args

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

A Fools challenge: Feminism has had a positive impact in many aspects but it has reached a point where a fair evaluation of its progress and necessity. Is due. Obviously this is going to run in contrast with the modern status quo and the majority of beliefs. So I don't expect to win your beliefs or opinions but rather judge my ability to proof is true and provide evidence when necessary. Part of the purpose of the argument is to open our minds to take a look at the beliefs we take for granted without thinking. "It is fortunate for us in power that people don't think" Adolf Hitler Don't get wrong woman I love woman. The world would be useless without them. But I believe that the feminist critique has not really allowed itself to be critiqued itself fairly. “Of course I agree with basics such as equal education choices and voting, driving, etc.” So my claim is that Feminism has reached a point where it is now more harmful than good. Send your best only; youmust have at least 2 years of university or 3 years of college minimum.

To attempt to dress cosmetic surgery in the flag of feminism is absurd.

To attempt to dress cosmetic surgery in the flag of feminism is absurd. If anything, cosmetic surgery is the latest phenomenon in the long history of the objectification of women in society. Women are driven to meet male standards of beauty, exaggerating their shape and seeking to remain youthful lest their partner leave them for (often literally) a younger model. Today many operations are arranged by male partners rather than by the women themselves. Cosmetically-enhanced celebrities are redefining definitions of attractiveness for new generations, leading young girls who would have been considered naturally beautiful in past decades to see themselves as plain and to seek their own surgical remedies.

Official March Beginner's Tournament 2016 Round 2: Feminism is Beneficial to the Modern World.

I thank Con for his response. The History Of Feminism When Con argued that feminism is not necessary to liberate those under oppression, it brings forth an interesting insight. I remembered a while back that there was tweet by Richard Dawkins regarding ancient philosophers. He delivered one of the most asinine form of cynicism to Plato (43 x 20 x 30 inches). As usual, he escaped the backlash of twitter commentators by mentioning "I was genuinely ignorant". The history surrounding patriarchy was a necessary cause for the rise of feminism. If we were to start with ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle held views that women were generally inferior (1.http://www.classicsnetwork.com...). They were regarded as the weaker sex and that each society should accept the universal rule being that women should be "domesticated" at all cost. The Philosophy of Aristotle dominated most of the middle ages extending even to the classical renaissance, be it in Baghdad or in Milan. There were opposition to such order and that includes the brawl between the Dominican Order and Franciscan Platonist(2.http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...). Dominican Order held strong peripatetic views and with it the order manage to mentor one of the most revered intellectuals of the time, most notable Saint Thomas Aquinas. The brawl between both would mean that both Plato and Aristotle would form the reference of thought and each reference would involve a commentary of either of the major philosophers' work. The excessive admiration of Ancient Greece throughout Medieval Europe effectively normalized the "Weaker Sex" Ideology. Women are seen as inferior and thus such an idea would then be regarded as a Truism. It was not until the development of First Wave Feminism will we actually see the advocacy of equity in terms of gender. Con disagreed with it's resulting benefits. While the benefit is questionable, the harm caused by Patriarchy should be enough to justify most feminist movements. It is unacceptable that men hold discriminatory views of how women are intrinsically weaker and it is unacceptable that they should be regarded as the weaker sex based on their biological predisposition. The Benefits of Feminism Con questioned the idea whether Feminism brings forth any benefit and argued that the results of feminism caused greater harm to society. Of this, Con mentions the decline of marriage, the disparity of legal court system and the misrepresentation of the wage gap. I disagree, the existence of marriage assumes that marriage confers a positive effect, when in essence it only relies on the co-existence capabilities of both spouses and whether both spouses agree to compromise on certain things that concerns their life. Marriage bonds often hides under the thin veil of societal stigma and they often rely on whether it is socially acceptable to issue a divorce. A study by Rebecca Silberbogen reports that only 10% of dysfunctional marriages went to trial (3.http://scholarship.law.wm.edu...). The study also found that some couples decided to institute an informal separation, where each of them lives in a separate household. They are still legally bonded as partners, but it's just that they refuse to live together due to uncompromising differences. These sort of cases effectively rules out the idea that marriage represents happiness. What represents happiness is entirely circumstantial and it should not rest on a legal bond that seems to only capture the acquisition of social status. Marriage does the couple with a sense of privileged social status which is often associated with long-term loyalty, solidarity and happiness. An example can be seen from a conservative commentator by the name of Steven Crowder who once bashed self-reliant single moms for failing to acknowledge the existence of a "male partner"(4.https://www.youtube.com...). It is socially acceptable to be in the majority but never is it socially acceptable to be in the minority. Marriage as with all forms of cohabitation are hiding behind the thin veil of societal stigma. Con's case along with Vox Day is negated. Feminism is a required force to overturn those in the majority.

Humanism is a better ideology then Feminism

I'm not confused in any regard as to what the wage gap is. Clearly you are confused, I meant this all in regards to what may relate to the factors of the wage gap. And sure, but like I said in my argument, some may not be true. But there are factors like that out there feminists like yourself ignore in regards to the wage gap. I had listed those reasons as to show you some that you haven't considered. And I am sure you could ask questions to the businesses whom pay less to their female employees instead of instantly assuming that there is misogyny. Yes, I do expect you to open your heart and go gain information about this. To research instead of making rapid claims, as feminists do quickly in regards to the wage gap, and also the male to female ratio in the government. Want examples and factors to consider? I already gave you them in my wage gap argument, which in this one, I could just copy and paste. Which I shall do, and you can go back and read the examples given in that argument for possible factors you look over to instantly assume misogyny. And sure, abortion was to narrow, my apologies. But still, pretty much around the area of pregnancy. So close enough. And no, it quite isn't. You see, that's like saying a bill only relating to men is signs of female dominance. Which for obvious reasons, is ridiculous. Even if there are 700 or so bills relating to men's sexual reproduction, nobody would assume that. Besides, if the head of our government was against women, why would they give you a choice with the bill? Let's be honest, a true misogyny wouldn't give women the choice of rejecting the bills. My paragraph regarding rape was an example, by the way, Pardon the confusion. Well, first of all, I shouldn't need to specify. Clearly I mean feminists of today, talking about the feminists from years ago would be pointless. What things are being done in the name of feminism today is what is wrong, and I do not agree with it whatsoever. And yes, it was a straw man, by the way. You had exaggerated my argument to make it easier, and also I believe to insult me personally. And that is in fact a straw man. And what I mean by that? I already explained it all, to repeat myself would be redundant. And right now? No, humanism could not probably fix big-time problems, the ideals are not strong enough in our world today. But, like any idea, if it grows, it certainly could bring forth some action. Actually, still, I am not. And woman are usually the victims of sexism? There is obvious men's rights issues that I can tell you. In domestic violence cases where the man is the victim, the guy is not nearly taken as seriously as you may want to believe. In regards to child possession cases, guess who pays child support and doesn't get the child more often? Men. Double standards like women who are molested or hit on without consent is a horrible thing (Which I am not saying it isn't) and men who are molested or hit on without consent are not taken seriously at all. People call that guy most likely gay, or ask "Hey, why didn't you just enjoy it?" I could go on and on, but both of the sexes have equality issues. And why M.R.A. is cool in my book and not feminists? Because the M.R.A. actually stands for equality within both genders, and wants equality between males and females. What feminists are doing shows that men are just sexist pigs. That's the impression feminism gives off entirely. My opponent can say that it is taking the exception and making it the rule as much as he likes, but after reviewing it, I do not see that. Moving along, it doesn't matter if there is other ways across. It is called political correctness, there is certain ways to get points across and screaming and insulting the opposition right after pulling a fire alarm, wasting the fire departments time and effort in thoughts of saving people's lives just to "get a point across" is not okay. No, I didn't contradict myself. I should have elaborated. POLITICAL enemies. Opponents. People who disagree. Et cetera, the feminists literally make the M.R.A. their enemies, and its frightening. Not qualified? Sir, there is no qualifications for freedom of speech. And so what if I am getting some of my ideas from a comedian? George Carlin was a comedian. Would you deny that he has good ideas about America just because he sprinkles in jokes over them? No, you wouldn't with anyone. Since this is the last round, we had a good debate. And it will be up to the audience to whom is the winner. It was a pleasure debating you, have a pleasant life. And I recommend to you personally to do some research on the history of humanism. Enlighten yourself. And how modern-day humanists act.

The world needs more feminism

My opponent claims we in the west men and women alike all have equal opportunity however I am not from America rather Australia (still technically part of the west) and can say this is false. For example women currently only hold 5.2 percent of Fortune 500 CEO roles (1). Now one may think that this has nothing to do with sexism maybe women are just not studying or working hard enough this is also false; the male-female ratio in higher education has been steadily moved in favor of the females ever since the 1970s. Total enrollment figures show that females outnumbered their male counterparts for the first time in the late 1970s (in America) (2). Now if women are attaining higher education for the first time ever should they not be attaining more than a measly 5.2 percent of the Fortune 500 CEO roles(from studying education results one could assume it would be more around the 50 percent mark), clearly sexism still exists in the top jobs. Even at her own home the women is not considered equal in Australia, 13 Australian women have been killed as a result of domestic violence in the first seven weeks of 2015, that"s almost two women per week, as opposed to 0 men (3). And two women per week is consistent yearly. I have to ask the audience where is the equal opportunity for women to feel safe at their own homes, where is the equal opportunity for a women to walk home alone without the shadow of fear lurking around every corner. Now before I move on I feel obligated to point out a contradiction in my opponents argument with; "Because you cannot, no matter how hard you try, force someone to change his or her mind" followed in the next paragraph by "feminism still has a chokehold on how we think", I must ask my opponent which is it? No matter which one my opponent chooses one of his arguments must be nullified by default. To my opponents relationship argument. What a suprise relationships are changing. First I shall note how time changes and so do the way people socially interact as arranged marriage were common practice until the 18th century (4), we have moved away from this for the better just as we have moved away from the 50's. My opponent has gone with picking the 50's as an example to show as some sort of golden era for social interaction among the sexes which I shall now refute. I unlike my opponent see no problem with sexuall expression or safe sex with as many people as one wants, it's not hurting anyone. Back to the 50's my opponent claims women today are objectified my opponent could not be more wrong, women of the 50's were the objects they had no career, no mortgage, no bank account, and her role was to serve her man(4). This is true objectification it is the possession of someone the ownership of another human being it is grotesque and hideous. I find it obvious why divorce rates have gone up because equality has gone up, the women no longer feels trapped. In Asia, Africa, and Latin America, divorce is both an indicator of and force behind social changes that have improved prospects for women, reduced gender inequality, and fueled development. All of which suggests that the more people are able to get out of bad marriages, the better off their societies are likely to be. To reinforce my original opening argument with the cure to poverty being the empowerment of women, many of the same countries with rising divorce rates have also experienced significant economic development in recent years (5). The more common divorce becomes in a given society, the less damaging it"s likely to be for those individuals who pursue it. If mothers escape an abusive relationship, it"s good for their children, too (5). As we can see feminism is a necessity for for the world including the west. It does not just affect women for the better but society and the world as a whole. Thank you source: 1. https://www.google.com.au... 2. http://www.forbes.com... 3. http://www.womensagenda.com.au... 4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 5. http://www.bloomberg.com...

The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

I feel like we are getting off topic. So my three basic assumptions go as follows: 1."feminism" is the agreed term for the movement towards equality of women. Branches of modern Feminism have encouraged the assumption that males and females are the same and that women who opt for the "housewife" role are somehow brainwashed, in servitude to their spouse or are behaving like second-class citizens in a way. At least they do not hold this role on a pedestal. 2.The attitude that women should be financially equal to men or that there should be no separation of roles, leads to negative consequences in relationships. 3.Therefore this particular attitude, borne out of feminism, when adopted, leads to negative consequences within the relationship. I will attempt to extract my opponents arguments against these principles and dispute them. My opponents first contention with my argument is with the notion that feminism, or public attitudes at all for that matter, effect peoples relationships at all. This is an interesting and groundbreaking claim: that the attitude the public hold does not effect the relationships the public have with one another; does my opponent see his error? Lets hear him out: "I'm still not quite sure how he thinks public attitudes affect our relationships. I can't blame him though, rational people (like ourselves) are not easily swayed by silly wankerisms. Look, it's simple. If you prefer a traditional relationship with your spouse, that's YOUR choice of how YOU feel the household should be run. If your spouse rejects your notion of a well kept, functional household, that would be HER choice. If you choose to quarrel because of your disagreement, that would be both your choices and society has no say in any of it. Your choice is the most influential factor in all these situations. In fact, your choice is so influential that it makes it impossible for public attitudes to affect you, unless you accept public opinion as an influence, and even then, it's still YOUR choice to accept it's influence." I"m not sure that all my opponent has eluded us to is the notion of free-will. You know the term "culture"? This, what I am eluding to, is what a "culture" is. It"s a commonly held set of values and beliefs that are held by a group of people. For example, in the West it is our common belief that people should be free to choose so long as it doesn"t infringe on the rights of others: and that males and females are of equal legal status. That is just one culture among an infinite number of different belief systems. Believe it or not, your values derive from that and were not created by your "rationale" or "free-will" as you put it. Actually, the ideas that you and your partner have are rather rare if not unique in human history so lets be more humble about it. So to dispute this I will argue that the idea that you are both free is just another idea. It is not the default. So to suggest that because you have a choice means your free from societies influence, is false. It is society that has told you that you are free (to a point). Also, to suggest that a societies value system and beliefs do not affect the behaviour of members of that society is incomprehensible to me. How have you concluded this? My opponent has not explained the concentration of cultural practices around the world, in which I eluded to last round, that clearly demonstrate that culture effect behaviour. I do not feel as though my opponent has adequately challenged this position and demonstrated that cultural attitudes do not affect behaviour. My opponents second paragraph states that I think women should be unequal, or at least practice inequality. What would that look like I ask you? This is pure virtue signalling and I expect better from a debate website member. I don"t know exactly how things should be done, obviously, but women need to feel less guilty about being housewives because that"s the most stable relationship. My argument is that feminism has negatively impacted relationships as it discourages this relationship model. I think women should feel comfortable, and that it should be the norm, that women are housewives. If women want to pursue a career or do whatever they want, they should have no issue. My opinion is however that the majority of women do not fit this feminist ideal and that striving for it is causing relationships to deteriorate. Do you see the difference between that and saying women should be unequal? Also I totally agree that people should do what they want, this does not contradict my argument though, so I would waste words on it. You"re a man? Okay then. I don"t know what your point is on your third paragraph other than that free-will effects our relationships too; which I don"t really know where to go with, as I am not sure how it challenges my premise and we have already discussed it. Your last bit in the paragraph: "Perhaps my opponent is a snot, and expects his spouse to do all the cooking and cleaning and leave him free for his manly pursuits, like getting drunk at the pub and watching football (soccer). Perhaps she's not a very nice person and refuses to help out at all. Or maybe like BB king said, the thrill is gone. I don't think feminism plays that big of a role in those situations, perhaps your both just mean people." This is ridiculous; what about I run a business which earns lots of money, takes up much time but allows for sporadic and unpredictable free-time to become available. I do this because of my "male typical" mentality of single-minded pursuit of goals. My partner gets to live with wealth, spend time with her children, look after the dwelling and pursue her own, less intense, ventures. She does this because she is happy to relax and do repetitive and low intensity work more than I am. We have been through this in my last argument did you not read? It fits our personality, like with typical males and females. Females love kids and males love to be socially ambitious. "My opponent suggested that I was arguing that males and females have no differences?!? I call on my opponent to come up with a quote in any of my arguments that shows that I actually feel that way." Does this qualify? "My opponents entire argument is based on shallow, generalizations on the difference between men and women, however there's no scientific evidence or statistics to back his claims" But then you go on to admit there are differences. So what are these differences? and why then is my premise wrong that the belief that men and women are the same leads to negative consequences in relationships? If you admit this belief is wrong.

Modern Feminism Is Pointless

Okay Kale, the very thesis of your argument is why feminism is bad and unhealthy for modern society. In every counter-argument you make you are pointing out that even though feminists are wrong about something it's because of sexism or a negative attitude towards women. The very problem with Modern Feminism is that it suggests that NO MATTER WHAT'S THE ISSUE WOMEN ARE THE VICTIMS!!!!!!!!! If something doesn't go woman's way they assume it's the fact that they are a woman when that is most likely not the case. I'm guessing you don't watch any news because every time I see a news story about a woman being wronged people are outraged about it. When a woman is raped THERE IS HELL TO PAY!!!!!!!!!!!! Whether you want to believe it or not women are very much respected in today's society. 1. So your argument is if someone asks you to own up to what you stand for, you say that saying that limits women's potential. If anything that should motivate women to show this country what they can do. READ YOUR HISTORY!!!!!!!!!! When this country doubted African Americans' ability to fight for America, IT MOTIVATED THEM TO PROVE THEM WRONG AND THEY DID MORE THAN THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! The 54th Massachusetts Regiment (all black) charged Ft. Wagner during the Civil War knowing they would take heavy losses and they earned the respect of a war-weary nation who said they no longer wanted to fight for blacks. President Lincoln said to the people of New York after the NYC draft riots "You say you don't want to fight for Negroes, but they seem to want to fight for you". The Tuskegee Airmen earned the respect of our nation after being one of the most successful bomber escort squadron in the U.S Air Force. 2. Breast cancer awareness has nothing to do with the "hypersexualization" of women. Not only do I find that statement offensive and completely irrelevant, but it makes me think that at this point you are just making excuses based off of practical jokes made by stupid teenagers. I just graduated high school so I have heard a lot of those, but I have never heard them from anyone other than teens. 3. I based that counter-argument on the fact that you said that most rape victims wear sweat pants and yoga pants because they go after women with easily removed clothing. So now you are suggesting that rapists are going to rape no matter what the girls are wearing, but that wasn't what you said in Round 1. Also, society has never excused rape in recent years and the clothes would matter if they were excusing it for that reason. 4. NO WHERE WAS I SUGGESTING THAT MEN ARE ANIMALS!!!!!!!!!!!!! In Round 1 I was merely pointing out that some men cannot control their sexual thoughts which makes them want to rape someone. A man is perfectly in control of his body movements, but our thoughts drive us to do very bad things sometimes. In Round 2 I was saying that continuing to wear baggy clothes like the ones you mentioned are not helping prevent rape. The very problem with acting like a slut is that it puts the idea in people's minds that you want sex or obsessed with it. MEN AND WOMEN!!!!!!!!! 5. NOWHERE DID I BRING UP SEX!!!!!!!!!!! Bringing that up was entirely irrelevant. 6. I was saying that in response to the Feminist Movement's suggestion that rape is always associated with women. 7. It does not matter whether you are a man or woman. Society has decency and modesty standards regarding clothing in EVERY country and civilization in history. One of the main things that separates us from Apes is that we wear clothing and cover ourselves up. THAT IS THE WAY IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND THE WAY IT SHOULD STAY!!!!!!!!!!!! 8. THE WHOLE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IN THIS DEBATE IS THAT THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT IS MAKING MEN OUT TO BE THE BAD GUYS AND THE WOMEN AS THE VICTIMS!!!!!!!!!!!! I would love to have gender equality I really would, but the problem is that the feminist movement is making every issue about THEM and how it affects THEM. Men do care about rights for women, but feminists only see them as the oppressors. I understand that there are still injustices against women in this country, but let us be honest with ourselves. Is there really so much injustice against women that there needs to be a national movement? The answer is most certainly no. There is still injustice against women but the feminist movement is GREATLY exaggerating it. The key to getting respect is earning it not demanding it. Whether you are capable of earning it is entirely up to you.