args

Let's talk about Feminism

As I have said in the previous round women do not receive the same rights as men in many countries including the UK and USA. You claim that you have bumped into feminists yet you also claim that you don't know what more they could want? I'm pretty sure that if you stopped to talk to them they would have told you what they wanted. As I mentioned earlier women are fighting for the same wages as men (for the same jobs). Continuing on from this point women also find it significantly harder to receive the senior positions that men do. "The overall gender pay gap, which the Office for National Statistics defines as the difference between men"s and women"s hourly earnings as a percentage of men"s earnings, stands at a record low of 19.1pc as of April 2014, after increasing for the first time in five years to 19.8pc last year. For full-time workers, the pay gap narrowed to an all-time low of 9.4pc from 10pc last year. Women working full-time saw their earnings increase more than their male counterparts this year, by 0.6pc compared with 0.3pc, which took the average weekly earnings as of April 2014 to "462 for women and "558 for men." This is not equality. Men can get custody, but if the judge feels that the kids would be better off with the mother ( and usually at a young age they will) Also they consider the gender of the kids, who takes the kids to school, drs appointments, who cooks for them, picks their clothes, etc. and most of the time it is a mother. If there is a male child and he is older they will likely want to put him with the father. I'm pretty sure that if you stopped to talk to them they would have told you what they wanted. As I mentioned earlier women are fighting for the same wages as men (for the same jobs). Continuing on from this point women also find it significantly harder to receive the senior positions that men do. "The overall gender pay gap, which the Office for National Statistics defines as the difference between men"s and women"s hourly earnings as a percentage of men"s earnings, stands at a record low of 19.1pc as of April 2014, after increasing for the first time in five years to 19.8pc last year. For full-time workers, the pay gap narrowed to an all-time low of 9.4pc from 10pc last year. Women working full-time saw their earnings increase more than their male counterparts this year, by 0.6pc compared with 0.3pc, which took the average weekly earnings as of April 2014 to "462 for women and "558 for men." This is not equality. Men can get custody, but if the judge feels that the kids would be better off with the mother ( and usually at a young age they will) Also they consider the gender of the kids, who takes the kids to school, drs appointments, who cooks for them, picks their clothes, etc. and most of the time it is a mother. If there is a male child and he is older they will likely want to put him with the father. Feminism isn't about whether you have the right to slap a man or not. It is about important issues. Who cares if a woman slaps a man. If it is serious the police and the court will get involved - if not then the man should be a responsible adult and deal with it. Feminism is about equality that will improve a woman's life quality to the same life quality of a man. Wages and job positions are important. The right to slap a man is not. When I wrote about men being paid more than women (in case this is unclear) I was talking about men being paid more than women for doing the same jobs - with the same amount of work. Sources http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... https://answers.yahoo.com... (verified)

Today's types of Feminism isn't needed

Now, With "types" of Feminism which was my argument title, I meant the difference from fighting inequality, To woman dominance. Presiding you brought up wage gap, Simply the statistics aren't as accurate as you think. With a man and women, You have to count overtime and undertime, Statistically women work more then men, But men work more overtime them women, Overtime presides more money then just regularly working, This would provide more waging for the person which is not statistically a male, To have a bigger salary, And when that isn't taken into account, "wage gap" becomes and explained problem which is a different standard.

Feminism is no longer beneficial to our modern society

Thanks Con. I would say it doesn't matter anymore because in our society women don't have it much harder and the work they have to do to achieve a similar amount of materialistic success as men. As of the payment gap, there are a few problems with using that as a source of argument. The minor problem is that the information is rather updated and women gets a paid maternity leave for about a year. The bigger problem is that it is a global data, not fitting with the rules of this debate. These is not factors listed under your sources. Boys are also often exposed to sexual harassment and the only reason men are not is because of natural physical advantage which men are slowly losing. As of birth control and reproductive rights, again, if you read the rules of this debate properly, third world and developing countries are out of the picture and I don't see UK and US having birth control problems right? You didn't define reproductive rights but I think you meant abortion which should totally be banned. Women should, just like men, be held responsible for their actions. Again, as of rape, we see a loophole, we can strengthen law enforcement but allowing abortion is like twisting the whole system to allow rape. Because the men do not have wombs, men don't have to care about abortion and birth control as much as women, but if they do, for some reason, well, they don't have much more rights. As of the second rebuttal, yes, you can say they are not true feminists, but you have to admit that they are indeed sparked by feminism. And feminism is what makes them look appropriate and proportionate to some people. Quotes aren't that powerful, I just used a famous one to support my point because I was running out of time. Do you see any major feminist campaign that 1, doesn't call itself humanist/equalist and 2, provide equal service to both men and women? As of the racism thing, I have a similar view. At first it was great, Martin Luther King did a great job and achieved a lot. But today, if there are still people constantly stressing the fact that blacks don't receive equal treatment which, in some cases is true, I will be solemnly annoyed. The movement was good but if it is pushed any farther, it is a little too much. I apologise for the Japanese example which you seemingly have no experience in (no offense, very few do). However, I can prove that I am right. (I am not going to now. If you want me to, you can tell me to in the comments section, I really am not trying to search for excuses, I simply want to stay on topic). In fact, I will post it in the comments section right afterwards. I think you do have to remember that a lot of feminists still go by the "tell men not to rape" ideology. The program will be perfectly fine IF it is not sexist to create a similar program that is boys only. "Pro has yet to demonstrate that such programs are a result of feminism". Umm... They are not, sort of. The fact is, without feminism, there will be no programs like this. Again, I wonder if you read the definitions and rules of the debate. Just read the definition of feminism... Yes, it is true that the commercial didn't paint it in positive light, but that argument can be used on a lot of things. Can you defend ABC by saying Jimmy Kimmel didn't put killing all Chinese people in positive light? The fact that if the person said sorry it's a girl will cause an outcry proves my point. And you can try to prove me wrong in the comments section. Again, what you said is true but you should have read my definition of modern society which is not correct but we have to settle for for the sake of this debate. Yah, it wasn't very clear, but what I mean is that we need to be able to oppose feminism without sounding like trolls and keyboard warriors. Right now, this isn't entirely feminism's fault but it seems as if it is immoral to oppose feminism and anyone who is doing so is crazy and adsorb. Now that I finished countering your rebuttals, here is another point I would like to introduce. In our modern society, again, referring to my definition, feminists are simply too close minded. It seems as though they will just dismiss anyone who disagrees with their ideology as trolls and I think that is part of the reason it developed men hate. Men are less "proficient" at being "brainwashed" by this ideology while women, generally, become immediately attached to the concept.

3rd wave feminism has made notable progress for civil rights

Again, I thank Con for the rebuttal and for taking the time with this debate. I asked Con to participate due to some comments regarding feminism which I believed to be poorly informed. I simply wished for Con to defend their assertions in an organized format. I appreciate Con's willingness to engage on this issue. Rebuttal: "3rd wave feminism didn't cause what you said it caused, it supported what you said it caused, therefore there's not even a reason to explore point A further" Con offers no sources to support this opinion, nor can he point out, using my sources, where this opinion is at all supported. "You didn't support your own claim (again) and now are twisting it into another claim (again) to maintain some form of integrity." Con has already admitted the BOP has been met. That being said, Con still offers no sources or quotations to indicate where I have "twisted" a claim. " Your own source defeats your claims that 3rd Wave had any real hand in Sex Positivism" Con is incorrect, and offers no quotations from the sources to support this opinion. The fact is, Sex Positivity is a tremendous aspect of third wave feminism, which joined together many more defined feminist schools of thought. Gayle Rubin (Rubin, 1984) summarizes the conflict over sex within feminism, between the 2nd and third waves: "...There have been two strains of feminist thought on the subject. One tendency has criticized the restrictions on women's sexual behavior and denounced the high costs imposed on women for being sexually active. This tradition of feminist sexual thought has called for a sexual liberation that would work for women as well as for men. " (1) "Also considered part of the third wave is sex-positivity, a celebration of sexuality as a positive aspect of life, with broader definitions of what sex means and what oppression and empowerment may imply in the context of sex. For example, many third-wave feminists have reconsidered the opposition to pornography and sex work of the second wave, and challenge existing beliefs that participants in pornography and sex work are always being exploited."(2) "This is again a shifting of the same arguments because it's an attempt to push ownership for Sex Positivism by 3rd Wave" Con claims that suggesting Sex Positivity in general influenced third wave feminism nullifies any civil rights advances the movement has created, which is not logical. If we operate under this logic, historians would say the French Revolution had no influence on the American Revolution, because it happened beforehand. They would say Thomas Payne had no hand in creating the structure of our Constitution, despite his tremendous philosophical influence on the authors. If one will look above, they can see that I haven not once claimed that Sex Positivity was a result of Third Wave feminism, only that the progress made toward that objective is owed in great part to the third wave feminism movement which adopted Sex Positive theory and brought it to the public eye. Blogs such as the below, illustrate this fact. "Sex-positivity is quite simple. It holds that there is really no wrong way to do human sexuality as long as all parties involved give their consent. The sex-positive movement is closely intertwined with (third wave) feminism because the oppression of sexualities which fall outside the normative (white, monogamous, and heterosexual) is a major tool of the patriarchy. "(3) "straight red herring." Not at all. Con suggests that a movement or designation can only exist once the terminology has been set in stone. The term Capitalism did not exist prior to Marx's writings, therefore, Con must believe America is not a Capitalist nation. Sex positive theory was codified into the greater Third Wave Feminist movement once that terminology was established, just as America became a "capitalist" nation when Marx coined the term. This is another example of the theory pre-dating the terminology. "Furthermore Pro starts off by attempting to assert that the Third Wave existed before the Third Wave " Just as Capitalism existed before "Capitalism". This is a simple correlation to make. "which is not equivalent to saying "Not All 2nd Wave agreed on matter X" which is just intellectually dishonest and a means to inject one's vantage point into any time period or situation." Con offers no sources to support the assumption that Third Wave feminism formed spontaneously, rather than transformed over time from positions which were not accepted by the mainstream 2nd wave. Con claims my argument uses the "Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent", because I assert that the theories which formed Third Wave Feminism had an impact on civil rights. Con claims this by misdefining the term: "If X supports concept A and A is a core of group B and then X is a member of group B." Con's example above is not the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. The actual fallacy is represented as "If A results in B, and B is present, that must mean A was the cause." EX. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich. (the true statement) Bill Gates is rich. (the true variable) Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox. (the fallacy) Let's attribute this to Con's example: If a person pre-90's identified as a Feminist but supported Sex Positivism (the true statement) then they were actually a 3rd Wave Feminist. - (The true variable) *****Missing (The Fallacy) Con is missing the last half of the "fallacy", because they have misattributed it. (4) It would have been better represented as: If a Pre-90's person is Sex Positive, he/she is a Third wave feminist. (the true statement) So and so is a Third Wave Feminist. (The true variable) Therefore so and so is Sex Positive. (the fallacy) Not all third wave feminists are Sex Positive, but all Sex Positive people are Third Wave Feminists, at least in that regard (obviously not on every subject), whether they are aware or not. Just as America was a "Capitalist" nation, even before the term was coined. "Pro stated that third-wave feminism, in their opening, had a direct impact on the GBLTQ, specifically the T, and failed to prove it which was shown through yet another chronological error." Again, Con offers no sources or citations to support this statement, save for their own opinion. "Trans feminism"that is, transgender perspectives on feminism, or feminist perspectives on transgender issues"is one of many so-called "third-wave" feminisms. Its origins are closely linked with other feminist submovements"specifically, sex-positive feminism, postmodern/poststructuralist feminism, queer theory and intersectionality."(5) "3rd wave again absorbed rather than directly effected T" 1. In no way has anyone suggest trans feminism was influenced by the third wave. It influenced the creation of and was incorporated into the Third Wave, much like the Sex Positive movement. 2. This does not demonstrate that Third Wave trans feminists have not had a notable impact on civil rights. It can be seen that Trans feminism is a facet of the third wave, and as we have already established, Trans feminism has had a notable impact on civil rights. The wider discourse in academia is proof of that. (6)(7) Con again attempts to claim that a movement cannot be considered a movement until the terminology is created. This is the same flawed argument Con has based their entire rebuttal on. It has already been shown to be flawed. ACHIEVEMENTS: "not sufficient to prove any form of furthering or ownership by 3rd wave." Untrue. furthering - "(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." (8) "Ownership", again, has no place in social movements. MLK does not "own" pacifism, yet it was a tremendous boon to his contributions to civil rights movement. Con again admits the BOP has been met. Con states my claims are false, yet cannot demonstrate how. Con claims my sources are "terrible", yet cannot provide original sources to refute or disprove them. Con has shown poor conduct throughout the debate. Please vote Pro! SOURCES: 1. http://books.google.com...'s%20sexual&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false 2. Johnson, Merri Lisa, ed. (2002). Jane Sexes It Up: True Confessions of Feminist Desire. New York 3. http://thefeministanthropologist.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://www.temple.edu... 7. http://powderroom.jezebel.com... 8. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Modern Feminism Is Pointless

Oh, I almost forgot about abortion!!!! Why should women have the right to take away the God-given right of an unborn child TO LIVE. That should not be up to them with the exception of rape and rape ALONE. Fighting for a right to take away a child's right to live is despicable. Especially when it is not because of rape. YOU SCREWED UP YOU TAKE CARE OF IT!!! It's called protection and it is not expensive to get. If you do not have the means to take care of a child you should of thought of that BEFORE you had unprotected sex. There is also such as thing as ADOPTION. When you are first pulled over by a police officer chances are you are only getting a warning. The police officer is willing to give you a chance, and that unborn child should at least have a chance. This one of the biggest problems with Feminism is that it encourages women to not be responsible for their own actions. All feminists are trying to propagate a victim's complex and that is what is convincing people that they actually are victims when they are not. I try to stay out of homosexuality and transgender issues so I am not going to address that. To Viewers and Voters: So to sum this debate up the only thing my opponent has done throughout this entire debate is presented pro-feminist ideals and opinions which do not prove anything. Saying that a movement stands for something does not mean they are actually making a legitimate effort to accomplish their goals. I have presented enough facts and examples to clearly show that even though the feminist movement has some good intentions they show no effort to own up to what they want to achieve, but continue to insist that their problems are more important than others' and always try to show a victim's mentality in the face of an unfavorable outcome. I am not saying there are not injustices against women, but there are not as many as feminists claim there are. Women have the same rights as men according to national law and the constitution of the U.S. The judicial system is fair and will help women if they are suffering injustice if you will let them. It is not necessary to demand a national protest anytime a woman is wronged. Prove the stereotypes wrong, earn respect as individuals rather than as a group, have respect for the legislative and judicial process, and think about how you are affecting others as well as yourself. If you will just realize that this is the real way to win respect for women and that demanding respect and unreasonable privileges and rights is doing more harm than good. That is real If you do not have the means to take care of a child you should of thought of that BEFORE you had unprotected sex. There is also such as thing as ADOPTION. When you are first pulled over by a police officer chances are you are only getting a warning. The police officer is willing to give you a chance, and that unborn child should at least have a chance. This one of the biggest problems with Feminism is that it encourages women to not be responsible for their own actions. All feminists are trying to propagate a victim's complex and that is what is convincing people that they actually are victims when they are not. I try to stay out of homosexuality and transgender issues so I am not going to address that. To Viewers and Voters: So to sum this debate up the only thing my opponent has done throughout this entire debate is presented pro-feminist ideals and opinions which do not prove anything. Saying that a movement stands for something does not mean they are actually making a legitimate effort to accomplish their goals. I have presented enough facts and examples to clearly show that even though the feminist movement has some good intentions they show no effort to own up to what they want to achieve, but continue to insist that their problems are more important than others' and always try to show a victim's mentality in the face of an unfavorable outcome. I am not saying there are not injustices against women, but there are not as many as feminists claim there are. Women have the same rights as men according to national law and the constitution of the U.S. The judicial system is fair and will help women if they are suffering injustice if you will let them. It is not necessary to demand a national protest anytime a woman is wronged. Prove the stereotypes wrong, earn respect as individuals rather than as a group, have respect for the legislative and judicial process, and think about how you are affecting others as well as yourself. If you will just realize that this is the real way to win respect for women and that demanding respect and unreasonable privileges and rights is doing more harm than good. That is real feminism and that should be what this movement should be about.

Feminism Is Hypocritical and Sexist Against Men

I believe feminism is hypocritical and sexist. 1: They never talk about men's problems (How divorce cases always favor women, and men are fucked emotionally and financially; or how women can hit men and get away with it; or how women get about half the sentence a man would get for the exact same crime.) 2: They blame men for EVERYTHING! (Feminist "All men are Rapist and men can't be raped" 3: They make up false statistics. (Women make 75-78 cents for the exact same work or 1 in 5 women are raped) 3.5: If you prove that they are wrong you're a misogynistic, woman hating, douche.

Feminism is necessary in modern First World countries.

I accept, Thanks for having me. Statistics show overwhelming support for differences in wage gap Con's line of argument is that if it is illegal to impose a wage gap, it is sufficient to conclude that the wage gap doesn't exist. The problem with this argument is that riling a case from a legal perspective doesn't measure social realities in the world. The Chartered Management Institute survey(1.http://news.sky.com...) shows that there is a pay difference of approximately £9,000 , equivalent to 23% in wage gape differences. Con did not provide a study measuring wage gap whatsoever other than to prove that it is illegal which is irrelevant because of the prevailing social realities that plague society. It should also be noted that the CMI survey has over 68,000 managers across the UK which is suffice to say that it is representative. Hence, the difference in wage gap still exists and this gives feminism the reason for its existence. Furthermore, Con added a stereotypical source listing top 5 feminist myths that is essentially a straw mans fallacy. The source listed supposedly feminist arguments such as 'one in five college women will be sexually assaulted' without providing a valid source for its original quote. Not only that, the line of rebuttals is even worse as the website never provided any studies. All they did was to list major trademarks such as the UN and Oxford Uni in hopes that someone believes it out of authority. That is just plain guilty of the appeal to authority fallacy. The case is so weak that it cannot even be logically coherent, never mind actually making a real study. The difference between being misandry and feminism. There a clear differences between misandry and feminism. If we were to divide the world in terms of gender issues, there are female issues, male issues as well as non binary issues. Feminism intents to defend all 3 premises because its official aim is gender equity. Con's case is that simply because some women are misandrous, it is enough to conclude that they are representative of feminist movements. Even Con's [3]rd Source did not even imply that it is a product of feminism. What Con essentially doing is to misinterpret the evidence to suit the theory, which is clearly a mumbo jumbo non-existing concept. Domestic Responsibilities Con argues that just because there are improvements to women's rights, it is suffice to say that feminists are merely exaggerating the inequality. Con is both wrong and wrong. The Global Gender Gap Report (2.http://www.weforum.org...) shows gradual improvements in women's rights over economic cooperation, health and survival rates with education being equal in some 20 countries out of the rest. There are improvements overall, however, inequalities still persists. On Economic Cooperation, gender equality currently stands at 60%(2) with the other 40% unequal. Feminism represents those that are still clocked under 40%. Without them, there is essentially a lack of incentive to improve equality. Inequalities persist under general figure and it also persists under hidden figures. The Global Gender Gap also fails to credit other fields of work such as domestic responsibilities. Women are largely responsible for the huge chunk of domestic chores despite working full time similar to men (3.http://news.uci.edu...). Researchers also found that, despite women achieving full breadwinner role(the sole economic provider), women are still primarily responsible for housework(4.http://www.dailymail.co.uk...). There are clear masked inequalities which must not be ignored in society. These figures were hidden under the main Global Gender Gap statistic due to its simplistic measure. Moreover, in the survey containing 1,800 people(4), 85% of women were responsible for just doing the laundry and 2/3 of them did tasks such as cleaning,cooking, looking after sick relatives. The only field in which men took significant responsibility is repairing and mending faulty item. There are clear inequalities being presented both in major government statistics and target studies. Since both type of studies complements each other for quantitative and qualitive means, it is reasonable to generalise that inequality is still prevalent. The claim that feminists are exaggerating inequality is negated. The resolution is affirmed. Feminism is needed to represent those under oppression.

The feminism movement should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts

Is Feminism a worthy cause? I believe so - having gender equality (to the greatest extent possible) seems to me both the morally correct ideal and the practically sensible way for a society to organise itself; it seems to me that this ideal is worthy both in the poorest and the richest nations. Now, to Bronze Age texts: it may well be that those Bronze Age texts we have were the very pinnacle of Bronze Age philosophy; I certainly do not suggest that we should ignore wisdom from bygone ages. On the other hand, lots of things were very different, socially and technologically all those years ago; one of the key differences, socially speaking, was the lot of women: women were seen as chattel and, to a degree, as mere incubators for their male owners. I merely suggest that we shouldn't allow moral questions today to be settled simply by recourse to blindly following the advice of people from over 3,000 years ago! Feminism, as a movement, is by no means above scrutiny; but then, neither should ancient writings be! Indeed, the vast majority of Christians do not take the bible to be literally true in all cases; I don't think that most Christians allow biblical writings to unduly influence their thinking today. However, it seems to me that some Christians (and Jews and Muslims) allow these ancient texts to inform their moral thinking directly and literally; this seems potentially dangerous to me! I would certainly have found it interesting had Con provided any solid case that showed why Bronze Age writings were relevant today and, specifically, in contradiction to the Now, to Bronze Age texts: it may well be that those Bronze Age texts we have were the very pinnacle of Bronze Age philosophy; I certainly do not suggest that we should ignore wisdom from bygone ages. On the other hand, lots of things were very different, socially and technologically all those years ago; one of the key differences, socially speaking, was the lot of women: women were seen as chattel and, to a degree, as mere incubators for their male owners. I merely suggest that we shouldn't allow moral questions today to be settled simply by recourse to blindly following the advice of people from over 3,000 years ago! Feminism, as a movement, is by no means above scrutiny; but then, neither should ancient writings be! Indeed, the vast majority of Christians do not take the bible to be literally true in all cases; I don't think that most Christians allow biblical writings to unduly influence their thinking today. However, it seems to me that some Christians (and Jews and Muslims) allow these ancient texts to inform their moral thinking directly and literally; this seems potentially dangerous to me! I would certainly have found it interesting had Con provided any solid case that showed why Bronze Age writings were relevant today and, specifically, in contradiction to the feminism movement; I would have been happy to fight any individual case provided along these lines - however, apart from a very loose case suggesting that abortion should be banned based on ancient writings (a case that my opponent did not, in my opinion, make a very strong argument for), Con has singularly failed to provide such debate.