args

The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

*Has my opponent scientifically proven that feminism is negatively impacting relationships? As it is written now, the point of this debate is for him to prove that feminism is negatively impacting relationships, not what women are and aren't good at. He spent little time doling out statistics on modern relationship trends. He even admits "science is limited in it's ability to prove that people are less happy in relationships" then he puts forth statistics that don't have anything to do with relationships specifically, in hopes that the reader can find a correlation. I agree with my opponent that science is limited in it's ability to prove that relationships are being adversely affected. I took to the internet (at my opponents suggesting) to find evidence of the decline of the modern relationship, but to no avail. There really isn't any evidence suggesting that relationships are being adversely affected AT ALL, let alone by feminism. With a lack of proper evidence, all my opponent could do from here on out was draw correlations between his relationship and society, as if what happens in his relationship must be happening to us all. His point of view from his relationship cannot be considered a reliable representation of ALL relationships. I think he could've done a better job with trying to prove "scientifically", that relationships are being adversely affected, and that feminism is the specific cause. Without this concrete evidence, my opponents entire argument unravels fairly quick. Now, the entire debate is based solely from the point of view of my opponent. *Has my opponent persuaded you of his premise in a social sense? It seems my opponent has projected his image of his relationship onto society. He thinks his personal experience is a true representation of ALL society, then he tries to portray his problems as societies problems. In all truth, it was a revealing look inside the dark depths of a social echoe chamber. I know how he wanted so badly to argue that women are inferior when it comes to finances or personal responsibility etc etc, but I feel that whatever "role" Tom has in mind for men and women doesn't really matter in this debate. If he wanted to have a debate on the superiority or inferiority of men and women, his proposal should have been worded differently, like for instance, UNK NO LIKE WOMEN IN WORKPLACE, or something of that nature. It seems that Thomas thinks my relationship is "rather rare if not unique in human history", so I guess he thinks my relationship is NOT a good representation of society at large, to him I'm in an "alternative social order". He feels that him and his friends (who unsurprisingly have similar problems) and whatever comedy shows he watches are a good representation of society at large, because he did a study on the issue (I'm sure it's scintillating) and that's all he felt he needed as a good representation of society!?! My opponent offers no hard evidence on social trends suggesting that feminism has a negative impact on relationships, but here is a link to one study he mentioned and it seems that egalitarianism does not adversely affect relationships http://journals.sagepub.com.... *Has my opponent properly addressed the fact that economic circumstances make it difficult for women to be housewives? My opponents assertion that feminist discouragement of women being housewives is totally irrelevant!! Womens rejection of the role of housewife isn't tied to feminism, it's tied to economic circumstance. I would wager that the VAST majority of women who have jobs do not identify themselves as feminists. Regardless of their feelings toward being housewives, more women are being thrust into a role of economic provider. My opponent has done nothing to address this point, which I have brought up more than once! *Do social additudes directly influence our relationships? I think my opponent got a little tongue tied when it came to this point. It seems he thinks that social attitudes have a more profound impact on our personal relationships than we as individuals do. Once again he's hijacked something and twisted it to fit his world view. Higher self awareness does not deal with societies influence, it deals with emotions. My opponent claims we are preprogrammed by society, and the concept of higher self awareness proves it. HOGWASH!!!! Higher self awareness says that our brains are capable of remembering the emotions we feel in any given situation we've ever had. Our brains then store that information and uses it as an emotional blueprint for our future reference. When we encounter a situation that is similar to a situation we've encountered in the past, our brains unconsciously remind us of the feelings we had in the past situation. This emotional information can and does profoundly influence our decision making. Some may interpret that as being preprogrammed by our emotions, but self awareness is the realization of this process and being able to overcome it. I think my opponent has a common misconception on the difference between emotions and actions. Emotions do influence us deeply, and we don't truly have control over them, but your not going to melt if you act "contrary" to your emotions. They're just feelings (Nietzsche spoke about this alot). Lets say you have a fear of flying, but you've decided to get on a plane and face your fear, that would be an example of you acting contrary to your emotions. Your choice of action is the dominant factor here, not emotions. We are not preprogrammed by our emotions. I feel that the only way social attitudes can influence our relationships is if we choose to let them. Our relationships aren't owned by the public, and our love is not for the greater good of society, it's for our own personal interest. Our perception of our own relationship is far more influential than social attitudes. My wife and I are very happy together, but we have had quarrels in the past and will again in the future, but I don't simply blame our disagreements on feminism. Our personal feelings for each other are far more influential than social attitudes or feminism. I thank my opponent for such a spirited debate, and I wish him good luck. I thank YOU the reader for taking interest in this debate, and I encourage you to vote on it. Peace!

Feminism has reached a point where it is now more harmful than good.

The assertion that feminism has reached a point that it causes more harm than good is false. There are many logical fallacies why this claim might be made, but they do not hold up under scrutiny. Much circumstantial and anecdotal evidence might be given to support such claims, but they beg the question as to whether feminism is the cause of the evidence. The facts will show that equality of the sexes has not been reached in this country, let alone much of the rest of the world. That this lofty goal has not been met does not imply that feminism failed, nor does it imply that feminism succeeded but that this is as close as we can get to equality. The facts only show we have far to go; not as far as we once did, of course, but still miles to go before we sleep. A June 2010 report by the U.S. Department of Labor(1) read that, in 2009, women who were full time salary or wage employees earned only 80% of their male counterparts. Though the gap is less than in 1979 (where they earned 62% of males), it can in no way be considered the best we can do. Of course economic earnings are hardly the only factor to determine equality, and was not the prime cause that gave rise to the feminist movement. The prime cause, the overarching grievance of the movement, is oppression. Feminism is grounded on the belief that women are oppressed or disadvantaged by comparison with men, and that their oppression is in some way illegitimate or unjustified. (2) So it is not the equality of incomes that will signify the success of the feminist movement, but the eradication of all oppression against women. Oppression is the flipside of liberty, and liberty can be gaged by choices. Women today have many more choices than they did even twenty years ago, and so I concede that the yoke of oppression is lighter, but it has not been thrown off. The roots of sexism go back thousands of years. The patriarchal societies in which women have sought to thrive can point to their holy books to give ‘proof’ of the subservient role that women are supposed to assume. Men who were comfortable with their role as breadwinners and protectors were taken aback by women who asserted their authority and power. Many men lost their identity as a direct result of women redefining theirs, but that is not a failure of the movement, it is a failure of the men. Women struggled mightily to define themselves apart from their traditional roles, because it was those roles, in part, that were keeping them shackled to the past. Women shattered the notion that they could be only housewives or secretaries. Then they shattered the notion that there were any jobs that could only be fulfilled by males. It wasn’t inferiority that made it difficult for women to break into the military, the police, the firefighters, et al. It was the stubborn refusal of the male mindset to change. We came very close already to running a female for the Presidency, and I anticipate we will have a First Husband in my lifetime. But having women in such places of power does not mean that there is no more sexism any more than having a black President means there is no more racism. It means we have come far, but the race is not run just because you can see the finish line. Though there is much good yet for the feminist movement to accomplish, my opponent will also argue that the movement does more harm than good. The hardships and failures that inevitably result from any evolutionary process in no way indicate that the struggle is not worth it. It is always difficult when someone in power has to give up some of that power. Many women, perhaps, have abused their newly claimed power but, considering the thousands of year of oppression, there is no indication that more harm is being caused than good. (1)U.S. Department of Labor, 2010, Highlights of Women's Earnings in 2009, 1/25/2012, Meridianville, AL, www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2009.pdf (2)James, Susan. 1998. “Feminism.” In Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 10. London: Routledge, p.

Feminism is irrelevant in today's society

Okay, so let's scratch my definition of irrelevant then and define "unnecessary". [1] Unnecessary: not needed. I will start of by rebutting some of your points. Domestic Violence 1) In your first argument, you claim that women are the abusers, not men, and that women abuse men more often then men abuse women. If we take a look at a credible source, such as (DVS) "Domestic Violence Statistics" you will see that the statistics for women whom are abused are much more serious and of a higher rate then men who are abused. [2] Every 9 seconds in the US a woman is assaulted or beaten. Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. Most often, the abuser is a member of her own family. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women—more than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined. Studies suggest that up to 10 million children witness some form of domestic violence annually. Nearly 1 in 5 teenage girls who have been in a relationship said a boyfriend threatened violence or self-harm if presented with a breakup. Everyday in the US, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. Ninety-two percent of women surveyed listed reducing domestic violence and sexual assault as their top concern. Domestic violence victims lose nearly 8 million days of paid work per year in the US alone—the equivalent of 32,000 full-time jobs. Based on reports from 10 countries, between 55 percent and 95 percent of women who had been physically abused by their partners had never contacted non-governmental organizations, shelters, or the police for help. The costs of intimate partner violence in the US alone exceed $5.8 billion per year: $4.1 billion are for direct medical and health care services, while productivity losses account for nearly $1.8 billion. Men who as children witnessed their parents’ domestic violence were twice as likely to abuse their own wives than sons of nonviolent parents. Now, let's compare this to the men whom have been abused statistics. [3] Nearly, 15% of women (14.8%) and 4% of men have been injured as a result of IPV that included rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.[iii] As you can see, there is a dramatic difference in the percentage of both genders who have been taken advantage of or have been beaten. Consent Here you are simply that if a women gets raped, and or is taken advantage of, it's simply her fault. This is in fact, very untrue. When someone is drunk, they have no control over their mind. Alcohol has a major impact on the brain, so people aren't allowed to control themselves. [4] Alcohol interferes with the brain’s communication pathways, and can affect the way the brain looks and works. These disruptions can change mood and behavior, and make it harder to think clearly and move with coordination. As you can see, you don't have control over your body. So if a guy tries to rape a women while she is drunk, he will more then likely succeed because the girl is unaware of her environment, thus leading to rape. Pay Gap In this claim, my opponent admits that there is in fact a gay gap by saying that there is a "23 cent" gap, then he seems to get confused and say that "Just to put the cherry on this sundae, the wage gap, if it ever existed, it legally should have gone away in 1963 when JFK signed such legislation. Another problem I have here is he says " should have gone away in 1963 when JFK signed such legislation." Okay then my question here is: What did JFK sign? And what should have gone away? My opponent fails to argue that the pay gap is a issue. Why Feminism is necessary. First, I would like to give you a background on how Feminism started AKA "The Women's Movement. [5] Charles Fourier, a Utopian Socialist and French philosopher, is credited with having coined the word "féminisme" in 1837.[11] The words "féminisme" ("feminisme") and "féminist" ("feminist") first appeared in France and the Netherlands in 1872,[12] Great Britain in the 1890s, and the United States in 1910,[13][14] and the Oxford English Dictionary lists 1852 as the year of the first appearance of "feminist"[15] and 1895 for "feminism".[16] Depending on historical moment, culture and country, feminists around the world have had different causes and goals. Most western feminist historians assert that all movements that work to obtain women's rights should be considered feminist movements, even when they did not (or do not) apply the term to themselves.[17][18][19][20][21][22] Other historians assert that the term should be limited to the modern feminist movement and its descendants. Those historians use the label "protofeminist" to describe earlier movements.[23] In today's society, men want to ignore the fact that women get taken advantage of way too much. Who is to stand up for them? This is why we have feminist. To 1, protect our right's and 2, to protect our self's and stand up for what is wrong. Men like to think that we are all equal when that in fact isn't the case, people would rather ignore the fact that we aren't equal because they'd rather not deal with it. 14 reasons why we need Feminism. [6] 1. Because women still dealwith catcalling on a daily basis. 2. Because there are currently only 20 women serving in the United States Senate, compared to 80 men. 3. Because America is still very much a patriarchy. 4. Because although we’ve made some great progress with female CEOs … 5. Overall, women still earn less money than men with the same education level. 6. Because a woman’s appearance is still under a microscope. 7. Because in the United States, a woman is raped every six seconds. 8. And more often than not, the victim is blamed. 9. Because women have been fired because of their looks. 10. Because women experience terror when walking alone at night. 11. Because pepper spray shouldn’t have to be a necessity for women to feel safe. 12. Because women should be allowed to decide what happens to their bodies. 13. Because in a domestic abuse case, people ask, “Why did she stay?” instead of, “Why did he abuse?” 14. And because even if you’ve never personally experienced any of these things, other women do…every single day. We women have the freedom to do what we want, nobody should be able to wake away our freedom of speech as stated in the first Amendment. I look forward to you argument! Sources: [1] https://www.google.com... [2] http://domesticviolencestatistics.org... [3] http://www.thehotline.org... [4] http://niaaa.nih.gov... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.buzzfeed.com...

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

You are aware in this debate you are supposed to be arguing in favor of feminism right? Anyways did you even read my argument? Well I have about 7.8 thousand characters left so I may as well expand on my arguments. A lot of the ways feminists defend their movement when someone brings up the issues men face is by saying either 1. That feminism helps men's issues by destroying stereotypes. 2. That men's issues are completely separate from female issues. One analogy I heard was "that's like saying someone who cured breast cancer hates the effort to cure lung cancer". Well the reason why both of these defenses are simply wrong is because feminism doesn't just help solve men's issues or do nothing about them. Instead it makes the problem worse and the movement as a whole tries to stop anything from being done about male issues. For example, consider this article/video: http://www.avoiceformen.com... In this video there is a woman who talks about her efforts to bring awareness to men's issues is shut down and censored by Feminists. Clearly Feminism, as a whole, is not helping us solve men's issues. As I stated before it is making the problem worse. Now a lot of people (probably feminists) will refute this and say "Well not all feminists are like that"or "They aren't true feminists". The thing is I am asking the question of whether the movement as a whole is helping society, not if all feminists are bad. Also the thing about saying they are not true feminists is that people like them represent the face of feminism. They are usually the ones who control the policy in place, they control the movements and they control what the movement actually changes. A perfect example of how feminist policy has hurt society and driven us further from equality can be found here: http://www.avoiceformen.com... . This article by Karen Straughan talks about how once domestic violence (Let's us DV for short) started getting public attention there were two main approaches to solve the problem. One of them saw it as gender neutral and likely had external problems causing it such as mental illness, stress and alcohol/drug problems. Importantly this approach saw both males and females as victims and perpetrators. To put it simply this approach had no gender bias. This was lead by a woman named Erin Pizzey. She founded the first battered women's shelter. What she found while running her shelter was 60% of the women were as violent or even more violent than the men they were fleeing. And then there's the second approach, the feminist one. This model says that men are always the violent ones and are beating their partners to oppress them and to make their partners fear them. This model is based on what is called "patriarchy theory". This model became entrenched and seen as the most common and correct model by law enforcement, social workers and judges. This model is adopted by many of the 1st world, western countries including the US, Canada and the UK. In other words this model is the status quo. Despite being seen as the model that fits almost every case of domestic violence, in reality, it makes up the smallest minority of cases. The feminist model overtook the more benevolent model ran by Erin Pizzey, despite Pizzey's model being far more accurate and helpful. The feminist model has resulted in male victims of DV being seen as a joke and offered little to no help. Feminism did not help the issue. Feminism made the problem worse. Feminism is not helping 1st world countries reach gender equality, hence the resolution. As Karen Straughan put it, "If society was feminists, and blacks were men, they would scream ever louder that blacks are the primary offenders and that other races almost never commit such crimes, that the crime itself stems from "toxic, hegemonic blackness", they would ignore the evidence, suppress the evidence, intimidate or shun researchers who produce the evidence, engage in threats of violence against researchers who publish the evidence, and continue their attempts to entrench their view of blackness being integral to said crime into legislation and policy." To put what she said in other words: The way feminists view men and women in DV is dangerously similar to how racist whites view blacks in crime in a way that justifies systematic oppression. The women Erin Pizzey I recently talked about was terrorized by Feminists for questioning their model and saying it was wrong. She was protested and threatened by Feminists. She had to have a police escort where ever she went because of Feminists. She was instructed to have her mail re-directed to the bomb unit to ensure her house would not be blown to smithereens. The result of this terror peaked when her family dog was shot. As a result she fled the country. All of that just for saying women can be just as violent as men and that Feminists are wrong. Just for saying men can be victims too she was terrorized to the point of her fleeing the country. Countless Feminists view men as monsters and women as the princesses that need to be rescued from their violent captors. They reject the evidence and suppress those who speak out against them. As a result of Feminist policy men have been denied the rights as people, just because they are men and Feminist policy treats men like monsters. DV policy isn't even the only case. In Feminist rape policy all men are treated like possible rapists even though the reality is only a tiny percent of the population commits almost all rapes. So allow me to conclude, Feminism is not helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries because feminism itself does not treat the genders equally. Feminism treats women as the superior, harmless gender while Feminism treats men as sub-human monsters. Does that sound equal to you?

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

I accept but I am putting up the following definintion for feminism: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

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

Thank you again for challenging me to this topic! I would like to say the resolution is not just limited to the United States. The resolution reads “On balance, Feminism is not needed in the US anymore.”The resolution is not just on the U.S, but other countries as well, it’s not restricted to the U.S. due to the wording. I will be arguing that: 1. Women are still oppressed in the U.S—thus, we still need feminism. 2. Oppression of Women in other countries, and why feminism is important. Oppression of Women in the U.S A lot of people believe that oppression no longer exist in the U.S anymore. Here are my reasons: C.1 [1] Sex, Domestic Violence and Rape: “In terms of the global sex trade, an estimated 50,000 women are trafficked into the US each year. The USA is both a destination country for trafficking, as well as a source country. This means that American women ARE kidnapped, or otherwise coerced into the sex trafficking industry. Women are often lured into the sex trade under false pretenses; being hired as waitresses or maids and then forced into prostitution. This is not just a problem for developing countries. It is here, on our own soil…. “In the US, 23 women a week are killed by intimates. This has held steady for more than a decade. 74% of women murdered from instances of domestic violence were murdered after the woman left the relationship, filed for divorce or got a restraining order. Our government has failed to protect women from abusive partners, and band-aid solutions like restraining orders are proven to be, ultimately, ineffective.” The goal of the government is to protect their citizens, and keep them safe at all measures. But, they don’t seem to care much when it comes to the safety of the Women. It merely seems as if the government merely believes that Women should be taking care of themselves. [4] Even the government underestimates the crisis American women are in. Last year the Justice Department reported that there were 182,000 sexual assaults committed against women in 2008, which would mean that the rate had decreased by 70 percent since 1993. But a study by the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center showed that the Justice Department's methodology was flawed. Instead of behaviorally based questions, such as "Has anyone ever forced you to have sex?", women were asked if they had been subject to "rape, attempted or other type of sexual attack." Victims often don't label their experience as "rape," especially when someone they know attacked them. The center says the actual number of U.S. women raped in 2008 was more than 1 million. The distressing statistics don't stop with violence: Women hold 17 percent of the seats in Congress; abortion is legal, but more than 85 percent of counties in the United States have no provider; women work outside the home, but they make about 76 cents to a man's dollar and make up the majority of Americans living in poverty. C.2 In the Workplace Many people want to argue that the “Wage Gap” simply doesn’t exist. In fact, it still does. Many people want to argue that the reasoning has to do with degrees, and positions. It has been proven on multiple occasions that Men and Women who have the same degree, and work the same job, Women still earn less. “Women still earn 72 cents for every man a dollar earns. In 2008, women occupied only 15% of board positions of Fortune 500 companies. The proportion of women in government was lower in 2007 than 1997. In Scandinavian countries, there are policies that enforce equality in representation of government. Not in the US, with a paltry 17% of female government officials–Iraq has a higher representation of women in government than we do. So does Namibia, Rwanda, and Afghanistan. Until there is equality in representation on a government level, there is no equality for women on the civic level.” [2] “Did you know that in 2014, women working full time in the United States typically were paid just 79 percent of what men were paid, a gap of 21 percent? The gap has narrowed since the 1970s (Figure 1), due largely to women’s progress in education and workforce participation and to men’s wages rising at a slower rate. But progress has stalled in recent years, and the pay gap does not appear likely to go away on its own.” This is merely discrimination, paying Women less because she is simply a woman. There is no denying the fact. This is oppression, and we should continue to fight for equality, especially when it comes to pay. Quick facts: Thanks to the pay gap, women struggle to pay off student loan debt even more than men do. The pay gap has barely budged in a decade. At the current rate, the gap won’t close for more than 100 years. Women in every state experience the pay gap, but in some states it’s worse than others C. 3 Why we need Feminism in other Countries. A) Because FGM still exists; [3] FGM involves removing bits of the genitals and stitching them back together. Female genital mutilation causes severe pain. It makes peeing very painful and sex impossible. Many want to say that the procedure is due to religion, which may be true in some cases, but not all. “despite FGM being mainly associated with Ethiopian minority Judaism and Sunni Muslims. The answer often lies in ancient attitudes to female sexuality. In some parts of the world, a high value is placed on a bride’s virginity. FGM destroys the victim’s ability to derive pleasure from sex while also making it highly-painful, ensuring that virginity remains intact. And did I mention this happens to girls as young as five months? That’s right: in 2013 there are still some people who honestly can’t see what’s wrong with mutilating a baby.” Child Brides [3] “Although it affects more girls worldwide, child marriage is bad news for both genders. In Rajasthan in India, children as young as six get married in lavish ceremonies, eventually moving in together at 14. As anyone who’s ever been a teenager knows, fourteen is not an age at which you can typically expect emotional maturity. Unsurprisingly, stuff like domestic abuse is more prevalent in these early marriages. But India has nothing on places like South Sudan or Yemen. While Indian child brides are usually around the same age as their husband, their foreign counterparts often wind up getting married to someone decades older. Girls who refuse to marry are frequently beaten, imprisoned or even murdered.” Again, another act of oppression, and inequality. Women are deprived from making choices themselves, thus they are oppressed by Men. FGM and Child brides are not choices made by Women, but simply by the elders, and Men in their societies. Depriving one of such a choice is a act of discrimination. Theese are just a *few* reasons as to why we still need feminism. The list goes on and on. But theese are the more important issues. Sources: [1] https://heymanda.wordpress.com... [2] http://www.aauw.org... [3] http://listverse.com... [4] http://www.washingtonpost.com...