args

Third-wave feminism is about misandry and has nothing to do with gender equality

We have all heard from the left about how, feminism is all about gender equality and fairness. This definition that the left clings to is CORRECT....if we were still living in the 1950s. The third wave feminist movement has moved on from the basic principle that have guided the first and second waves. It has rather become a mean, spiteful, and man hating philosophy based off on not building up women but tearing down men. Not only do we see the replacement of peaceful protests with violet demonstrations such as the attack on women during Life-day. We currently see the result of such a transition in polls and figures done by many institutes. Women are abandoning feminism at an alarming rate not because of their supposed sudden transformation into racist and sexist bigots. These polls asked women if they supported gender equality and if they supported the third wave feminist movement. 85% of people when asked in the polls said that they support gender equality HOWEVER, only 18% of people said that they supported the third wave feminist movement. If, feminism in truly about equality, WHY wouldn't these people give the same answer to both poll questions. These polls are not done by some unreliable alt-right sources such as Breitbart. These polls are done by Vox, Huffington Post, CNN, etc. Modern day feminism is hated so much because they say one thing but, do another. Todays feminists are hypocrites in every sense o the word. My opponent would likely attempt to frame these debate as a force of good vs evil, equality vs oppression, etc. However, this is simply not the case as we see multiple deliberately misleading lies and actions done by third-wave feminism in an attempt to attack men and other women dissenters. We see their championship of the debunked gender pay-gap statistic and their completely unproven "1 in 4" rape culture data. Their magical concept of the modern day patriarchy conspiracy theories which deprives young women of the chance to improve on their failures and succeed in life. Feminism tells everyone that women are some oppressed class in America and demand laws to help women and punish all those who disagree with their agenda. Feminists lobbys the government for more affirmative action policies at college campuses and high-income workplaces. In reality, women have 2 to 1 advantage over men when applying for STEM jobs and are graduating college with degrees with much more higher rates that the male counterparts. We see them demanding that women be entered into more STEM fields when, in reality women tend to avoid this type of expertise. The more developed a country is, the less percentage of women are willing to find a STEM job. Women tend to dominate fields of the arts and humanities not because there is some evil cult of straight white men secretly hypnotizing the women to be forced into homemaker positions but because of choice. This lack of women in the STEM field, combined with women's tendency to take more vacations, work less hours LEADS to the supposed "gender wage gap". My opponent may perhaps mention gender stereotypes and how they affect women's choices however, my opponent must explain why the evil patriarchy would discourage women from physics BUT not veterinary sciences. The supposed "wage gap" couldn't even be called a wage gap, the statistic is calculated when you take the average annual income and do basic division. If you look by the hour for the same job, BOTH genders are equal in pay. My opponent might bring up some obscure statistic and certain stories where some companies violate this. However, simple economics can debunk this whole patriarchy and gender pay-gap argument. IF, corporations can get away with paying women less for equal amounts of work and labor, then why wouldn't companies just fire all their male employees and exclusively hire women. ALL companies want to maximize income and profit, that is why we saw sweatshops hire exclusively women in the late 1800s. Perhaps you may note that sexism would prevent companies from hiring women however even that is not the case. The 1800s were a time of gender equality but that did not stop companies from hiring exclusively women in these sweatshops. This modern-day movement cares little of fairness or equality of opportunity but focuses completely on equality of outcome. Now, my opponent might protest citing arguments about how these feminists are just "militant" feminists but, unfortunately that is not the case. The feminist leadership and figures around the world openly support these lies and advocate attacks on males. Emma Watson or Gloria Steinem are the new leaders and faces of this movement. These may be just "militant" feminists but these same "militant" feminists have hijacked feminism by taking control of the media and education systems. A movement is best defined by it's leaders and while not all of feminists are "militant", they are certainty led and encouraged by them. To attack men and delegitimize their status in society to bring about a "equality of outcome" does not bring about social progress but reverse sexism. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.pbs.org... http://www.news.cornell.edu... https://www.usnews.com... http://www.dailytexanonline.com... http://sundial.csun.edu... https://www.usnews.com... http://www.usatoday.com...

Feminism is not misandry, but rather the belief in gender equality

In this debate, I am going to argue that feminism is not misandry, but rather the belief in gender equality. Before we begin, I will define the definitions of "misandry", "sexism", and "gender equality". I define "misandry" as the belief that males are inherently inferior to females. I define "sexism" as the belief that one gender is superior to at least one other gender. Note that I said "at least". Finally, I define "gender equality" as the belief that no gender is inherently superior to any other gender - that is, being male isn't inherently better than being female, being female isn't inherently better than being male, etc. If someone accepts this debate and they wish to challenge one or more of these definitions, they may do so. Why am I taking the proposition that feminism is not misandry, but rather the belief in gender equality? Because, overall, women have it off far worse than men do. Here are some examples: 1) If a woman sleeps with many people, she's shamed and called a slut. If a man sleeps with many people, he's revered and called a stud. That is a blatant double standard in our society that is sexist against women. 2) Women are sexually objectified far more than men are. Just look up the word "sexy" on Google Images, and you will see that nearly all of the pictures are of women. 3) In Saudi Arabia, women are not legally allowed to drive, but men are. That is a blatant double standard against women. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Overall, women have it off far worse than men do, so that is why I am taking the stance in this debate that I am taking. If you disagree, I welcome you to accept this debate.

The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

This is not about legal equality: I am not arguing that women should have different rights to men. I am saying that its better for males to be in the 'driving seat' when it comes to relationships. Women are typically less stable, reasonable and rational than their male counterparts and also struggle with handling power to a greater degree than men. They typically lack the level of personal responsibility that males posses and thus can become emotionally charged more easily and are more likely to make rash decisions that detriment the family as a whole. Womens intrinsic value of having vaginas and wombs was offset against the males value of being productive, strong, protective and of possessing leadership qualities. Now however women have the upper hand and men are becoming increasingly obsolete and thus are being treat with increasing disdain from their female counterparts. People are less happy than ever in relationships and my argument is that the rise of feminism has played a major role in this change. My view is that women are predominantly better suited to housekeeping and parental duties over work in the workplace. I also argue that they are typically happier in the home environment than in the workplace. I also argue that separate duties within a household produce a more stable relationship and a better environment for raising children. I argue that They typically lack the level of personal responsibility that males posses and thus can become emotionally charged more easily and are more likely to make rash decisions that detriment the family as a whole. Womens intrinsic value of having vaginas and wombs was offset against the males value of being productive, strong, protective and of possessing leadership qualities. Now however women have the upper hand and men are becoming increasingly obsolete and thus are being treat with increasing disdain from their female counterparts. People are less happy than ever in relationships and my argument is that the rise of feminism has played a major role in this change. My view is that women are predominantly better suited to housekeeping and parental duties over work in the workplace. I also argue that they are typically happier in the home environment than in the workplace. I also argue that separate duties within a household produce a more stable relationship and a better environment for raising children. I argue that Now however women have the upper hand and men are becoming increasingly obsolete and thus are being treat with increasing disdain from their female counterparts. People are less happy than ever in relationships and my argument is that the rise of feminism has played a major role in this change. My view is that women are predominantly better suited to housekeeping and parental duties over work in the workplace. I also argue that they are typically happier in the home environment than in the workplace. I also argue that separate duties within a household produce a more stable relationship and a better environment for raising children. I argue that feminism, though valuable in providing rights for women, now has a negative impact on relationship satisfaction and stability. The idea that men and women are the same is the misconception at the heart of this issue.

feminism is marxism

There are two areas that I believe you are disagreeing with. This is the crux of point one: "Feminism is Marxism light, where did that come from?" In your posts you claim that most of the left are solid capitalists. Most of your previous posts entail trying to explain how things are "somewhat (okay maybe more than somewhat) socialist areas of interests" but are in view not in fact socialist. My use 'Marxism light' was to address that issue. It is true that we live in a representational democracy. It is also true we have in socialist policies in place. At what point do we say that we are a socialist country? When the government spends 50%? 75%? That I think is where some of our differences exist. I do not see feminist today espousing free market economics. Nor do I see a let the individual decide policy prescriptions. What is happening is, feminist are trying to push through more government control of not only regulations but economic resources. What is unavoidable is that they do promote in large part socialist policies. Again equality of outcomes is not equality of opportunity. The only way to get the former is by using force. In this the original post clearly shows that individual's belief that it was only by increasing the class could collective action be taken against basically everyone else. The second area I think you disagree is the notion I put forward that you can only have socialism if you have marxism. As pointed out in my previous post, one can only have a redistribution of economic resources if one identifies classes and uses collective action to force the redistribution. In this way, as pointed out by von Mises, Fascism is really no different from Socialism. "Point One: This is saying that capitalism causes men to exploit women, which is not true, capitalism is not usually blamed. Point Two: A feminist "assault" on the family has little to do with Point Two Point Three: A feminist "assault" on the family has little to do with Point Three Point Four: Patriarchy does not equal capitalism Point Five: Multiple waves are not exclusive to Marxism Point Six: Men and women being equal has nothing to do with Point Six" All of these points have been addressed. I will expand on them. Production is not only items that are traded for currency. Other production can include labor in the family. Much of the economic conflict argued by feminist occur in the home. The division of labor where women produce economic output at home forgoing currency based imployment outside of the home, is considered 'slavery' by many feminist. Only true freedom is believed to be possible where the woman has equal income to the husband and home duties are shared equally. Specialization is considered a loss of 'power'. I will agree with you that economic considerations are not the only area that feminist argue for. The fact 'patriarchy' is specified does not mean that they are not marxist/socialist, especially when they use Marxist methods to come to their positions. In both word and deed, it is clear feminist are Marxists.

Feminism is relevant

It's not quite relevant to the point of this debate, but as a disability rights community member, I can assure you that it regards equality--equality to read the same books as sighted people, equality to access the same buildings as able-bodied people, equality for an autistic person to clap their hands and jiggle their leg to calm themself in the same socially acceptable waythatsomeone would be viewed, say,reading a book to calm themself. Anyway, onto your points: males(in human race) are biologically programmed to compete with each other to get as most females as possible and to aknowledge as their leader the one who does it better. You've lost credibility the moment you said "biologically programmed." That's meaningless. Humans have a highly-evolved cerebral cortex that enables them to think beyond their instinct. (Plus, it's worth mentioning that chimpanzees have their own structured societies and have instances of prioritizing social cohesion over physical urges. Not even some animals are animalistic.) If humans were really slaves to our biological urge to view sex this way, nobody would need to point this out. It would be as obvious as feeling thirsty after taking a grueling run. Under your assertions, I as a woman would instinctively not want to have sex with a lot of guys and try to find the one who is the "best," as if that were objective. Nobody would need to enforce it, nobody would want to fight against it only to earn a counter-argument of "but biology!", because it would already be certain for us due to nature. But I (and practically all girls) don't think that way, and I'm made of nature! Also, early humans killed people whom they saw as territorial threats. Though we haven't changed drastically in genetics, we know not to do this. So it's absurd to look at us, members of civilized human society who use unnatural medicine and eat food that we did not hunt, and claim that sex is where we have to be uncontrollable slaves to biology. the funny thing is that the ones who actually dislike sluts more are other females So? I'm aware of this. I get mocked and shamed by being called a "skank" by both guys and girls, usually girls. But just because it's woman-against-woman doesn't make it right. Feminism is not directed specifically toward men, but toward society as a whole. again its mostly womens fault. in their attempt to reverse the roles and they compete with each other I don't have a witty simile for you here, but that's not right. As a woman, I don't see myself as a sexual being, meant to be judged by my attractiveness and usefulness to men. I don't see my beauty as the defining factor of my role, identity, or worth. Women in our society are viewed mainly for their looks, men being viewed for their character. That's not fair, and as a woman, I (and the rest of my half of the population) feel hurt by this mindset daily, being hypersexualized daily without my consent. This doesn't happen to men. How could this be "role reversal" by any way you interpet it? As for your disheartening conclusion, it's time we stop judging folks by how the "best" can "survive." We don't hunt. We have advanced medical strides that allow better living. Just because there tends to be a correlation with intelligence, strength, and (irrelevant) hunting doesn't mean that an entire half of a population should be limited to a categorizing role. Women and men should be viewed in an ethically fair way. We are all people, defined foremost by our agency and right to respect. They may tend to be different in the majority of cases, but making hasty assumptions about everyone in that group and judging them based solely on that is prejudice and stereotyping. We are all fundamentally equal and deserve to be viewed on equal terms.