args

Feminism is necessary in modern First World countries.

Differences in Wage Con claims that if a study simply omits personal choice, it is invalid to use it as a source. Con did not rebut the validity of the CMI study nor did Con questioned the representatives of the sample, I assume it is a concession. All con did aside from failing to question 2 key methodological issues that holds the study accountable is to say that just because one factor doesn't exist, the study is invalid. Omitting 1 factor does not make the study simplistic, it is simply used to reap the advantage of the balance between holism and reductionism in order to offset any disadvantages between both approaches "I need employers,not mothers" ~Claire Underwood, House Of Cards (Not Meant For Arguments, Just a TV series, lol) Moreover, Con argues that the existence of wage gap myth was due to the fact that men currently lacks the extended leave that women have, which explains the inequality between work schedules. I won't contest, but in the scope of this debate, particularly the CMI Survey, the reference Con made is useless. The average maternity leave for women in the UK is 54 weeks, which is roughly around 1 year(5.https://www.gov.uk...). (Note:CMI Survey was conducted in the UK which is part of the first world) Thus, if we are to review The CMI survey, the survey shows that women on average must work 14 years longer. Since the maternity leave is 1 year long, in order to validate Con's theory, family structures in the UK ought to consists of over 14 members just as the CMI survey persists. Evidence suggests otherwise(6.http://www.ons.gov.uk...). NONE of the families consists of 14 children 47% of families consists of only 1 dependent children 39% of families consists of only 2 dependent children 17% of families consists of only 3 dependent children | | | | 0% of families consists of only 14 children Extended family have been long gone, there is no logical premise to support it, hence the same can be said for Con's theory. Since personal choice was just thrown out of the window, the survey done by the US department of labour may now conclude that the wage gap is due to sexism since the other conclusion is flawed. Besides, even Con acknowledges that there is only 2 conclusions left, it is reasonable to accept the sexist theory over the personal choices theory. The differences in wage between genders is affirmed. Feminism Con acknowledges that just because there is a few spoiled apple, the whole feminist branch shouldn't be discredited. Fair enough, I did not imply that you were and that the only contention I meant to give was when con referenced spoiled apples as part of the whole feminism. Moreover, Con claims that feminist rarely call each other out, that is simply not true. There are conflicts within feminism itself, Post Colonial Feminists often brawl with Liberal Feminist over Cultural Imperialism in such that intervening in secluded tribes as imperialistic, radical feminists would disagree that women have achieved improvements and seeks to abolish the social status of gender. There are conflicts, to suggests otherwise is absurd. Domestic Responsibilities Lastly, Con argues that my case was referencing third world countries, I wasn't , I was directly referring to the UK. I argued that there are masked inequalities in domestic chores between spouses in the UK. This is also in addition to the global gender gap which complements the target studies I gave which is specifically the UK. Con is trying to shift the goal post in order to refute my contention easily. This is an inadmissible tactic. Back to you, rikomalpense Thanks.

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

Thank you for your argument. You have said that I have sunk low but I believe you are saying this because you know you admitted to supporting my argument and you have given evidence that does not fully support your points. Unfortunately I think you have forgotten what side you are on again when you come out and say "Anyways let's wrap this up. Resolution: Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries What I said was I am egalitarian and I believe in equality for all humans. If you agree with me I think that's a great thing." The argument is about Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries and you are on the con side but still you say you agree that it is currently helping us, that is not twisting your words but are your exact words. Thank you and good debate.

current state of feminism in first-world countries

If what con stated is true, then that only affirms feminism's necessity. Feminism, as I stated before, is the belief that men and women should be equal. If, as pro stated, women have more priviledges than men, then feminism still needs to exist to combat these injustices. Pro also stated that some feminists do not care about this, and some even want to diminish the rights of men. This is true. I have encountered many feminists with slogans such as "KILL ALL MEN!" or "SEX = RAPE!" In this, my opponent is not a lair by any standards. However, these feminists are simply a small nuisance: a very vocal and very small minority. To liken all feminists to these radical misogynists (I use the term on them because of their nasty habit to ignore other women who disagree with them, and sometimes downright contribute to rape culture.) is a strawman point that I am convicted that every rational person is above, con included. However, while I do believe women have some priviledges men don't, women are still less fortunate in society than men. If may address con's first rebuttal. That the wage gap is because of women's collective bad habit of getting knocked up. This does NOT excuse an employer paying all female employees less. Firstly, not all women get pregnant. Just because they can is no excuse to cut their pay. Next, what happens when they actually get pregnant? Well, unlike what con said, they don't miss work for 9 months. Women can still work far into pregnancy in most fields. Next, when they actually get to the point where they can't work, their job just isn't left to get neglected while they get paid for doing nothing. Their pay is cut while on leave, and a temporary employee is hired on a reduced salary (Usually the rest of what the mother would get paid) to work until the now proud mom is ready to work again. I also feel the need to note that even with this practice, women are still paid less. I respectfully assert, pro, this pay gap is NOT justified. The "problem" has a simple solution which is being ignored in favor of a misogynist and, to be perfectly honest, lazy one. Lastly, I'll deal with con's point that women have more privileges than men. Before I state them, I must clarify one thing: Male privilege is not contraband. You are not a bigot for having privileges. The only reason privileges are at all a problem is because many people don't have them. Men have the privilege to not be considered deviant for persuing a life goal outside of raising a family. Men have the privilege to not be as worried about being raped as women. Men have the privilege of being potrayed in a candid, non-sexualized way in most media. Men have the privilege not to be marginalized or tokenized in any setting. There are many more privileges that are a huge problem in society, but these few are sufficient to serve my point. But we could argue all day about who oppressed who, about who has more privileges, about who's less equal to who, but none of this will change the simple fact: there are inequalities. Inequalities exist. And until all of us are equal, none of us are. The actions of a vocal minority do not invalidate the whole lot. The fact that there are some aspects of life where some people have it worse does not change the fact that other times those same people have it better (And vice versa!). Who has what unfair advantage will never justify that advantage. Pro seems to think that "feminism" is just some dirty work that a bunch of lesbian supremacists cooked up and that a real advocate of gender equality ought not to call themselves that. I say, who cares? Who gives a monticum, of a fraction, of a MOLE of a rat's arse what it's called? The fact is, whatever you call it, whichever genders rights you happen to be currently protecting, whatever reprihensible acts have been comitted under such a false banner, it doesn't matter. As long as you believe men and women should be equal, and you persue this goal peacefully, you will always be a feminist. And if you use feminism like that and only like that, then it will never become obsolete; Because peoples' rights, male or female, are always worth protecting.

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

Thanks for your patience, I had a wonderful debate free, restful weekend! Rebuttals: Economic Injustice Con says “There is a huge difference between 77 cents to the dollar and a 23% earnings difference between men and women.” 77/100 is 77%. Which is a 23% difference to 100%. This is basic math. 77 cents to a dollar is exactly a 23% difference. This means that a 23% difference in pay would be 77 cents on the dollar. Con says “I am not denying there is a difference in average income, but this is quickly shown to be anything but a patriarchy, or sexism, or discrimination, or any sort of negative bias against women, simply by looking at the types of jobs women have, and the types of jobs men have.” Again I have provided empirical evidence in specific job fields of this pay gap, (Men and Women who have the same job) to which Con says “a site giving an "example" with no sources to back it up doesn't quite cut it, unfortunately.” The statistics on the site are sourced from the 2011 Census Bureau. (1) As the numbers are as well sourced as any statistic it would behoove con to accept the fact that the pay gap is obviously and observably connected with gender. Con argues “that women earn as much as men do in Tennis. ...Makes sense, right? ...Well no, it doesn't. Not at all. Women play the best of three, while men play the best of five. Right off the bat, men work longer.” As a tennis player I can assure you that playing fewer rounds at the match does not in any way prove that men work longer. The bulk of the work done by professional athletes is not done during the matches, it is the months of training to get there. I am stunned that con would bring sports in as an example. Here is an article that shows the difference for men and women basketball players. (2) As you can see Women basketball players make on average $72,000 annually, while men average 5.15 million a year.(3) This is a stunning difference. I do agree with con that women’s sports “generate less views, less ad revenue,” The reasons for this have nothing to do with how much work is being done. Yet again, Con has provided an example of how our society does not treat women equally with men. Less views are a result of people not taking female professional athletes as serious as their male counter parts. Less views does equal less revenue. All a result of society not treating women and men equally. Con says “The way I see it all is if an employer provides actual reasoning as to why he isn't paying a woman as much as a man, or vise versa, or hired a man over a woman, that's good enough. It's his call to make. Saying he's sexist because he feels the man is more fit for the job than a woman, with an actual reason other than "because he's a man," is absolutely ridiculous and is attempting to take all responsibility off the woman.” I have not argued that an employer should provide reasons for why a women or man may be preferred. In fact I have not argued that certain careers that are male or female dominated should not be. I have argued that when men and women do work in the same field, for the same work that men, on balance, are paid much more. Again, this is empirically evident by my sited sources, and is not equal treatment. Con provides stats based on various cancers that affect men and women. He shows that Breast Cancer receives significantly more charity than prostate cancer. Ironically, this is another example that our society views women as more of a “charity case” then men. I do not mean to encourage people to stop donated, in fact I hope everyone finds a way to charitable donate to any good cause. However, this example does reflect the idea that society see’s women as in need of more charity then men. This is a perfect example of unequal treatment. Clearly this unequal treatment is deeply rooted in our society. I will conclude this argument as I did in round two. Clearly the pay gap is empirically evident and as such is indisputable. Just as evident is that poverty affects women significantly more so than men. It can then be concluded that men and women do not have an equal rights or opportunity in the U.S. economy. Domestic Violence Con says “Both (men and women) are equally negatively effected.” Just because both are negatively effected does not mean equally. Women are not taken seriously as abusers. Women are not taken seriously as professionals, Generally Women are not taken as seriously as men as people. I agree that Men are also negatively affected. This is largely due to the deep rooted sexism of our society treating women as children that need to be taken care of, obviously this puts an excessive burden on men to provide such support. This is why Feminism is “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities” Other arguments: Cons says “The difference between Christianity and the KKK is there's a clear difference between the two. Feminism and "feminazis" - not so much, in regards to social media attention and coverage. I've encountered, personally, more women who identify as feminists that are rude, disrespectful, hate men, and want female superiority than "true" feminists.” The difference between Christianity and the KKK is now clear…. It was not always so. Likewise with Feminism and Limbaugh’s so called “feminazis.” The extreme of any group are often the most obnoxiously vocal. Con says “I'm all for equal treatment, however I don't believe we have any reason to think we aren't treated equally.” It is empirically evident that this unequal treatment is present is society. As I have shown. Con says “Numbers are numbers. What are the reasons behind these numbers? Discrimination? Sexism? Or simple "poor" choice on behalf of the victims? My video shows both men and women are treated poorly.” I agree numbers are numbers. However, to conclude that Women on balance are paid less, treated inferior, and not taken as seriously as men as a result of “poor” choices, is to say that women generally make poorer choices than men. This is not true, no such claim could be substantiated. The video does show that both are treated poorly, and specifically that women are not taken seriously. That is why feminism is about equality. Women’s issues do create issues for men. Closing Statements: First I would like to thank Mister_Man for being a fantastic contender and a good sport. As we did not have much room to talk about the issues that are created for men due to the unequal treatment of women, or to address issues men face in our society, I will add a link to a video of a feminist addressing both men’s and women’s issues. (4) This is not intended to be a new argument, nor do I expect Con to refute the content. I just wanted to include it for those reading who are interested in hearing more on the topic. I will conclude as I did in round two. Men and women do not currently have equal rights and opportunities. This is empirically evident by the stats that I have provided. Women are not paid equally, or afforded the same opportunity in the U.S. economy. Women are affected significantly more than men by domestic violence, as this has become a common issue (1 in 4) it limits the opportunity and rights of women in a way that does not generally affect men. Feminism has been, and will continue to be a force for good in the U.S. as it brings to light these injustices and lobbies for change. Therefore we are lead to conclude that “on balance modern Feminism is beneficial to the modern United States.” Thanks for reading and vote pro! (1) http://www.aauw.org... (2) http://www.blackenterprise.com... (3) https://www.google.com... (4) http://www.youtube.com...

Modern Feminism (3rd/4th Wave) is Unnecessary as well as Unfair to Men.

Well this concludes the debate. Now I am going to criticize my opponent's argument. No offence, I'd do it to my own mother to win an argument. My opponent argued on a platform of Islamophobia as well as using totally biased sources and ignored his own sources when it benefited his cause. He also willingly argues only Islamic countries to avoid the issue. He poses no arguments about 3rd and 4th wave feminism and concedes to my arguments. At the risk of violating my own rules, my opponent also argues against the first amendment and poses "what ifs" to win an argument he conceded to. Feminism in the West is an overzealous belief that will not stop until women get their turn at oppressing men. The wage gap is mostly their own doing, and they are given leniency on the penal system and socially. Rape was labeled untouchable and he violated this rule. Conclusion of the Conclusion My opponent argued Islamophobia and irrelevances and used biased sources that admit to how good women have it in the West, as well as not refute a single bit of my argument. His argument is null and void.