args

On balance modern Feminism is beneficial to the modern United States.

My apologies on the format, something happened to the site so I pasted from Microsoft Word... At least it still exists. I appreciate the kind words, Kasmic, and same goes to you. I like the way you debate and stay away from personal insults. I completely agree - ad hominem attacks are useless. Thanks for your opening arguments, I'll see if I have enough room to bring up my own after addressing yours. Economic Injustice So I found a census .pdf that explains the lack of "representation" for females in STEM occupations, however absolutely nothing regarding pay [1]. A lack of female dominance or "equal" employment of men and women has (most likely) nothing to do with an employer's discrimination, bias, sexism, etc. And I'd say (this makes sense) a lack of female representation is due to more males choosing to enter this field of work than females, as females tend to enter more "family" oriented positions, like child care, front of house type stuff, where they are pretty much guaranteed to keep this position. I also, for the life of me, could not find any statistics showing pay between men and women based on same job, same work experience, same age, and same education. I did however find a census .pdf that showed there is a 23% difference between men and women for the most part, but this has nothing to do with specific jobs [2]. When an employer pays a colleague more than another, what's the first thing that comes to mind? "He/she must be better at this job"? "He/she must have more experience"? "The boss must see more potential in this individual"? Either way you look at it, this reasoning makes sense, right? ...So why is it when as soon as a man gets paid more than a woman, everyone blames sexism and says there's no possible way a male can be paid more than a female other than blatant sexism? Why are work ethics, performance, willingness to advance in the company (or not), not taken into perspective when there is a difference in pay between males and females? Would it be possible women just generally don't excel as much as men do in jobs such as engineering or mathematics or technology, and excel more in jobs geared toward "natural female" jobs, such as child care, or jobs that require a personable personality? I found a "top 10" on Discovery.com related to 10 gender differences between men and women [3]. Most are whatever, but one really stood out, and that is that, according to research and studies, Men handle lack of sleep better than women do. This may sound like nothing, but in the long run, would you prefer someone (notice I didn't specify gender) who can work longer without getting burnt out? If you were an employer, you would - and that makes sense, and doesn't have anything to do with discriminating against a gender. According to KFF, approximately 20% of women live in poverty, whereas 18% of men do [4]. This 2% difference most likely has nothing to do with discrimination, and to say one group of people statistically have "worse" lives means there is discrimination or sexism or racism or whatever against that group would be ridiculous. On average, women don't have as well paying jobs or as well "respected" jobs as men? I can agree with that. However you would need to prove that this is directly related to blatant sexism, discrimination, etc against women. Did you forget upwards of 70% of the homeless population is male [5]? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather live in poverty and have a minimum wage job with no benefits than have no house or job and live on the streets. We could even argue that women have it better then men when it comes to "true" poverty. To conclude that because women have less paying jobs (even though men have a higher unemployment rate than women [6]), and a lower representation in higher paying jobs is a direct repercussion of discrimination or sexism is... well, unrealistic. Domestic Violence Although statistics show more women are victims of domestic violence than men, that difference isn't very large at all, as about 40% of domestic violence victims are male [7]. One difference between a guy hitting a girl and a girl hitting a guy is when a girl hits a guy, people laugh. People don't take it seriously. People brush it off and figure he can defend himself. And to be clear, yes, they do laugh, as you can see in this social experiment on YouTube [8]. People LAUGH when a girl is physically assaulting a guy. Men are known to be physically stronger than women, and have a more physically aggressive mentality, which is most likely the main reason more men assault women than the other way around, but hey, this has nothing to do with sexism. It's genetics. It's biology. It sucks, any crime sucks, but it is completely irrational and unrealistic to conclude that there is a relationship between male on female domestic violence and sexism/superiority. One in six men under the age of 18 have been physically sexually abused [9]. I know the following is a statistic from way up in Canada, but Canada and America aren't very different when you think about it; Men are physically assaulted a lot more than women - over three times more men are victims of aggravated assault than women [10]. This is regarding domestic violence however, and although it is clear women very well could be assaulted in a domestic relationship/environment more than men are, you have not shown how feminism can help, and you have not proved that this is even a case of sexism or a superiority complex or anything of that sort. Statistics are great, however you have not provided a correlation between domestic abuse and sexism. And if feminism is not solely a "sexism/equal rights" movement, then why doesn't feminism focus on all types of abuse instead of ones that favor/victimize women more than men? How feminism can help I completely agree 100% that feminism was needed at a time, and did help drastically with women's rights and safety, and it was completely necessary in the 20th century. However modern feminism is truly pushing it. I have been called a rapist by feminists (it doesn't matter if "true" feminists don't consider these women "true" feminists, what matters is "true" feminists still associate with these "fake" feminists, or "feminazis," by sharing the same name), because I've had sex with women who have had alcohol (while I have also consumed alcohol). I have been called a supporter of rape because I consider it wise to avoid dark alleys by yourself, wise to not dress extremely provocatively, or stumble around alone while under the influence of drugs/alcohol. The term rape culture is basically asking for women to have more rights than men; If a woman claims she was raped - she was. If a woman points at a man for rape - he did. If a woman is asked any normal questions carried out in crime investigations - these people are supporters of rape. Women (feminists) are asking for special treatment and more rights than men. When is it not appropriate for someone to ask what a man was wearing when he was assaulted? Maybe he was walking down the wrong neighbourhood dressed all in red, and he was assaulted by Crips. Maybe the way he was walking could be taken as an intimidation tactic. Maybe his expensive clothing could be taken as bragging about his money from selling drugs. Asking a victim of any crime facts has nothing to do with supporting their misfortune. It is simple criminal procedures. Also, you'd rather teach men not to rape than women to try and avoid sick animals who actually do rape? Why not teach people not to murder, steal, harass, extort, or commit any other illegal or hurtful activity? Because you can't. Some people's brains develop much differently than others, which ends up leading some people to harm others, either physically or mentally, or both. Feminism denies this, and thinks that it would make more sense to tell these people not to commit crimes than tell people to attempt to avoid these types of people who we really can't do a hell of a lot about. Prisons exist. The death penalty is still in use in some places. I'm sure knowing you'll rot in prison for dozens of years if not your entire life if you rape a girl is a better deterrent than feminists making blogs and ranting on tumblr (trying not to sound like a jerk, sorry if it comes off that way, I'm passionate about this subject). Here's an article about rape culture [10], which does have some legitimate points, but also contains ridiculous things such as, (I'm paraphrasing) "you support rape if you like the song 'blurred lines.' " My arguments have been dismissed by feminists because I am a man, and do not know what it's like to be a woman. It is clear feminism focuses more on women's issues than true equality. It also victimizes women to a new extreme. You were raped if you consumed any alcohol. You were raped if you did not give a definitive “yes.” You were sexually harassed if a guy looked at you in a way you didn’t like. And much more. My main problem with feminism is it A. Victimizes wR2;oR2;mR2;eR2;nR2; everyone. B. Separates the sexes. C. Breeds plenty extremists and holds a lot of inconsiderate, disrespectful, misandrist bigots. D. Categorizes men as rapists or supporters of rape, even if they aren't, through terms such as rape culture. Thanks, I'm looking forward to a great next round, and I hope you can address most, if not all, of my points. [1] http://www.census.gov... [2] http://www.census.gov... [3] http://news.discovery.com... [4] http://kff.org... [5] http://www.nationalhomeless.org... [6] http://www.bls.gov... [7] http://www.theguardian.com... [8] (See two videos) http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... [9] https://1in6.org... [10] http://everydayfeminism.com...

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

Thank you for responding. Let's begin "Yes you made some good points" - Well thank you :) "https://answers.yahoo.com...... there is more men in prison then women but that does not mean that m=women want to view men as the higher race" - Well the evidence you brought up just says that men make up the vast majority of prison captives. 6.8% women and 93.2% men. Seems a little off doesn't it? Anyways the point you brought up was "but that does not mean that m=women want to view men as the higher race" That's a little confusing, but what I think you are trying to say is that this doesn't mean women see themselves as superiors to men. Well first of all I would like to point out a common but fundamental misunderstanding you have. I said before the feminist movement as a whole views men as inferiors. FeminismX00;women. I am not accusing women of anything, I have no problem with women, in fact I love them (literally), however I do have a problem with feminism. It seems the point you are trying to make is that despite these ridiculous female favored statistics, you are rejecting that females are favored in the court of law. It baffles me how anyone can believe this when the stat that 93.2% of prison inmates are men is right in front of them. I can speak from my and others personal experience, men and women can be equally violent, fraudulent and criminal. With that being the case how can we reasonably have 93.2% of prison inmates being men. Surely people should be able to see that there HAS to be bias for that start to be true. If you still don't believe me let me drop some statistics. 1. Men receive 63% longer sentences than women for simply being men- http://www.law.umich.edu... 2. Men are 165% more likely to be convicted than men when they do the exact same crime- http://permutationofninjas.org... . If you take these statistics into account you absolutely can't deny that men are disadvantaged in the court of law. "Women should have equal rights and opportunities" I completely agree I am egalitarian and believe in equality for all humans. " but don't, http://www.forbes.com...... this website shoes the ratio of men to women in college and shows women are way more advanced in the field of education but still men are given more chances." Now this I am going to disagree with. If you click on the link what the statistic shows is that the ratio of men to women in college is quickly become a ratio with much more women than men. That's right. Women are actually getting more college level education than men. "shows women are way more advanced in the field of education but still men are given more chances" This, well. This just isn't true or backed up by anything. Nothing in the article says or supports this. You say men are given more opportunities without really backing it up with anything. In fact I would argue that the exact opposite is the case. For example take this into account. If you read this article females are preferred in the education system: http://www.hookingupsmart.com... . If you look read this article it talks about the barriers men face in university that women are immune to: http://www.the-american-interest.com... . "in today's age women have the financial and physical abilities to survive" they have every single ability to support themselves."but have not been given enough opportunity's" No. They have been given every single opportunity society has to offer, they just don't take them. In fact I am going to argue they have many more opportunities than men, they just don't take them. If you watch this video - http://www.avoiceformen.com... you will see that women are actually PREFERRED in stem jobs over men for no reason other than being men. As I stated before they have every single opportunity to take high paying jobs to support themselves. "Women in society today are seen as equal." Except by many feminists who see women as superior. "Women have the ability to be in the top 6 but have not been given that path to take." The first part is right. They completely have the ability to make it to the top of society. The second part is wrong. They are given the path to take, and they are given every opportunity to take that path. They just don't. Overall you have dropped my many points of how feminism has harmed society and how the movement has been detrimental to gender equality. A lot of what you have failed to do is prove that feminism itself is helping. All you have done is state that women are disadvantaged in some places, yet oddly you selected examples of places where they are given the upper hand. Moving on. 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. 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. 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 while Feminism treats men as sub-human monsters. Does that sound like equality to you?

New Western Feminism is pointless and oppresive.

Resolution: Pro has undertaken to prove that feminism 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, but Pro failed to establish any of them. Not only that, but Pro effectively conceded the debate by establishing that the Equality Canada feminist group is concerned with advancing "education, gender equality, reason and science," "collaboration between groups that discuss gender equality," "consciousness raising activities, to do with equality," and "the taboo subjects of gender equality." (Emphasis added.) We now enter the final round, in which new arguments are not to be entertained. Pro should not introduce new arguments; if he does introduce new arguments, voters should ignore them. Therefore, all seven points should go to Con: S&G for obvious reasons. Conduct because Pro tried to shift the burden of proof, and because Pro forfeited a round. Persuasion because (1) Pro failed to establish any of the three points that he undertook to establish, (2) because---even though it was not necessary since Pro had the burden of proof---Con established that two of those points were false, and (3) because Pro himself established (with his Equity Canada agument) that two of his points were false. Sources for obvious reasons.

The west doesn't need feminism, it needs to move

Thanks for the opportunity to debate. I assume the argument is that we don't need feminism because equality, etc has been reached and there is a far greater need for advocacy for women in other countries. When we talk about feminism, I am thinking about it in terms of campaigning for women's rights. I would argue that it is still needed in the West {as well as elsewhere}. As well as the more well known issue of a pay gap there is a promotion gap. https://www.businessinsider.com.au... There is the issue of domestic violence and how female victims continue to be treated. https://overland.org.au... Yes, it possible that men can {and do campaign on these issues too} and that women that don't call themselves feminist can also help address these issues. I would argue that having more not less people campaigning to address these issues is a good thing. Therefore, it would be good for some feminists to stay active in the West. A strong feminist movement in the West can also help people elsewhere. This is a list containing some Western based women"s groups that through the funding they receive in the West can support those overseas http://www.nytimes.com... There is also the serious issue of sexual assaults against women and the backward views held by men {and some cases women} that come up in court and elsewhere. I do agree however that there should be a greater focus on the plight of women in other countries like widows and women in Saudi Arabia, etc. I just don't think all feminists should move because there is still issues here that need to be addressed.

Second-wave and third-wave feminism have, all in all, detrimentally affected the USA.

As much as I am disappointed to see the debate end before it begins, I do at least appreciate my opponent letting us know he has decided to drop out. I considered posting arguments in support of Second and Third wave feminism just for the sake of it, but at this point I feel it would be a needless expenditure of energy and time on my part. Given that I was to take the con position, I was preparing to simply defend the position that second and third wave feminism have not caused more harm than good in the United States. It seems clear to me that the burden of proof was on Pro in this debate to demonstrate that they have been, all in all, detrimental to the country. I will say that second wave feminism fought for, and gained, legal protections against gender based employment discrimination as well as equal pay for men and women. Third wave feminism, which admittedly is more nebulously defined due to its contemporary nature, has made gender based violence a central theme and aided in bringing that topic to the national dialogue. I have a difficult time seeing how either of these 'waves' can be seen as being "all in all" detrimental to the United States. I was not coming here with the intention of claiming that the effects of feminism have been wholly good, and even less to defend the idea that ALL feminists are good. But to claim that second and third wave feminism have been "all in all" detrimental to the country was a rather large claim which obviously cannot be taken at face value without argument. Unfortunately it seems as if we will not be hearing that argument. Whatever my opponent's reasons for retiring from DDO may be, I wish him nothing but the best in the future.