent does not fulfill his burden and
you automatically negate. He next gives an unsourced argument that contends that "If
all people deserve equal political, economic, and social rights, people exist together
successfully. Females exist together successfully. Therefore, females deserve equal
political, economic, and social rights." He then states that this excludes males.
I would like to see the source for this nonsensical strawman. I have never seen any
feminist use this type of flawed reasoning, and I highly doubt that he has either.
In any case, even if he gives an example of a single feminist who does this, this
argument is not a property of the set "feminism" because not all of the feminist ideologies argue this. More importantly, however,
this claim is entirely fallacious because it pretends that feminists advocate equal
rights based on consequentialist reasons (i.e. it helps people exist together successfully),
but feminism argues that people should have these rights because they are human rights, and that
they deserve these rights regardless of the benefit to society. Feminists support
these rights deontologically and claim that they are natural extensions of human dignity,
and not that people have them because it is good for social cohesion. Feminists also
note that these rights extend to all humans, so they are not excluding males. In fact,
the nature of rights is entirely reciprocal because rights imply moral entitlements,
meaning that all individuals, regardless of gender, are due the same protections.
Males will not kill females, for example, and females will not kill males, because
both groups have the right to life. Undoubtedly, he will respond to this by claiming
that I am playing semantic games and that what he really means is that males are entitled
to things like rights and an education because other males contributed to them. He
is going to say that since females did not create them, they do not have any claim
to them and that feminism is wrongfully taking those things from males. What feminism does is explain that this entitlement mindset is nonsense. Males are not any more
entitled to social goods than females just because other males created them; in fact,
this claim is precisely what he condemns: theft. The ideas and objects that people
create belong to them and not to people who share common characteristics with them
and thus the people who share characteristics with them have no more claim to them
than others. Feminism notes that if males who feel bad about themselves because they are worthless losers
and have no achievements of their own can act as leeches claiming partial ownership
over the achievements of others, then there is no reason that females cannot also do the same thing by claiming kinship due to common
humanity. Feminism is not advocating entitlement to male-owned achievements; it is
advocating the equitable distribution of goods that belong to everyone or to no one.
In addition, feminists do not want access to goods like rights and education because
they want to dominate men; rather, they want basic rights and goods so that they can
also contribute to society in a meaningful manner and advance fields such as science
and philosophy. Feminists are not trying to take things without reciprocally giving;
rather, they are attempting to make sure that females can reciprocate and give back
to society. My opponent's brand of anti-feminism would have them benefit, at least
marginally through a better lifestyle, from such benefits without giving them an opportunity
to return the favor. My opponent might claim that the reciprocal behavior stems from
the reproductive capacities of females, but note that this capacity remains the same
regardless of the returns that males in a male-dominated society would give. Females
are still giving birth regardless of the existence of voting or electricity, for example.
So, he argues that not reciprocating for advantages is wrong, but then denies females
the opportunity to reciprocate. Feminism, however, wishes to help females gain that
chance. Argument 1 attempts to derive the notion that society should force people
to prioritize needs over wants through the nonaggression principle. This completely
contradicts the nonaggression principle, however; the principle is "a moral stance
which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes
of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person
or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of
others that physically affect an individual's property or person (which may also be
considered that person's property), no matter if the result of those actions is damaging,
beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they
are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination
or the principle of self-ownership." [5] What the principle notes is that even if
an action has a positive consequence for society or even for the victim of aggression,
forcing them to do specific actions is immoral because it violates the principle of
autonomy. This completely contradicts my opponent's claim that society should force
people into specific roles for consequentialist ends; such an action would be immoral
according to the moral philosophy that my opponent decided to champion. This, ultimately,
is what feminists argue; rather than forcing people into specific roles, feminists
champion the right to autonomy for all people, not just males. His first argument
is self-contradictory and flows negative. Even if you buy that we need to prioritize
needs over wants, note that this still promotes the goals of feminism. Under traditional
societies, females do not have control over their own bodies and were routinely subjected
to such autonomy-violating procedures as marital rape, arranged marriages, and domestic
violence. Because they were unable to obtain higher education and seek employment,
they had no escape valve from situations that threatened their well-being. Feminism
advocates fulfilling this need by grating females the capacity to be safe. Argument
2 attempts to claim that gender roles are natural and therefore just. He first argues
that males are agents of death and females are agents of life. The problem is that
these are socially assigned roles; there is no reason that either gender is intrinsically
incapable of pursuing either role. He claims that men are selfishly altruistic based
on necessity and cites a study that refutes almost every one of his claims. According
to his study, which examines 38 students and attempts to extrapolate the results to
all of humanity, when in a group setting in which active and passive roles existed,
males took advantage of the active roles every single time, not out of necessity,
but rather out of a desire to show off for the females. If females were psychologically
predisposed to not exhibit this type of altruistic behavior, then females would have
no desire to take the active role and would have taken the passive one. The study
notes, however, that females wanted to take the active roles but that the males prevented
them from doing so and instead assigned them the stereotypically clerical (passive)
role. What this indicates is that there is nothing intrinsic to human nature that
prevents females from taking such roles; in fact, in the absence of males, they did.
Rather, it was the males who were forcing them to not have those roles that they wanted
and were capable of performing. His justification for gender roles is based on the
intrinsic difference between males and females by which males want to take active
roles and females want to take passive roles, but that difference does not exist according
to the study he cited. The difference in role allocation was a result of male forcefulness,
and not a result of psychological orientation. Moreover, the notion that females are
supposed to be biologically selfish is absolutely false. What the study notes is not
that females are likely to be selfish and males altruistic, but rather that males
were more likely to engage in heroic-type behavior. All altruistic behavior is not
heroic behavior, however. Females engage in altruism even in traditional gender roles
since they become the primary care-givers of children. Both genders are inherently
capable of altruism. He next attempts to justify gender roles based on physiological
differences. He notes that males produce more testosterone than females and have larger
brains. While it is true that the male brain is larger, female brains have a greater
surface area, more nerve cells, and more cellular connections, meaning that the female
brain is more efficient at processing data and using both sides of the brain [1] In
addition, the female brain has better memory skills and is much more creative than
the brain male is [1]. This is empirically proven by the fact that more females graduate
from high school, college, and graduate schools than males [2], have higher GPAs[3],
as well as the fact that in July 2012, studies noted that in developed nations in
which males and females receive equal educational opportunities, females have a higher
IQ than males do [4]. What this means is that even if you believe my opponent's argument
that society should force people into specific roles based on characteristics, you
still vote for me because feminism advocates putting females in intellectual fields based on their inherent capacity
to succeed while my opponent's brand of anti-feminism would not grant females roles that they are suited for. Most importantly, however,
even if the evidence I provided is completely disregarded, my opponent's argument
devolves into a contradictory notion that argues that we should have gender roles
because on average, members of a specific gender will be better at performing tasks
than members of the other gender. This ignores, however, the fact that some members
of the other gender will be better at performing the tasks at hand than the average
member of the gender that is stereotypically assigned that role, and thus prevents
those individuals from fulfilling their potential. For example, I have an IQ of 148,
was the salutatorian of my competitive private high school, had an extremely high
SAT score, was a National Merit Finalist, attend an Ivy League institution, etc. I
have more than outstripped my average male counterparts in terms of educational ability.
My dream is to become a lawyer. Why should I be denied that dream on the basis that
my opponent believes that the average male is better suited to be a lawyer than the
average female? Why should a male who is less qualified than I am have that advantage
while I do not? Why should I be resigned to a life of cooking, cleaning, and baby-producing
for no reason other than the fact that I have a specific set of reproductive organs?
Feminism advocates abolishing this type of categorical reasoning and attempts to judge people
based on their abilities rather than on their characteristics. This, ultimately, fits
my opponent's claim that we should assign people to roles based on their abilities
better than his argument that we should blanketly force people into roles based on
averages. Even if you believe his "roles" analysis, you still negate because feminism advocates giving people what they deserve based on their qualities while his brand
of anti-feminism does not. On to Argument 3. He first lists a variety of male achievements and claims
that, absent males, these things would not exist. He conveniently ignores the fact
that most of these achievements were conceived of in an era in which females were
not permitted to seek higher education and were resigned to fruitless lives as baby-making
machines. In light of the testimony that I have provided about female intelligence
and educational ability, there is no reason to believe that, absent such type of immoral
coercive action, females would not have been able to contribute to such fields as
well. In fact, whenever females were able to obtain education, they made stunning
contributions to a variety of fields. Lise Meitner discovered nuclear fission and
explained how it functioned and thus was responsible for the later research that led
to the development of the atomic bomb. Marie Curie discovered radiation. Rosalind
Franklin used X-Ray Crystallography to discover the structure of DNA, a discovery
that singlehandedly advanced the field of biology. Barbara McClintock revolutionized
genetics when she discovered transposons. Dorothy Hodgkin discovered the chemical
structure of penicillin, an important discovery that drug companies currently employ
to create cheap, penicillin-like alternatives. Hypatia was an Ancient Greek astronomer
and mathematician who made important contributions to math and philosophy. There are
countless examples of females who have contributed to the advancement of fields that
we apply in our daily lives; these are not restricted just to males. In fact, stripping
females of their ability to participate in such fields and failing to remember their
achievements as my opponent does amounts to little more than claiming ownership over
the advancements that they made for society. What this demonstrates is that male sacrifice
is not the only tool for advancement; female sacrifice has been critical as well,
and that both male and female sacrifice are necessary for society to prosper. Feminism recognizes this; my opponent does not. Feminism is not based on entitlement to male achievements, but rather on entitlement to self-ownership
and the ability to author one's own destiny. Sources http://www.thirdage.com... http://www.good.is...
https://chronicle.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
