args

Feminism is not an ideology of equality

"You completely missed the point of the first paragraph." [sarcasm]Wow, what a clear explanation.[/sarcasm] "And what's to stop me from turning around that argument? I can just say MRA's are for equality between men and women." This debate is not about MRA's. Stop going off on tangents. "Not to mention the terminology flaw: if its equality for everyone, then calling it feminism seems a rather misleading idea." Agreed, but that doesn't change the definition. "I'm elaborating on the debate." No, you're distracting from it. "Also: that's nonsense. How many feminists do you hear screaming about how domestic violence against men is just as common as it is against women, if not more so? Or how many feminists do you see out in the streets protesting that the education system is massively skewed in favour of girls? Or, at least, how many do you see that DO NOT preface it by saying that it's a part of 'the patriarchy'?" I never said that I agree with the methods of movements that CALL THEMSELVES "feminist". Any philosophy which is not of equality between genders is by definition not feminist, regardless of what they call themselves.

Feminism

That seems about right, it's more of a discussion since I want to clear some things (and rumors) that have been floating around. You see that seems to be the thing, feminist claim they stand for equality yet there have been so many movements against men and supporting females, for example the claim that men are stronger, it's not just a stereotype (you said you would explain if I was interested, I am) while they ARE physically strong, they are not some sort of a super human being. There are men with meeker personalities (even if they are told to 'man up') I get where you're coming from but the whole declaration that men simply CANNOT be domestically abused because they are male and simply more powerful than women brings up many questions about feminist equality. I mean, take a look at the new 'terms' that have come into existence, "Man-spreading" and "Mansplaining", they're not even proper words, its just putting man with the word spreading and combining explaining. These terms stand for 'spreading legs in public' and 'explaining something to a woman in a condensing and/or patronizing manner' respectively, however these terms hold no logic and are specifically aimed at males, like I said before in the previous round, we, male and females, have been made differently, its nature. So why are men blamed for the way they sit? its a confirmed biological fact that they need to open their legs because of their genitalia, they just can't sit with them closed, its just the way it is, so holding men responsible for the way they were created is not equality simply because 'if women sit with their legs closed then men should too or else it would be offensive because males take too much space in comparison to females so they can be arrested FOR NOT SITTING WITH THEIR LEGS CLOSED' (sorry about that). The term 'Mansplaining', I mean where is the term for women who speak in a condensing or patronizing tone towards men? On second thoughts, why have they created this word in the first place? This word just...doesn't make sense, does this word imply that men think they're better than women? Who was such a genius psychologist to know what every man on the earth thinks? Does it imply that men use 'condensing or patronizing' tone towards women just because they're female or because of other reasons? "(of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing." fresh from google, it doesn't say anywhere that the man is being condensing towards the woman BECAUSE she is a female, it only says that he explains it TO a woman in a condensing tone, is it simply called man-plaining because its the man that's being condensing, so if equality is so important to feminists why are they coming up with terms specifically for men? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it come in the sexist category? Back towards the point, feminists have said that males cannot be domestically abused because "Women are equal to and just as capable as men. Except when it comes to abuse. No woman is physically capable of harming a man ever". How can they say that if they claim women are just as capable as men, if they are just as capable then why are they not 'just as capable to abuse', if men in their eyes are the abusers? Like I said before, not every man is strong, there are some who have softer personalities, or who are more sensitive because even if they 'man up', they cannot shut down their emotions. So if there can be a male who can be a drunkard who abuses his children and/or his partner, then why can't there be a drunkard female who abuses her children and/or her partner? If not drunkard, and there is a male who can harm his partner then why can't there be a female who harms her partner as well? Also note that ("Women are equal to and just as capable as men. Except when it comes to abuse. No woman is physically capable of harming a man ever") It only says that PHYSICALLY harm is 'incapable for females to commit', even when going along with those words, is verbal or psychological (mental abuse) not a thing? There have been cases where male domestic abuse help centers have been closed due to pressure, where are they supposed to go for help? if These terms stand for 'spreading legs in public' and 'explaining something to a woman in a condensing and/or patronizing manner' respectively, however these terms hold no logic and are specifically aimed at males, like I said before in the previous round, we, male and females, have been made differently, its nature. So why are men blamed for the way they sit? its a confirmed biological fact that they need to open their legs because of their genitalia, they just can't sit with them closed, its just the way it is, so holding men responsible for the way they were created is not equality simply because 'if women sit with their legs closed then men should too or else it would be offensive because males take too much space in comparison to females so they can be arrested FOR NOT SITTING WITH THEIR LEGS CLOSED' (sorry about that). The term 'Mansplaining', I mean where is the term for women who speak in a condensing or patronizing tone towards men? On second thoughts, why have they created this word in the first place? This word just...doesn't make sense, does this word imply that men think they're better than women? Who was such a genius psychologist to know what every man on the earth thinks? Does it imply that men use 'condensing or patronizing' tone towards women just because they're female or because of other reasons? "(of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing." fresh from google, it doesn't say anywhere that the man is being condensing towards the woman BECAUSE she is a female, it only says that he explains it TO a woman in a condensing tone, is it simply called man-plaining because its the man that's being condensing, so if equality is so important to feminists why are they coming up with terms specifically for men? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it come in the sexist category? Back towards the point, feminists have said that males cannot be domestically abused because "Women are equal to and just as capable as men. Except when it comes to abuse. No woman is physically capable of harming a man ever". How can they say that if they claim women are just as capable as men, if they are just as capable then why are they not 'just as capable to abuse', if men in their eyes are the abusers? Like I said before, not every man is strong, there are some who have softer personalities, or who are more sensitive because even if they 'man up', they cannot shut down their emotions. So if there can be a male who can be a drunkard who abuses his children and/or his partner, then why can't there be a drunkard female who abuses her children and/or her partner? If not drunkard, and there is a male who can harm his partner then why can't there be a female who harms her partner as well? Also note that ("Women are equal to and just as capable as men. Except when it comes to abuse. No woman is physically capable of harming a man ever") It only says that PHYSICALLY harm is 'incapable for females to commit', even when going along with those words, is verbal or psychological (mental abuse) not a thing? There have been cases where male domestic abuse help centers have been closed due to pressure, where are they supposed to go for help? if feminism supports equality then why are male shelters being shut down? Would a center specially made to help the female victims listen to a males cries of help or would they just call the authorities to get him arrested? Like a case of a "father with two children, a one-year-old girl and a nine-year-old boy and he was fleeing a violent, alcoholic wife." Another thing I would like to ask that if feminists claim that females are just as capable in ability as men then why do they back away from the flaws? If females can be just as good as men then females can just as bad as men. Likewise, why does no one work on the fact that their claim, that females are 'good', then (according to being equal) that men are just as 'good'?

3rd wave feminism has made notable progress for civil rights

I feel bad because I knew this would happen. First, there are no provisions that 3rd Wave has directly impacted anything in the above presentation. Sex Positive Feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org...) began in the 1980s and the Free-Love movement is from the 1960's however Third wave is presented as a 90's movement, "Third-wave feminism is a term identified with several diverse strains of feminist activity and study, whose exact boundaries in the historiography of feminism are a subject of debate, but are generally marked as beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to the present. The movement arose partially as a response to the perceived failures of and backlash against initiatives and movements created by second-wave feminism during the 1960s, '70s, and '80s, and the perception that women are of "many colors, ethnicities, nationalities, religions and cultural backgrounds".[1] Rebecca Walker coined the term "third-wave feminism" in a 1992 essay." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) There's a chronological error. This means that, "The sex positive aspect of third wave feminism has resulted in the mellinial generation becoming the most accepting of other sexual orientations and genders." is unsupported by the general happenstance after the world's sexual revolution and other major occurrences and movements that happened prior to the birth of 3rd wave feminism. Transgenderism (http://en.wikipedia.org...) has been active for years long prior to the inception of 3rd Wave Feminism, I would point to the 1970's and 1980's specifically as the beginning of the tide of what would become the fruition seen in the 1990's and 2000's. Much like presidential plans most of the effects of a movement aren't seen for years after it's creation and the same goes here; Transgenderism has not been shown to directly correlate with 3rd wave's progression as claimed here above. What is true is that 3rd wave supports (as proven by my opponent) Transgenderism but 3rd wave also supports racial issues and a wide array of groups which does not mean that it directly impacted the actual presence of modern political and social placement for these issues. The battle had been waged for years. However the claim was not that 3rd wave supports the cause. The claim was that 3rd wave has furthered the cause. It has the same failings as the previous claim that 3rd wave has somehow furthered sexual openness when it is relatively sensible to attribute this to the major shifts in the country (and world) revolving around the sexual revolutions and movements that were en mass at least 30 years prior to the decade of the birth of 3rd wave feminism. For the small list of achievements: 1. "This data snapshot highlights several differences in educational opportunities between males and females from prekindergarten through higher education. The information herein, gathered from a variety of education data sources, shows that"despite the enormous progress made in ensuring equal educational opportunities since the passage of Title IX in 1972"much work remains if we are to achieve full gender equity among our nation"s students." ( http://www2.ed.gov... ) 1972: (https://www.aclu.org...) The concept had been established long prior. This is a 2nd wave battle and this is a continuation of that molding instead of a "victory". Not only that but again it proves support, which is not equivalent to direct intervention, from the 3rd wave community. It is not a product of 3rd wave thinking and furthermore it is only being listed as such because of when it occurred instead of accurately being assessed for it's actual value and involvement with the 3rd wave movement. The only other example I will example is the Gender Equality Duty of 2007 (http://wnc.equalities.gov.uk...) which is indeed a victory for 3rd wave. Sadly this is the only thing my opponent has posted which has validity. It has since been replaced by a new act in 2010 which covers far more than just gender such as age, disability, etc. Even using Pros definition for 3rd wave he has not shown with any clear indication most of his examples to be attributed even in part let alone in significance to 3rd wave feminism.

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

Outline: I: Introduction II: The Background of Feminism III: Current Problems Women Face Today IV: Objectives and Effects of the Modern Feminist Movement I. Introduction The modern feminist movement: some people see it as a great activist movement fighting for justice and equality, whilst others may see the movement as being no more than a brood of crazy over-privileged women prancing around and causing stirrups for their campaign to eliminate all men from the face of this planet. My opponent argues that this movement is no more than a counteractive movement that does no more than destroy families, increase prejudice between the sexes, directly attack motherhood, and promote the mentality that women are better than men and deserve more rights because of so. By no means will I brush off these allegations towards the activist movement by saying that this is complete and utter boondoggle, but by no means is this relevant to the movement and the majority of its activists. There are, and always will be, people with radical beliefs that stray from the original goal of any movement. For example, many Donald Trump supporters simply supported Trump's strong opinions on foreign policy, and favored the taxes. Some even wanted to vote for him solely because they hated Clinton so much. However, the Klu Klux Klan greatly endorsed Trump. They were a small part of Trump's supporters, but by your logic, does a small part of Trump's radical supporters make the majority of his supporters as racist white supremacists? II: The Background of Feminism The Feminist Movement started as the "Women's Suffrage Movement" in 1848. As you can tell by the name, the movement's primary objective was for women in the United States to gain a voice in politics by giving them the right to vote. In 1920, as declared by the 19th amendment, women were given the right to vote. After the women were given suffrage, however, the movement died out and failed to make any further changes to increase women's civil rights. It was not until the 1940s that women were given more opportunities. After the United States entered WWII, men had to leave their jobs to join the warfront. Women had to take the vacant manufacturing jobs. They were an essential part of the war effort, supplying the American military with weapons, munitions, etc. The 1940s were a large turning point for feminism, giving women more of a voice, and proving to society that women are capable of taking the roles that were believed to be only for men (S1). From that point forward, the feminist movement grew. III: Current Problems Women Face Today By no means will I argue that women are being denied their basic rights, nor will I bash anyone in by declaring that modern-day sexism is even close to how bad it was in the early 1900s, however, that does not mean that women don't face any sort of sexism that requires action to protect them. Even though, in the United States, we live in a progressive society where women are given almost all the opportunities men are given and are protected legally as much as men, women still face prejudice, and they have every right to assemble and protest against it. One such problem that women face is the wage gap. According to the Institute for Women's Policy Research, "in 2015, female full-time workers made only 80 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gender wage gap of 20 percent," (S2). Imagine that you are a hard-working construction worker making about 30,000 USD. Then, imagine that your malicious boss decides to lower your annual wage by 20%. You would lose 6,000 USD from your yearly salary. A large part of the feminist movement is actively fighting to close the wage gap, and rightly so. Women also battle domestic violence and sexual assault. An article by "The Shriver Report" claims that one in five women has been sexually assaulted in college. It also has recorded over 270,000 instances of sexual assault worldwide on average annually. Admittedly, my third reason is fairly graphic, but I find that it is necessary to add: human trafficking is very real, and women are the biggest victim of it, though males are also the victims of sex trafficking. Sex trafficking is the exploitation of women and children for sex work It is estimated that human trafficking is a 32 billion dollar annual industry worldwide (S3). IV: Effects of the Modern Feminist Movement Pro argues that the Modern Feminist Movement has been nothing more than a movement which has ruined men and their families. However, the Modern Feminist Movement's objectives and accomplishments say differently. Modern-day feminism strives to close the wage gap, strike down sexual assault against women, and advocate for women's rights in the Middle-East. Third Wave Feminism has, through the news, protests, public speeches, and social media, informed people of problems that women face (as I mentioned above). Informing people is the first step to change and smite down wrong stereotypes.As they say, "knowledge is power." For instance, organizations such as the Feminist Majority Foundation have taken the opportunity to inform people about sexual and domestic assault by defining what it is and by helping victims by providing them with instructions on how to end it, also including the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights phone number to seek out further help in these situations. Additionally, within around fifty years, feminists have closed the wage gap from a woman's 59 cents for a man's dollar to 80 cents for a man's dollar, and it will continue do close as the movement grows stronger (S4). Feminists still continue to strive to close the wage gap, protect women against prejudice and sexual assault, and fight for women in the Middle East. Janet Mock, a popular feminist, hopes that for the new year, "that feminist, racial justice, reproductive rights and LGBT movements build a coalition that centers on the lives of women who lead intersectional lives and too often fall in between the cracks of these narrow mission statements," (S5). V: Sources S1) http://feminism.eserver.org... S2) http://www.iwpr.org... S3) http://shriverreport.org...; S4) http://everydayfeminism.com...; S5) https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Let's talk about Feminism

My apologies for not being specific. There is no way that I think men should have more rights than women. I'm more against the feminists. Not everyone, but the ones that I have recently bumped into have made me question feminism. I know that having equal rights is important, but I also think that women have all the same rights as men. I don't understand what more the women could want. If anything, women have more rights than men. For instance, men rarely ever get custody of a their children. A man cannot hit a women, but a women can hit a man, and no one says a thing (I'm not saying that men should be able to hit women). I also can see both sides of the conflict of men getting paid more than women. I see why women think that they don't get paid as much as men is unfair. Although, based on the stereotypes of men and women, a man has the pressure of being obligated to able to provide for his family, and with that stereotype and obligation, I can see why they get paid maybe a little more than women.