Topic space view
1031 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms
  • CON

    3] Glass Ceiling: Men are not just paid differentially,...

    New Western Feminism is pointless and oppresive.

    Thanks to Pro for posting this interesting topic. Thanks to any readers, and thanks to DDO for hosting. Conduct: Pro tried to shift the burden of proof, so it is appropriate to vote conduct to Con. If Pro wanted a shared burden of proof, he should have made that clear in his OP. Spelling and Grammar: This is obvious. Resolution: Pro has undertaken to prove that feminism (yes, Western and modern, though I won't keep repeating that) is 1. "pointless," 2. "focuses only on the supremacy of women," and 3. "oppresses the right of freedom of speech." Pro must establish all three points to win this debate. Oppresses Freedom of Speech: Pro gives but a single example of this. Apparently, in one case, one feminist pulled a fire alarm to silence another group of feminists. This example does not establish a trend or tendency. Some Concerns of Feminism: Equal Pay: Riley County Kansas has two employees who weigh trucks entering and leaving the county dump. The newer employee thought she was paid less because she was female, until the guy quit, and was replaced by another guy, who also got paid more than her. This wasn't a job that required much skill. The inequity wasn't because she might quit to have babies. We were just paying her less because she was a woman. [1] Equal Treatment: A friend of mine had a good credit rating. Then she got married and divorced, after which, her husband had her credit rating, and she had none. The credit company assumed that the good credit history belonged to the man. [2] Equal Treatment: A woman went to the bank for a loan. The banker told her she needed her husband's approval. She said, "It's my income. I don't see why I need my husband's permission." The banker said, "We don't care what you think." So she left the bank, went into politics, changed the law, went back to the bank, sat in the same chair, and got her loan. [3] Glass Ceiling: Men are not just paid differentially, they are promoted differentially. Attitudes: Women aren't listened to the way men are, they aren't taken as seriously. Arrogant aggressive men can be appealing, but women have to be diffident and tactful. [6] Sexual Abuse: Women are considered rapable, abusable. And if they are raped, they are typically blamed for it. The rapists are sometimes considered victims. [4] GLBT: "Over the course of the 1970s, a large variety of influential women accepted lesbianism and bisexuality as part of feminism." [7] This is still true. Marriage equality is a feminist cause. Rape, genital mutilation, incest, prostitution, homophobia: The above Wikipedia article points out that these are also concerns of feminism. Male Privilege generally: Women have to be skinny to be attractive; men don't. Women are not only less likely to get promoted, but when they do get promoted, people often assume they were promoted because of their gender, not because of talent. Promiscuous men are considered studs, a positive; promiscuous women are considered sluts, a negative. Male protagonists are the norm; it's hard to find positive role models, in literature and film, for female children. Men aren't sexually harassed on the street like women are. Women are interrupted in conversation more than men. [8] Women are charged more for cars. [9] Okay, I could go on, but I've made the point. Feminism is not pointless, and it does not focus exclusively (or at all, as far as I know) on the supremacy of women. The resolution is refuted. We've Made Progress, But the Forces of Oppression are Ever Ready to Take Back Ground They've Lost: - A professor claims that rape is okay if the man is gentle and the woman is unconscious. [5] - Even some young women believe that gender-based pay differences are justified by the fact that women can get pregnant. [10] - Politicians are still publicly misogynistic. Witness Todd (Legitimate Rape) Akin's claim that if a woman gets pregnant then she wasn't really raped. In the last presidential election, the Republicans advertised their war on women as if it were a good thing. [11] - Republicans are rolling back reproductive rights as we speak, criminalizing abortion, even threatening contraception. Concession: Pro mentions a feminist group, Equality Candida, which Pro says stands for : 1. To advance education with discussion of equality-especially gender equality, reason and science. : : 2. To provide a platform for collaboration between groups that discuss gender equality. : : 3. To participate in consciousness raising activities, to do with equality, that are routinely ignored. : : 4. To utilise media so that we may discuss the taboo subjects of gender equality. This is a full concession: Feminism is not pointless, and not just about female supremacy. Vote Con. [1] Personal conversation with Riley County Attorney. [2] Personal conversation with my friend. [3] Public speech. The speaker and subject of the story was the woman who argued Roe v Wade before the Supreme Court. [4] The Steubenville rape is an example: http://www.cnn.com... [5] reported by Ed Brayton at "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" http://freethoughtblogs.com... [6] Michael Caine wrote about this. I've lost the citation. I also recognize the problem by introspection, and so state it on my own authority. [7] Wikipedia: Feminism. [8] Most of these examples of male privilege are from "Alas: A Blog." http://www.amptoons.com... [9] Alas: A Blog. "That this happens – and doesn’t appear to be a matter of “rare cases” – has been documented by sending male and female negotiators, trained to use identical negotiating techniques, to car lots to negotiate for cars. The initial offers made to men are simply better." http://www.amptoons.com... [10] Class discussion, in a literature class at K-State. [11] http://en.wikipedia.org...

  • CON

    Mark Zuckerberg: If you donate billions of dollars to...

    Feminism Is Cancer

    My opponent forfeit the last round. It also bears mentioning that they never provided examples suggesting that feminism is "evil" or difficult to curtail. If fact we can look to certain areas in the developing and developed world that show the exact opposite, that equality for women has difficulty taking root and expanding. Based on this forfeiture, and the preponderance of the examples provided, judges should vote Opp! Now on to some more festive celebrity bashing! Justin Beiber: What can be said about Justin Beiber that has not already been said about Cholera: He makes people vomit and defecate to the brink of death. Macaulay Culkin: Failed Justin Beiber attempt by evil scientists in the eighties. Thank God he got hooked on methadone and went away. Mark Zuckerberg: If you donate billions of dollars to yourself and get to write it off on your taxes, you should have to share a prison cell with Karl Rove for the duration. Karl Rove: Apparently his mother has apologized to the nation and the world. If saying your sorry makes it all better then my last two ex-wives should be back any moment. Tony Danza: Mr. Danza's recent suicide is tragic, but not at all unexpected. It was apparently his failure on the dating website E-harmony that finally pushed him over the edge. Business Cat: Largely responsible for the banking/mortgage meltdown of 2007/2008. This cat shows why so many faiths say greed is at the heart of evil. Lewis Ranieri: Don't think for a minute your gonna skate by Lew. Sure, it's not all your fault. But it was your idea without precaution that caused all that BS. You have to take your lashes like everyone else. I bet was his family pet. Purr nothing A-hole, and trim that ugly beard. You look like a just for men commercial. Too many to name.. I can't stand celebrities.

  • CON

    Blogs such as the below, illustrate this fact. ] ......

    3rd wave feminism has made notable progress for civil rights

    [ "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. ] Con doesn't need to offer sources as Pro already has proven that with his own sources. [ "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. ] You didn't support your own claim. Con admits nothing. [ " 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. ] Con cited the Free Love / Sex Positivism movement and it's chronological inception. Pro did not show that Sex Positivism was something effected by 3rd wave however proves that the concept is supported by 3rd wave. [ 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) ] Fallacy of the Consequent based on chronological error. [ "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) ] Misleading, written in 2002 by another person altogether and not properly attributed to the writer in order to lead away from the continuous chronological error. Does not reflect the writings of the previous person. Does not prove anything but 3rd wave supports Sex Positivism, which is not in contention. [ "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. ] Con makes no such claim. [ 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. ] Fallacy of the Antecedent. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org...) [ "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) ] Appeal to Authority (http://www.fallacyfiles.org...) [ 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. ] Red Herring, Non-Sequitur, Con asserts no such thing. [ 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. ] "Sex Positivity" was around 30 years prior to 1990 as proven by the Wikipedia source Con posted in argument 2. The terminology existed prior, Falsehood. [ "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. ] Fallacy of Ambiguity (http://www.fallacyfiles.org...) Pro refuses to use a standardized timeline spanning his arguments across and beyond up to two decades as per citations. [ 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 offered however a source that stated that Third wave is generally accepted to have begun in the 1990s; Pro rejects and posits that all aforethought that may have been popularized or embraced and cultivated and supported by 3rd wave is in fact an extension of third wave. Fallacy of the Consequent. [ 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. ] False. Non-sequitur. Con asserts Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent based on chronological errors. Pro has not shown for any theories which "formed" during Third Wave Feminism, only theories that were accepted and supported by Third Wave Feminism. [ 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." ] Con transcribed the fallacy in relation to a group. "A" and "B" are the same, "X" is the added factor representative to the group, however it can be restated as "If Sex Positivism is supported by 3rd Wave Feminism and 3rd Wave Feminism is present today then Sex Positivism was caused by 3rd Wave Feminism." It is the same. [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)] Affirming the Consequent. "If a person prior to the existence of a movement supported a cause then they had to be a member of that movement." It is the exact same example as above with focus on the person, "If a Sex Positivist exists prior to 3rd Wave Feminism and 3rd Wave Feminism is present today then the Sex Positivist was a 3rd Wave Feminist." It just isn't true. [ "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." ... 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. ] Fallacy of Equivocation (http://www.fallacyfiles.org...) Pro states that all Sex Positvists are by definition 3rd Wave Feminists. False. [ "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. ] Con offered a citation directly after the term "Transgenderism" in argument two providing that the movements had been active long prior to 1990s when 3rd Wave is agreed to have started as shown by Con and acknowledged by Pro multiple times. Lying. Bugger, I ran out of space. Vote for Pro so that he can win and I can not waste anymore of my time. Pretty, pretty please?

  • CON

    Feminism may be similar to socialism, but it is not equal...

    feminism is marxism

    First, not all socialism is Marxism, there are democratic socialists, Leninists, Maoists et cetera. Feminism may be similar to socialism, but it is not equal in meaning to socialism, and it is very different from Marxism. Also, it does in the paper refer to roots in the Old Left and New Left. A) that is roots, that does not mean they are one and the same b) the Old Left people were Trotkyists, Leninists, and Stalinists, differentiated from the Marxists of the New Left. She also speaks of Marxist materialism, which is not necessarily Marxism, it is one concept of Karl Marx's ideals. The paper shows that many of the so-called "Pro-Woman" feminists had roots in Socialism,but it does not establish the two as one and the same. "Consider these areas of interest to feminists in the economic area: Universal healthcare Affirmitive action Paid daycare Equality of Outcomes, not the Equality of opportunity" These are somewhat (okay maybe more than somewhat) socialist areas of interests, but they are not Marxist, there is a difference that you are not recognizing, and that is why your argument fails. "Feminist outright reject the free market and try through political action to establish socialism to benefit their class at the expense of the rest of society." These ideas aren't intended to hurt men, nor are they intended to make women the ruling class, they want a) women to be treated the same as men b) as they are mostly liberals, they want liberal ideas, does that surprise you? None of this makes them Marxists, and therefore, the resolution fails.

  • PRO

    Accessed February 25, 2014, http://www.usccr.gov.... 9...

    On balance, Feminism is not needed in the US anymore.

    "My opponent doesn't understand why I involved other countries. Again, the resolution leaves room for other countries. If he were to say not needed *strictly* in the U.S, then I would have argued merely the U.S." I specifically said the US. Did I leave it broad, and say Feminism in the world. You really provide no examples, and just base your reasoning off of your opinion without facts on the resolution. C. 1: Sex and Violence "In order for my opponent to have accurately rebutted my case, he must have shown that human trafficking no longer exists, which he didn't prove. In fact, human trafficking does exist." Well, you should have accurately read the case. I specifically stated "The source you list first of all list for this evidence is a blog made in 2010. The year is 2016 which means 6 years have gone by since this has happened. The Washington Post article you also sourced was an opinion article with no evidence to back it up. Between 14,500 and 17,500 people are trafficked into the U.S. each year. https://www.dosomething.org...; Con's source is from 2010. My source is from 2014. Here are the sources that prove that 50,000 is a false number in the current times. 7 California Against Slavery. "What is Human Trafficking?." Safer California Foundation. Accessed February 25, 2014, http://www.caseact.org.... 8 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "Human Trafficking in Texas." Texas Advisory Committee . Accessed February 25, 2014, http://www.usccr.gov.... 9 Bales, Kevin. "The Number." The CNN Freedom Project Ending Modern Day Slavery. Accessed February 25, 2014, http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com.... Obviously, the number has declined drastically. California and Las Vegas are the most popular states in the U.S for human trafficking. "The United States is one of the top three destination points for trafficked victims and California, New York, Texas and Nevada are the top destination states within the country." First of all, this statistic also applies to children. The resolution only applies to women. Con puts statistics about children that do not apply to this resolution. If this were policy debate, I would put a topicality violation. Human trafficking has nothing to with feminism. If I may remind a radical feminist of what feminism actually means. Feminism-Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women. It only states women. It does not state children. Woman-an adult human female. Oxford Dictionaries If Con tries to prove that 80% of these children are females, than Con still proves nothing. Female is specifically an adult female, not a child. These are just a few arguments about bringing up children in this debate. These arguments should be deemed irrelevant. I feel like my opponent does not know what she is talking about, and confuses human trafficking with all sorts of topics. C2. "Males are far more likely to chose dangerous careers"" "Where is the evidence?" I don't get why you are failing at reading my case. I already stated "Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more. In the top ten most dangerous jobs(from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics)". "Males are far more likely to work in higher paying jobs" "Not true because I successfully argued that men and women who have the same exact job, and same degree, women still earn less, making your accusation false." You should recall the evidence in your case where you state this, because I do not see anywhere in your case where you argued this "successfully". ."Males are for more likely to work in higher paying jobs-According to the White House Report, 7% of female professionals were employed in high paying computer fields, while 38% of males have gotten professional jobs." Here is the evidence I stated in my case. "Men work longer hours than women" "Not true. If it is true, you doesn't provide any evidence. A study in 2013 reported that women and men work equal amount of hours. [3] Here in the U.S., men and women work a nearly equal number of hours, about 50 per week. But once again, women take much more of the household burden. They average 33 hours a week at jobs, and more than 17 hours working around the house." First of all, Con does not provided a citation on where this evidence comes from. I tried copying and pasting this into google, and I honestly got nothing. The study should have pulled up in seconds. It did not. I provide clear evidence that states the opposite, and has facts. Men work longer hours than women-Men work 6 hours per week, or 15percent longer than the average fulltime working women. http://www.cbsnews.com... I have provided a lot of evidence for all of my claims. All claims on the fact that I did not provide evidence are false. You should have noticed that all of those claims go directly back to round 2. "This is merely fluff writing." This is the response from all the governors listed in round 2. This attack has no strength behind it, and is very close to a cop out. Dropped Arguments: I am sorry, but I have to specifically break this resolution down in order to prove why my opponent's arguments are weak. On balance, Feminism is not needed in the US anymore. Balance- condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions: Feminism-Definition my opponent has given needed-1.require (something) because very important US=United States of America Oxford Dictionaries The debate has to do with BALANCE and NEED. These arguments my opponent has dropped. Con has dropped the arguments where I argue that all the statistics are less than 1% of the 125 million women that live in America. That is not balance. If 51% of American women were raped, than Con would clearly win this debate. She does not acknowledge this at all. Here are the actual statistics: 182,000 women = 0.146% of the women in America. 1 million women=0.8% This debate is about balance. I think these numbers speak for it selves. If 182,000 women are being raped, than that means that 124,818,000 women are not being raped. If 1 million women are being raped, than that means that 124 million women are not being raped. These are simple facts that my opponent cannot deny is true. The majority of women are not being subjected to human trafficking. My female opponent is not subjected to this trafficking. This is why Pro clearly wins this debate.

  • PRO

    Thus, biological aspects play a role, but do not solely...

    Feminism is necessary in modern day United States.

    So, I would first like to note, that my opponent does not disagree with my overarching observation, that gender inequality makes feminism necessary, so this debate now boils down to whether there is sufficient inequality in America. Thus, if I can prove there exists sufficient inequality in any of the three grounds, (social, political, economic) I have effectively won the debate, now, I will defend my points and continue to attack my opponents points. Point 1) On the question of the wage gap, my opponent attributes this difference in wages to the fact that men biologically are more likely to take STEM jobs that are high paying. She states that women shouldn"t be pressured into STEM jobs, they need to be encouraged to do what they love. This fact is well and good, but it is not the only reason that women are being paid less. From RISMedia, there are three reasons why women are paid less than men, only one of which is the fact that women gravitate towards lower paying jobs. My opponent ignores two critical reasons. 1) Women ask for less money. RIS states that according to a study published by HIRED, women ask for lower salaries then men, and leave the table with less money. Also, women ask for an average $14,000 less in compensation than men overall nationwide. This fact needs to be remedied. This has nothing to do with job interests and what women love to do, women generally are too timid and need to learn to be more confident in their skills when searching for employment. Thus women should be empowered to ask for more when they search for jobs, hence warranting feminist movements. 2) Discrimination against women is present in the workplace. RIS states that research shows that many women with same credentials who work in the same exact jobs as men earn less. Furthermore, women who chose to work in high paying jobs, previously dominated by men, such as biologists and designers, had their compensation in those jobs declined. In order to ensure an equal and just America, we need to get rid of workplace discrimination, feminism is a means to that end. Furthermore, in response to my point one, my opponent quotes that the pregnancy leave causes women to be paid less. The statistic that I used to justify my claim of the wage gap stated that women"s wages are 79% of men"s average wages. Thus my statistic doesn"t even take maternity leave into consideration because my statistic deals with wages not pay per se. Point 2) Attacking my point 2, my opponent states that it is the people that choose to vote for men, not women for office, but she fails to consider the following. From School of Public Affairs (SPA), reasons there are less women in office than men include: 1)Women are less likely than men to think they are qualified to run for office. SPA states that a 2001 study shows that men are 60% more likely than women to assess themselves as "very qualified" to run for office. Furthermore, (from SPA) the gender gap does not stem from gender differences in direct political experiences, or exposure to and familiarity with, the political arena. Thus, this gender differential in confidence is arbitrary. Feminism is necessary to empower women into being more confident. 2)Women are less likely than men to receive the suggestion to run for office. SPA states that in a study, a less percentage of women than men have received the suggestion to run for office. The study even breaks the results into separate categories and women are shown to be lower in EVERY category. Thus, feminism is necessary to empower women into believing that they should run for office. Point 3) My opponent attributes gender roles to biological differences but that is not entirely the case. University of Notre Dame states that gender theorists point to the variations in gender roles observed among different cultures in arguing that gender " our masculinity or femininity " is a social construct rather than an innate biological characteristic. Thus, biological aspects play a role, but do not solely make up gender roles. Furthermore, the problem with gender roles is not that it itself is inherently unjust. It leads to discrimination. I am not advocating abolishing gender roles because as my opponent pointed out, it will always exist. I think that feminism is need to spread the message that it is ok to break those gender roles. Many women feel constrained by their gender expectations, which is something feminism can aim to fix. I"ll move on to attack my opponent"s arguments. She states that feminism has become useless, and as a result, feminists are making stuff up to attack and many are attacking men. I completely agree with the fact that THOSE feminists are unnecessary and are not doing much to further the cause of true gender equality in America. But, notice in those arguments she herself even admits that the statistic for how many feminists actually do this is impossible to obtain. Thus, the actual number of feminists that are "useless" can be as low as 1% for all we know. Since she does not offer any evidence on the amount of feminists that are useless and disrespectful, one cannot take those specific feminists that she pointed out and generalize them as the face of the ENTIRETY of feminism. She also states that claim that we see this more and more often and it will only get worse, but NOWHERE does she justify this claim with any evidence. My opponents argues that relative to other countries, America is already pretty ahead in terms of gender equality, so feminism isn"t necessary. But, as a more developed country this is a given, because we are much more developed then Africa, we SHOULD be more gender equal. What is shocking, is that we have less percentage of females in government than some of those countries, which is the point that I am making. Furthermore, we are not even debating whether feminism is necessary in Africa, only in America, I am just using Africa as a basis of comparison. We shouldn"t be setting our standards as low as African countries, which is why it is shocking that some of those countries have more females in government as us.

  • PRO

    I hope you don't mind that I'm imitating your format for...

    Feminism Is Needed in America Today

    In response to con, I will individually go through each of the points they presented, and post my rebuttal for each one. I hope you don't mind that I'm imitating your format for citing sources; I'm new on this site and I like your way of presenting data. Definition: To say that feminism today is the belief that men are inferior to women is simply untrue. Radical feminists, on the other hand, often do believe that society should be matriarchal, rather than equal, and it is very important to make a distinction between the two. It is these radical individuals whose arguments are often believed to be the cornerstones of feminist ideology, when, in reality, that is not what feminism means. I have seen numerous posts by radical feminists who believe that men should die or be subjected to the same sexism women have been subjected to, but, as a feminist, I do not agree with their viewpoints and believe them to be counterproductive. Only 17% of Americans self-identify as strong feminist, while 43% self-identify as feminist, meaning that radicals do not make up the majority of the feminist movement, and therefore most do not believe that men are inferior to women (1). Regarding the wage gap - firstly, con's sources are both outdated and contradictory. Their first source, from which they received the top 5 occupations for women, is from 2010. Furthermore, con took their information for the top 5 occupations for men from a different source than the first, a source from 2007. The top 5 occupations for women, according to that list, are dental hygienists, preschool and kindergarten teachers, secretaries, dental assistants, and speech-language pathologists. Because con presented two sources that are both outdated and also contradict each other, I think that it would be safe to discredit both sources. The actual 5 most common occupations for women, according to a more recent 2015 annual survey, are elementary and middle school teachers, nurses, secretaries, health aides, and customer service representatives, and the top 5 occupations for men are drivers and sales workers, managers, retail supervisors, laborers and movers, and retail salesmen (2). This information contradicts con's genetics argument, because only one of the top 5 occupations for men requires manual labor, meaning that the reason that men often have higher-paying jobs is not due to genetics. If there were more women who were drivers, managers, and supervisors, the wage gap would be greatly diminished, and so far, con has not provided any reason that women should not have these jobs. I think that the real reason for the wage gap, rather than genetics, lies in the sexist idea of what a 'woman's job' should be. For instance, there is a gender gap in STEM fields which cannot be accounted for by the fact that men have greater upper body strength than women. Only 14.8% of engineers in the workplace are women, according to a 2016 article (3). As of 2017, women make up only 19.6% of the US Congress, 21% of the Senate, and 19.3% of the House of Representatives (4). Women make up a dismal 4.8% of CEOs in America's top 500 corporations according to a 2017 list (5). None of these jobs require manual labor. The idea of 'normal women choices' for occupations, as con put it, simply needs to be abolished. The idea that women are nurses, secretaries, and teachers needs to be removed from society in order for women to realize that higher-paying jobs are available to them, and in order for male employers to remove any prejudices they may hold when considering who to hire. The fact that men dominate higher-paying occupations is reason enough to be concerned about the wage gap, especially when genetics cannot factor into the equation. When looking at statistics that show that men have higher-paying jobs, you are looking at the reason feminism is necessary in America today: the disadvantage women have in the workplace due to preconceived notions of what is normal for them. Now, I will respond to con's rebuttal. I will start with "You try being a woman in these countries, I dare you": Of course it is far more dangerous to be a woman in countries like Somalia and Afghanistan. America is an incredible place to live, especially for women, and most citizens are grateful for the freedoms and protections they are afforded in this country. However, it is illogical to dismiss a wrong by pointing out an even greater wrong happening somewhere else. Should law enforcement only stop crime in cities with the worst crime rates, and ignore everywhere else? Just as law enforcement should be concerned with all crime, feminism should be concerned with any and all instances of misogyny, whether it be rape apology in America or widespread, normalized violence against women in third-world countries. Simply because worse examples of misogyny exist does not mean that lesser examples should be dismissed out of hand. As for con's rebuttal of my point about rape, I do not see why it should not matter that women are far more likely to be rape victims than men. If roughly 90% of adult rape victims are women, there is likely a reason for that. If only, say, 52% of adult victims were female, I would understand why it would be nonsensical to think that the underlying cause is misogyny and the objectification of women, but that is simply not the case. I am focusing on why females are rape victims instead of males because, quite simply, women are raped far more often than men. According to a 2011 study, the most recent I could find, 98.1% of rapes against women were committed by men (5). I refuse to believe that there is no reason for this. In order to stop rape in general, it is necessary to understand who the victims are, who the perpetrators are, and why the perpetrators believe their actions are acceptable. In most cases, the victims are women, the perpetrators are male, and the reason for the perpetrators actions is misogyny and their view of women as objects. That is why feminism needs to exist today; not to deny the existence of male rape victims, not to deny the existence of female rapists, but to help Americans understand why women are so often rape victims and how to stop it. Finally, con used the typical 'not all men' argument that most anti-feminists use, verbatim. This argument is completely nonsensical and asks women to ignore misogyny because not every man is misogynistic. Since it is difficult to provide statistical evidence for something as conceptual as misogyny, I will use anecdotal evidence here. For every man I have met who is respectful and treats the women around him equally, I have met another man who is condescending or even blatantly sexist to the women around him. I have met men who completely dismiss the dissenting opinion of women who argue with them, men who believe women should not be allowed to vote, and men who lash out angrily at women without considering the consequences for their actions, all of whom believe that they aren't sexist in the slightest. Even if men do not blatantly believe themselves to be superior to women, sexism in America is, for the most part, deeply ingrained in a person's behavior, rather than being a belief that they have chosen for themselves. Just because women have equal rights on paper does not mean that they are treated equally in society, nor does it mean that sexism is not present in the workforce or in politics. 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com... 2: https://www.dol.gov... 3: http://alltogether.swe.org... 4: http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu... 5: http://www.oneinfourusa.org...

  • PRO

    I am not against gender equality, I am against modern day...

    2nd wave and 3rd wave/modern feminism is harmful and should not exist.

    I challenged my opponent, because they challenged me to a flawed resolution. I am not against gender equality, I am against modern day I am not against gender equality, I am against modern day feminism and 2nd wave feminism (about 1960's-70's). This round will not be for acceptance. 2nd round opening arguments. 3rd round is new arguments/rebuttals (both,or one). 4th round is for rebuttals. 5th round is for rebuttals and closing statements.

  • CON

    Now with all of your arguments all you have tried to do...

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

    However you are kind of right that I didn't provide enough evidence to support my claims, so allow me to fix that. So first off let me prove that women do not take some of the opportunities they have, particularly in STEM fields: http://www.sify.com... Also if you look here you will see that women, on average, chose lower paying majors in college than men: http://www.payscale.com... Recently women also outnumbered men in the work force: http://www.nytimes.com... If women make up over 50% of the workforce how can you logically say that men have more opportunities than women? Please look at the stats I previously cited about females having the upper hand in all grade levels of school. This proves society and the system favor women and give them more opportunities. I feel like that's plenty of evidence to back up the remaining of my claims, so now let's move on. " The part that you failed is agreeing with me the argument is "Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries" and here you say you agree with equality for all humans "Women should have equal rights and opportunities" I completely agree I am egalitarian and believe in equality for all humans. so there you agree with my pro argument" The first thing that came to my mind when I read this is that I honestly am disappointed in you. I believe you know very well that I never did agree with your pro argument, and I did not think you would go so low as to twist are paraphrase my words to try to benefit you. Anyways let's wrap this up. Resolution: Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries What I said was I am egalitarian and I believe in equality for all humans. If you agree with me I think that's a great thing. However believing in equality is very very different from believing in feminism, therefore me believing in equality and us agreeing on that should have nothing to do with this debate. Now with all of your arguments all you have tried to do is say that women are given less opportunities than men. You still have not proven is that feminism is helping our society reach gender equality. In regards to the resolution I think it's fair to say you did NOT prove that the resolution is true, therefore you should not win the round. On the other hand let's take a look at what I have done with my arguments. I have proven that men face countless gendered issues that women don't and feminism does nothing about it, hence they do not work towards gender equality. I have brought up evidence to debunk common feminist defenses. I have proven that feminism has made gendered problems worse for men, thus pushing our society further away from gender equality. I have also proven feminism has stopped/hindered action from being taken to solve men's issues as proven by my Earl Silverman story and a few other examples. I have (in my opinion) done a very good job in rebutting your claims with a mountain of evidence. In regards to the resolution I think it's very fair to say I have proved that the resolution is false, therefore con should win. I would like to remind you now that according to the rules you are NOT allowed to bring up any new arguments, hence it is the 5th and last round, so I have no time to respond. Therefore in order to obey the rules you have to stick to your argument that women are disadvantaged in regards to the economy and no more. Now I'd like to expand on my argument of how feminism is NOT helping us reach an equal society because they try to stop anything from being done about men's issues. If you read this this journal it talks about how feminism is responsible for male victims of domestic abuse being ignored by law: http://archive.law.fsu.edu.... If you read this it talks about how feminism has skewed how society views domestic violence in a way that completely ignores the male voice. Even after it being empirically proven that males and females are perpetrators of DV almost the same amount they still reject this are try to keep the myth alive that only male violence exists. The feminist movement has denied concrete evidence that proves men can be victims just as much as women and continues to demonize men based on a myth. Does that sound like equality? If you watch this video you can see feminists trying to stop a forum talking about issues men face: . Feminism has not only created many problems for men, but will actively try to stop anything from being done to solve the problems. Does feminism still sound like it's for equality? So hence the resolution, Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries. Well here's the answer, no. Feminism is not helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries, because it 1. Does not try to solve all issues that are preventing us from reaching equality. 2. Has created many issues that are pushing us further away from a equal society. 3. Attempts to stop anything from being done about the very issues feminism has caused. Even one of those issues is enough to mean that the movement is not for equality, but you have 3. Not only is it not helping us reach equality, but it's not even close. If we want a society with gender equality we need to reject feminism and embrace egalitarianism and movements that truly bring our society closer to equality. Good debate, and I sincerely hope you and any others who viewed this left the debate with a better understanding of the issue.

  • PRO

    Because you can not balance your drink if you tip it to...

    Feminism should not have been created in the beginning.

    I know what you're thinking. I sound crazy. Why on earth with me, a girl wish that feminism wasn't born in the first place. Let me tell you why. Because you can not balance your drink if you tip it to one side. Meaning It should have started gender neutral in the beginning. That would have been a healthier way of tackling the issues of female rights and the inequality that happens between each gender. If you put a label on something to favor one side expect it to bite society right back in the butt in the future. Feminism is not healthy to me. Gender equality is healthy. If we started with that we would have not only tackle the issues of women and men but end with a healthy view of each other. That healthy view is we are different but equal as human beings. Its not a competition. It shouldn't be. We will always be different. You can not get rid of sexism if two sexes exist. I know a lot of you favor women and that's why there will be always inequality. I myself look past my identity and my favoritism and this is just my practical way of thinking.