I believe that feminism has gone to far and that women...
feminism
I believe that feminism has gone to far and that women already have equal right already (except the whole women have to wear shirts thing that's stupid) pro starts
Topic space view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
-
CON -
CON At first it was a good cause and was for woman rights but...
Feminism
I believe that Feminism is coming out of hand. At first it was a good cause and was for woman rights but now they are taking it too far. I believe feminism is the equality of woman but I also believe we've already got to that point. I think what some feminists don't understand is that some woman like being a stay at home mom and by them still pursuing it it makes them feel inferior. I've also met some feminist who say that they think that woman are superior and I do not think that is anywhere near the truth. We need each other not only as partners but as a union our minds work differently and we need our other part for the world to be in harmony.
-
PRO One may be tempted to say that it is slightly...
Feminism is not sexist.
I would like to thank my opponent for his last round. My opponent starts by saying that the definition of feminism assumes that 'women have rights that are not equal to men's, and given this, it is necessary to advocate for them'. I agree with my opponent AND with the assumption. He then points out the fact that presume that 'women's right' are the same as 'human rights'... once again I plead guilty as charged and I hope I'm not the only one who does; in my opinion women ARE human and therefore women's right ARE human rights. I'm surprised that this is even an issue and that is why I didn't consider it important to provide an explanation. Then my opponent goes on to say that since feminism focuses on women's right, it necessarily follows that it is sexist. Well, according to the definition of sexism provided by CON, it does not follow. Focusing one's efforts on making sure that women have equal rights is neither prejudicial nor stereotyping. One may be tempted to say that it is slightly discriminating, but it isn't either; feminism does not strive to eradicate or diminish men's right, it strives to make women equal to men in terms of rights. My opponent then reiterates his explanation for connecting the laws he presented with feminism: "The reason why this is crucial to my arguments, and truly this whole debate, is that it leads to the support of laws that are made to support women's rights. Such things as protection under the law and voting are some rights that can be, and have been, advocated for. As such, they fall into the realm of 'feminism'..." Yes, fighting for the right to vote is feminist because men had the right to vote when women didn't. But this has nothing to do with the laws he presented. 'PRO's attempt to argue that a law is only feminist if it supports the equal rights of men and women is flawed, as the only mention of equal rights of the sexes is in reference to justification for the advocacy of women's rights.' Yes, I argue that a law is only feminist if it falls into the definition of feminism, which I think is a pretty good way to assess it: if a law doesn't advocate women's right on the ground of the equality of sexes, then it isn't feminist. He then restates his explanation regarding the supposed weakness of my analogy, making the exact same mistake once more: he is comparing what atheism is with what feminism is, which was not all what I was trying to do. The analogy with taxes IS pointless for a reason that I have already addressed: pointing to sexist events or aspects of society (a non-existent one in this case) and associating them with feminism only because they favor women is purely a non-sequitur. In conclusion, my opponent's argument is basically that since there are laws that favor women over men, feminism must be sexist. He associates feminism with any law that favor women, disregarding the definition of feminism. As I have previously said, most of my opponent's arguments would have been great in a debate where the topic was 'Sexism is often used by people who claim to be feminist', but it isn't. As my opponent and I have both said, we are discussing the IDEA of feminism, and one cannot judge the pros and cons of an ideology by pointing to how it is used by people (for reasons I have previously explained). I would like to thank my opponent for this entertaining debate.
-
CON Rebuttal "Do you grow up as a kid thinking: I want to...
Feminism
Ironically enough, If you're searching for 'valid' arguments in favour of Feminism then academia would be the place to go. I did not recycle any of my arguments personally, Though you're welcome to do so if you cite the source. Have you tried Google Scholar? I also think you may be under a misconception so let's clear it up now. I am arguing against feminism, Not against feminists as individuals. Feminism is simply not egalitarian, I'd regard it primarily as insidious subversion. Rebuttal "Do you grow up as a kid thinking: I want to work at a sewage plant for half my life! You don't. " Many men choose to become plumbers, Construction works, Or go into a trade career because it's in high demand. I feel bad for the few people on the job who have to wade through faeces but that isn't a common occurrence and a result of their own failings. "But if an egalitarian agenda is fought for in the name of equality for women" By fighting for something in the name of specifically women you've ruled out the possibility of it ever being egalitarian. "The concept of the 'perfect girl' is still a thing focused upon by too many girls in my school, Middle aged mothers, And recently graduated college students. " The only reason this could be harmful is if the women/girls are alienated from this endeavour. It happens, But this isn't rectifiable by feminism. "Another recent event that has come in the name of equality is the 'me too' movement. Allegations should always be taken seriously, But if they are false, The victim has to own up to his or her lies" Could you explain the results of this movement in detail, It seems you may be excluding a few crucial details [4]. Under a feminist culture, There is no reason for a false-victim to own up to her lips as she's a victim of the patriarchy. "In an egalitarian movement, Everyone has the right to express whoever they want to be. This is not something I see in my school. There are about 50-150 girls in my school that if you put them side by side, You would have trouble telling the differences. " Is anyone forcing all 150 of these girls to behave and act in the exact same manner? It seems to me that isn't the case and that they're emulating a perceived ideal. Individuals are defined by their differences and groups by their similarity, We'd do well to remember this. "Was it right and just that women got to vote or no? " Sure it was, But it isn't a feminist concept. "Yes, We are different, But we are still equal. We are all intelligent to a degree and had the same ancestors. So, Women should be exactly equal to men. There is a difference between equality and equity. Equality is where everyone gets treated the same no matter what, Equity is where everyone gets exactly what they need to come out equal in the end. " Saying "women should be exactly equal to men" is an argument for equality of outcome. We are not equal in terms of biology or psychology, Which makes sense considering the psyche has a physiological grounding. [5][6] This is an unachievable ideal and pursuit of it always results in bloodshed. "This is both a micro-aggression and stereotyping. Do all feminists or even all contemporaries become angry at the concept of a person not being fooled by a lie? . . . You can't argue against both. You argue against the contemporary movement, Which is more women>men, But you fail to realize there are two more pieces of the shattered movement. . . . The original movement still stands. " It very clearly wasn't stereotyping, I specified postmodern feminism which is the primary denomination of modern feminism. If you don't understand the postmodernist movement you don't understand anything of modern politics. I don't understand this type of vocabulary. I've never heard of a "microaggression" before, But this seems a very convenient way to discount the character of an individual with opposing ideas. "Brave women who want to be soldiers, Who want to feel equally safe, Who want to compete, Who want to preform physical labor, Who want to live their life to the fullest in co-existence with everyone. " These women are not feminists, And those who are are in a smaller minority than the intellectuals of the feminist movement. Also, I am not arguing against the people I'm arguing against the idea. Lieing to these women is not doing them any good, It becomes even more heinous when you do so because they're women. There were many good Nazis, That doesn't make Nazism good. Even provided everything you've said is true, You're taking a marginal case and arguing it broadly. Also, It seems you've neglected to directly address at least 2 of the 5 points I articulated against Feminism. I will put my sources in my profile.
-
PRO 3) Once feminism does fully succeed in the US and other...
Feminism
I would like to start my rebuttal by thanking my opponent for his opening arguments. I would also like to clarify that feminism is not an argument, it is a movement and a collection of ideologies. Now, my opponent makes the claim that feminism has already succeeded in making women equals, thus it no longer has a place in first world countries. I have a few things to say on this: 1) My opponent offers no data or sources that show equality. He claims women can be president now, yet we have not seen a female president yet. He claims women can join the army now, but yet they only represent 14.6% of the US military [1]. 2) Just because a movement has succeeded (which feminism has not yet fully accomplished, as I will show further on in this argument), that does not mean the movement should be shut down. Once goals are reached, it is still important to work to maintain the achievements that the movement fought for. 3) Once feminism does fully succeed in the US and other first world nations, the success of the movement can be used to help the third world countries that are much farther behind, as my opponent admits. Feminists should not (and do not) only aim to help women in their own countries; feminism is a global movement that aims to help equalize rights for all women. So if success is found in some areas, feminists can take that success elsewhere and look to help other women in need [2]. My opponent also makes the claim that he believes men are now subordinate. He again provides no data or sources for his claim; only that men are forced to fight in wars. This is an odd argument, given that earlier my opponent used the example of females finally being allowed to fight in the army as proof that equality exists, but then claims that men are the ones forced to fight in wars. If it is equal as you state and women are allowed in the army, that renders your second argument void because women are now allowed to fight as well. In reality, it is true that more men still fight and die for their country, but is that because they are subordinate or because for a long time, women were not permitted to do so? Now I want to provide some numbers that show why feminism has not yet fully succeeded in the United States. Women in the United States still make $0.77 to every $1.00 a man makes [3]. There can be many reasons for this gap, but it has been this way for some time and does not seem to be changing much. Many high paying professions may shy away from hiring women due to the potential for pregnancy and maternity leave. Many women may choose to work only part time jobs because their spouse already has a high paying job, and someone needs more time to look after the children. Whatever the reasons, the fact of the matter is, pretty much across the board, women don't make as much money as men do. Even childless women still only make 82% of what their male counterparts make, so pregnancy and maternity leave are not the only cause for this gap [4]. The fact is, in most occupations, a woman's salary is less than that of a man's in the same occupation [5]. My opponent's claim that feminism has already succeeded was not backed by any sources and I have just shown how gender equality still does not fully exist, even in the first world countries. I have also shown that even if feminists did succeed in achieving equality in the US and other first world countries, they still would have a role to play in maintaining the equality that they achieved as well as aiding in the feminist movements on a global scale. The feminist movement is necessary now and moving forward, to ensure that women are treated equally and can obtain and maintain equal rights in all countries across the globe. [1] http://www.statisticbrain.com... [2] http://www.umich.edu... [3] http://www.forbes.com... [4] http://www.aauw.org... [5] http://www.bls.gov...
-
CON I agree right off the bat that gender egalitarianism is...
Feminism is idiotic.
I agree right off the bat that gender egalitarianism is an ideal which society should strive for. However, in places such as the Afghanistan where women are blatantly treated worse than men, feminism is necessary for the achievement of that end. Feminism serves to level the playing field in places where the playing field is unequal to begin with. So by valuing gender egalitarianism, Pro concedes the debate: feminism can't be idiotic if it is working towards a cause which Pro himself agrees with.
-
PRO Once again you are making generalizations about...
Feminism
Once again you are making generalizations about feminists. By definition feminism is: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic EQUALITY to men. See! Real feminists want equality, not to overpower men.
-
CON I assume that we are arguing whether feminism is a...
Feminism
I assume that we are arguing whether feminism is a positive or negative thing. Since my opponent is affirming, he/she has the burden of proof to show that it is a positive thing. I await my opponent's opening round.
-
CON If I actually made an argument in the first round I...
Feminism
So it isn't a "high ground" thing. You are the pro therefor it is up to you to make a claim. You see how it goes by rounds? If I actually made an argument in the first round I would've already been in the lead and you'd have to play catch up the whole time. I didn't take the easy win. You're welcome. So I tend to agree with you're definition of feminism. I think if you frame feminism like that most people would call themselves feminists. It sounds to me like you should have asked to argue with a misandrists because most of your argument is geared towards clarifying a difference which is interesting and worth talking about but not what your title implies. What your title implies is that you are part of a modern feminist movement that would support things like equity over equality. Women have the same rights as men in the U. S so for you to be promoting classic feminism isn't anything people take issue with. It is the status quo. If you want to talk about the gender pay gap we can but it isn't a symptom of oppression. More women choose to go into fields that pay less. The difference between pay in each field is nominal. It's really a non-issue because we aren't going to force people into fields they don't want to do. We definitely aren't going to artificially inflate other fields for the sake of equity. So the real question is still: what is your claim? As a modern feminist what change are you actually promoting?
-
CON If feminism began in the 1400s, as my opponent says, then...
Feminism is necessary
Sources My opponent may not be fine with my source, but I accept hers. I accept it because it proves MY point. If feminism began in the 1400s, as my opponent says, then feminism is not necessary, because we used to live without it. Necessary vs. Should AGAIN, we're not debating if we should have feminism, we're debating if feminism is necessary. If my opponent wanted to debate if it should be on implemented, she should have crafted a different resolution. Definition of "necessary" My opponent did not argue with the definition of "necessary", so I can only presume she agrees with it. With this in mind, let's go over it again so I can build a foundation for my rebuttal: necessary: being essential, indispensable, or requisite Rebuttal: My opponent gave me a litany of issues, and asked me if I thought any of them were necessary. Well, to answer her question, we need to ask if they're "essential, indispensable, or requisite" 13th amendment? No. The Declaration? Nope. Abortion ban? Negative. Empowerment, respect, identity? Not at all. Don't get me wrong, I support all of those things, but they're not necessary. We COULD live in a world without freedom, respect, and identity. Therefore, feminism is NOT necessary.
