• CON

    The American Academy of Pediatrics recently put forward a...

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

    Overplayed anti feminist prank: http://youtu.be... * Firstly, this debate is about feminism in the West. I thought that was obvious. I apologize. I understand, but...it took thousands of years for women to be seen as human beings. That can be erased in a heartbeat. Feminism in the West can go overboard. Some feminists are just plain nuts, but...it's the art of the deal, if you will. You reach for the most, hoping simply to achieve the best possible by doing so. Overzealous feminists may simply be a bulwark towards the majority view worldwide from overcoming the West by its abrasive attitude. Imagine if feminism was submissive. In the face of a reality that muted females for thousands of years, they must protect the fortress at all costs. Why? Women face issues that men in general do not. 1)Rape 2)Being overwhelmed by physical onslot. * As I generally agree with you, in Western principle, I can see that some fires risk being put out much more than other fires. Female rights is an unstable fire that could more easily be snuffed out than rebuilt. Women of planet Earth must have a safe haven or sanctuary to plausably be able to escape to somewhere on Earth. Where would nonwesterners get this education if it was not heavy in the West? Examples? The American Academy of Pediatrics recently put forward a proposal on female genital mutilation. They wanted for American doctors to be given permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or “nick” on girls born into communities that practice female genital mutilation. Female circumcision is a custom in many African and Asian countries whereby the genitals of a girl child are cut. There are roughly four procedures. First there is the ritual pinprick. This is what Pediatrics refers to as the “nick” option. To give you an idea of what that means, visualize a preteen girl held down by adults. Her clitoris is tweaked so that the circumcizer can hold it between her forefinger and her thumb. Then she takes a needle and pierces it using enough force for it to go into the peak of the clitoris. As soon as it bleeds, the parents and others attending the ceremony cheer, the girl is comforted and the celebrations follow. Ayaan Hirsi Ali interview (Video reference) http://youtu.be... For many secular Muslims and former Muslims, the hijab is not a symbol of freedom. It is a symbol of the fact that women in Islam are second class citizens and that this status is encoded in both sacred text and tradition, enforced by culture and law. The hijab lies at one end of with the burka, a portable fabric wall that prevents women from engaging fully with the world, and vice versa. It is a reminder that for millennia women have been chattel. http://m.huffpost.com... The hijab and oppression of a sex- (Video reference) http://youtu.be... * Yes, but are these realities in the USA? You bet. Female genital mutilation is on the Rise in the U.S.- More than half a million women and girls in the U.S. are estimated to be affected or at risk of FGM, according to the Population Reference Bureau (PRB), a nonprofit organization that released statistics on FGM earlier this year. The number of those at risk has more than doubled in roughly the past decade, according to the PRB. Officials from various organizations say the main reasons include population growth, and the fact that more families are immigrating to America, and bringing their practices with them. http://abcnews.go.com... Muslims have sued in U.S. courts so Muslim women be able to wear burkas to work. The burka is the Islamic covering that covers the woman from head to toe, even covering the face other than the eyes. http://www.breitbart.com... So what's the big deal? Imagine someone commits a crime wearing a burka. The cops ask you what the person who commited the crime looked like. You don't know because you couldn't see them. Imagine an incident happens at work, but no co-employees know what she even looks like despite working with her 5 years. Imagine being a woman who came to America desperately yearning for freedom, but your family and husband make you cover up, and you silently hate it. The government and law enforcment must make it a priority to seperate church and state. In this instance, the law has given the woman her first individual identity through the law. That law would be empowered by Western feminism. Do I promote overzealous progressive feminism? No. But it may be an irritating bulwark to something worse.

  • CON

    My opponent spent the rest of her space exploring...

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

    Rebuttal of Pros Arguments 1. For let it be the case woman work in the same job and they get less pay. The example given was not balanced; pro continually compared her salary to those who had more experience and seniority. To use these qualifications as a reason why women get paid less than men is a red herring. 2. For let it be the case that woman get paid less in the general labour jobs or in general all together. My opponent attempts to justify the pay inequality by rationalizing that many men are supporting wives and we should expect the inequality. I am unwilling to concede this point, as it flies in the face of everything I know about business and has not a shred of evidence to back it up. However, even if this were true, that men are getting paid more because their employers know they have wives to take care of, then this is a fine example of institutionalized discrimination that should be added to the list of things feminism needs to address. It does not excuse the system from being discriminatory and trying to economically shoehorn women back into the role of housewives, a role so many women have fought to break free of. Then my opponent went off on a tangeant about how if these suppositions were raised to a feminist group they would be met with disdain. In my estimation, disdain for these points is warranted, because they are nothing ludicrous attempts to justify discrimination and they are not even well reasoned justifications. Even aside from what has been mentioned men still spend more on woman then woman on men. That is woman get more free goods then men in general. Finally my opponent had the audacity to imply that women deserved less pay because they received more gifts from men. "Stay at home and be a good little wife and we will bring you a nice present." I think not. My opponent spent the rest of her space exploring philosophy and epistomology. Interesting subjects, indeed, but not relevant to this discussion. The only aspect of my opening argument that was addressed was the financial aspect, which is the least of the arguments in favor of continued feminism. The true reason feminism is still needed is because there is still sexism. None of my opponents statements have demonstrated that feminism is doing harm of any kind, which is the basis for this debate. I was prepared to counter many arguments, but I have received none. I forfeited the last round and explained to my opponent that the burden of proof was her responsibility. Though I had nothing to refute, it was ill-mannered of me to let my time slip away without making a response. For that I apologize to my opponent. Supporting Arguments The good that has been accomplished by the feminist movement can be seen everywhere. Though my opponent graciously accepts that women should be allowed to vote and drive, her arguments prove that there is still much good that the feminist movement needs to achieve. My opponent allows that woment deserve an education, but it is the patriarchal mindset that needs to be educated. Oppression is about lack of choices. Women have been oppressed for millenia, and my opponent seems content that women be forced back into the roles that men picked out for them. I am not. An injustice done to anyone is an injustice done to everyone, and no one has a right to determine what a woman should do with her life EXCEPT the woman herself. Would the shoe be on the other foot one would expect such a hue and cry from the male population that the mountains would tremble. A persons worth and place in society should not be determined by their genitalia. This should be res ipsa loquitur, but obviously it is not, because this discussion is still taking place. So I will speak for it. Women, who once had only a handful of jobs from which to choose (teacher, librarian, nurse, et cetera) are now free to pursue almost any career they choose. Women are soldiers, police officers, firefighters, politicians, astronauts and doctors. For any who once said that women could not do these jobs I invite them to eat those words now. There is nothing a woman can not do. To be sure, women were and are harrassed by the men who wanted to keep these jobs the venue soley of the male population, but they persevered. But the stereotype is not completely broken. A woman who chooses to pursue a career is tacitly accepted by society, but it still comes with presuppositions. Women who work outside the home are still expected, overwhelmingly, to do the 'woman's work' when she gets home from her job. If the couple descides to start a family it is the woman who is expected to stay home and raise the children (if either parent does, that is). Feminism still has good work to do in helping women destroy the last of the stereotypes. There is no harm caused by it that could possibly outweigh the good that it has accomplished and has yet to accomplish.

  • CON

    First off, it's a bit superfluous for a feminist to...

    The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

    For a culture or society to exist, everybody within that culture has to accept the values, ideals, and laws of said culture. It seems my opponent believes that a culture or society is held together by an unexplainable magnetic force. NOPE!!! ALL cultures/societies are held together by each individuals acceptance of the ideals of said culture. If people begin to reject the ideals of society, then that society crumbles or is changed, and a new set of ideals are put into place. Without the consent of the people on an individual basis then society wouldn't exist. That last sentence doesn't only pertain to "western" society, it pertains to all societies. Do you know what a social construct is? It's the idea that some things that we believe to be true, may only be true within the context of our society, but may not be true in nature, or politics, or history. Some may consider gender roles to be a social construct. There's no omnipresent force that renders you helpless if you choose to stray from socially accepted gender roles. It is solely and purely your choice to abide by whichever standard you choose. Right about now, you might be thinking, what if you live in Iran? Could a man choose to don a Lularoe dress and walk down the street like he's in a pageant? Not without putting his safety at risk, but that doesn't mean he cannot do it. I am arguing that we are only truly governed by our free will, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for our actions. There's no force stopping me from going outside and setting off fireworks at 2am in my thickly settled neighborhood, but my acceptance of the fact that the consequences for that action would not be pleasant, stops me from doing so, not an unseen cosmic force. The most obvious social construction would be society itself. If you think about it, you might come to the conclusion that we all live in anarchy. There's no mechanism that physically stops us from doing or not doing anything, it's only our choice. Societies and cultures are made up of large groups of individuals who've collectively decided to forego some freedom, for the safety of living with the herd. Since we were born into an already existing society, we get the feeling that the rules and ideals of our society are written in some cosmic pillar that keeps the balance of existence in check. NOPE!!!! It is, and always has been a large group of individuals who've collectively accepted the ideals and standards of society. So when you really boil it down, my opponent is saying he accepts the traditional standard for his relationship, and his spouse rejects that standard. I don't get the feeling that the ghost of William F Buckley Jr will haunt you if you give in to her standards. I also don't think you'll have a swarm of unshaven women, burning bras on your front lawn, if she gives in. So no, social influence does not play as big a role as you might think. I think you misinterpreted my sentence about the "shallow generalizations on the difference between men and women". That sentence doesn't say, men and women are the same. Actually it says the opposite. It recognizes their are differences between men and women, but your generalizations (observations) seem shallow. Now, I don't know you, but you seem to be more intelligent than me, and I sort of get the sense that some of what you say is said out of spite, or bitterness, but perhaps you don't believe these things as strongly as you feel you do. I get the feeling that you are purposefully holding back on your sense of depth, for the sake of this debate. My opponent argues that certain branches of feminism encourage women to reject the role of "housewife" and that men and women are the same. First off, it's a bit superfluous for a feminist to encourage women to reject the role of "housewife", because most of western society has already rejected it. Not necessarily for the sake of womans rights, but for economic reasons. As I've argued before, (and it seems my opponent has no desire to address this) most families need the women to get jobs because they need a second source of income. I don't deny there are some extreme fundamental sects within the feminist movement, but do those particular sentiments actually represent the core values of feminism? Do all white people have a poster of David Duke hanging on there wall? Do all black people swear allegiance to the honorable Elijah Muhammad? Are all feminists really man haters? An extreme view made by certain feminists may not be a fair representation of the core values of feminism. It's also worth noting that not all feminists share the same views as other feminists. Some traditional feminists believe pornography is basically just "legal prostitution" so it should be outlawed, but many modern feminists will argue that pornography is a way of showing that woman "own" their sex and body image and there's no need to infringe on artistic rights for the sake of outdated puritan sentiments. It's difficult to make an assessment of where the core values of feminism are, because there are opposing views within the movement itself. Just clumping all feminist sentiment into one extremist category is a tad bit obtuse. I'm sure it can be heartbreaking to know that half of all marriages end in divorce. It's almost as if your a pessimist, your chances are pretty good that your marriage will end in divorce. I guess, on the flip side, if your prone to optimism, it seems you have a better chance of staying married for the remainder of your life. That almost gives me the feeling that your additude toward your relationship is the dominant factor within your relationship. https://www.psychologytoday.com... My opponent seems to have trouble with the concept that the framework of his relationship is based on his, and his spouses attitudes toward there relationship. It's based on how you feel about each other, and any bad or good sentiments you have for each other, are not influenced by feminism! Your relationship is based SOLELY on your feelings for each other. I could argue that "traditionalism" is the decadent factor in your relationship, but that wouldn't hold any water either. ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE!!!!

  • CON

    Should I never be happy because somebody else has it...

    American Feminism is Going too Far

    Every single example provided by Pro fails to merit the use of the word "extreme", or is downright incorrect. I'd like evidence that shows that women are "asking for higher wages for lesser jobs". Also, I fail to see what is extreme about "freeing the nipple". "I say, things are good the way they are now at least in the states." Current cultural norms are not necessarily better, so I would like to use this opportunity to call out Pro on her use of the is-ought fallacy. "Places that should be helped are those such that have women suffering to stay alive." Just because somebody else has it worse, does not mean that one should not strive to help their current situation. Why should those women struggle to stay alive when there are women that die without having the option to struggle? It's not selfish to want things to be better for yourself when others have it worse. Should I never be happy because somebody else has it better? "Women and men are not the exact same people, otherwise there would be no genders." I'd like to refer Pro to the US Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education where the idea of "separate but equal" from the case Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned. "We have the ability to do everything a man does and that for a lot of people is enough." Just because women have the "ability" to do everything that a man can do does not mean that there isn't cultural and institutional sexism that prevents women from doing certain things. Roughly 19% of engineering students are female [1]. This is due to the fact that in science fields men are seen more desirably even when they have the same credentials as women [2]. Modern American Should I never be happy because somebody else has it better? "Women and men are not the exact same people, otherwise there would be no genders." I'd like to refer Pro to the US Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education where the idea of "separate but equal" from the case Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned. "We have the ability to do everything a man does and that for a lot of people is enough." Just because women have the "ability" to do everything that a man can do does not mean that there isn't cultural and institutional sexism that prevents women from doing certain things. Roughly 19% of engineering students are female [1]. This is due to the fact that in science fields men are seen more desirably even when they have the same credentials as women [2]. Modern American feminism fights to end cultural and institutional oppression. [1] https://www.asme.org... [2] http://www.nytimes.com...

  • PRO

    It may seem like a good thing but when thinking about it...

    Feminism Is Hypocritical and Sexist Against Men

    Before I start thank you and good luck to you too. I don't deny that there are real feminist who stand for equality, but I'm talking about the "Feminazis". I believe we need to stop the rabid, insane hypocrites because they are getting out of control. Even when we're talking about real feminist I never hear them talking about things that effect men. I believe that anyone who actually stands for equality of both sexes is an egalitarian. because if you think about you're it's impossible to equalize both genders by only talking about the problems only one gender has. And a feminist can't stand for equality on that basis. The definition of feminism is ."The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." It may seem like a good thing but when thinking about it is like trying to make gray without using black paint. Just only using white paint. It's just not possible. In order to become a completely equal society we need to go for Egalitarianism and then take both genders problems, and do three things 1. Look at each problem 2. Determine if it's actually a problem (On the basis of - A. Does this really have any actual effects on people? B. If so how damaging is it? C. If we do fix it would people actually notice a change? D. Would people care? E. is there an actual solution?) 3. Fix the problems Only then could we make a completely equal society.

  • PRO

    The pay and promotion gap is not very true considering...

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

    The pay and promotion gap is not very true considering men generally work more, doing the heavy lifting, in the police work https://gyazo.com... Women are more likely to receive sexual assaults but men are more likely to be either beaten, robbed or even shot dead Men also tend to commit suicide more as stats have shown Men are raped in prison Approximately 216,000 prisoners are raped per year in the U.S., compared to about 90,000 reported rapes outside prison While feminists still speak of equality, they never complain about this problem (3rd wave feminism), instead focusing on the women problems Feminists also never seem to speak about the "never hit a woman" being a problem rather than a good thing, this meant that girls smack, push and tease boys in school and can just say "you can't hit me back, I'm a girl" and if they do the boy will get suspended or detention while the girl goes off scot free. {1} http://thoughtcatalog.com... {2} http://www.huffingtonpost.com... {3} http://prisonwriters.com... {4} https://www.hrw.org... {5} http://www.theapricity.com...

  • PRO

    This entire argument can equate to one type of person:...

    Feminism in society and what is useful for,Rape Cultures existence, Wage Gaps existence

    Here is my rebuttal. This entire argument can equate to one type of person: feminazi Here's the difference. Feminazi - an extreme feminist who believes the option of abortion is essential to the political, social, and economic advancement of women [1] Feminism -the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. [2] This argument extends to only feminazis, as all feminazis aren't real feminists, according to the definition. I look forward to your defense. I'll go into a more in depth rebuttal in my opening statements. Citations [1]http://www.dictionary.com... [2]http://www.google.com...

  • CON

    This supposes that men have either engaged in or...

    Why I believe that Feminism is not about equality

    The core of Feminism is a belief in Patriarchy hypothesis - that all societies currently and historically exist in a state of class warfare between men and women, With men winning. This supposes that men have either engaged in or passively supported a social tradition that violently suppresses women, Keeping both men and women in restrictive gender roles, Such as women-as-caregivers. If this is true, This means that for thousands of years, Women have failed to raise men that see women as human beings deserving of rights. This means that at least one of the following must be true: A) Women are singularly inept at raising children. Considering that this is a gendered role that "Patriarchy" keeps them restricted to, It implies a level of ineptitude on the part of men too, Since they are restricting important work to people who lack the skills. And/or B) Men are incapable of breaking the sociopathy required to see their own mothers, Daughters, Partners, Any woman they claim to "love" as human beings. This is where the likes of Sally Miller Gearhart and her male genocide narrative are at least consistent in their beliefs - nobody can change these monsters, And they're not going to change themselves, So genocide is the only option. If someone claims to be a feminist, And/or believes in Patriarchy, They are supporting a narrative that requires a worldview of women as incompetent, Men as monstrous, Or both. That is not "supportive" of men - misandry is a necessary component of Feminism's core belief.

  • CON

    They average 33 hours a week at jobs, and more than 17...

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

    Reguarding the resolution--My opponent should have been more specific with the resolution, instead of admitting to his fault, he is coming up with reasons to go around the truth, which is (he didn’t clarify). It is pretty obvious that I have won this debate. I won this debate for 2 main reasons. For one main reason, Pro agreed that there *is* a wage gap, but it’s because men chose riskier jobs. Well, there are women who work risky jobs too, so I’m not going to buy his case. It simply doesn’t make sense. My opponent did not do a very good job at organizing his rebuttals, so I will do my best to do it myself. Again, my opponent seems to be writing more “fluff” and this isn’t a cop out, the judges would agree with me. In regards to my Human Trafficking argument: “First of all, this statistic also applies to children. The resolution only applies to women. Con puts statistics about children that do not apply to this resolution. If this were policy debate, I would put a topicality violation.” I’m not entirely sure why this matters? A child is born a male, or a female, and there are many children that are *female* that get tossed into human trafficking. Just because you’re a child and a female, doesn’t mean you have an less of a right as a female does. “Human trafficking has nothing to with feminism. If I may remind a radical feminist of what feminism actually means.” Human trafficking violates ones rights. [1] Sex trafficking violates women’s right to life, liberty and security of person. The fundamental individual right to life, liberty and security of person is reflected in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). A person who is involved in human trafficking does not have a say in what they can, and can’t do. They are simply controlled by the people who own them. “If Con tries to prove that 80% of these children are females, than Con still proves nothing. Female is specifically an adult female, not a child. These are just a few arguments about bringing up children in this debate. These arguments should be deemed irrelevant. I feel like my opponent does not know what she is talking about, and confuses human trafficking with all sorts of topics.” I’m sorry, but this is utterly a useless statement. You’re Women if you have a vagina. A female child, has a vagina. It’s that simple. C2. “I don't get why you are failing at reading my case. I already stated "Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more. In the top ten most dangerous jobs(from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics)".” You told me where the statistic came from, but you didn’t actually show viable evidence, thus I can’t believe this to be true. "Males are for more likely to work in higher paying jobs-According to the White House Report, 7% of female professionals were employed in high paying computer fields, while 38% of males have gotten professional jobs." Here is the evidence I stated in my case.” I am not entirely sure what this has to do with the debate. I didn’t argue this, nor is anyone complaining about Women not working in the white house. [3]MY CASE: Here in the U.S., men and women work a nearly equal number of hours, about 50 per week. But once again, women take much more of the household burden. They average 33 hours a week at jobs, and more than 17 hours working around the house." Pro states: “First of all, Con does not provided a citation on where this evidence comes from.” I actually did in the round it was stated in. It was source #3. (http://kfor.com...) This is pretty obvious who won this debate, Con. For the following reasons: *My opponent should have been more specific with the resolution, instead of admitting to his fault, he is coming up with reasons to go around the truth, which is (he didn’t clarify). It is pretty obvious that I have won this debate. Thus, he dropped my FGM argument, and Child Bride argument. For another reason, Pro agreed that there *is* a wage gap, but it’s because men chose riskier jobs. Well, there are women who work risky jobs too, so I’m not going to buy his case. It simply doesn’t make sense. Therfor, vote Con. Sources: [1] http://www.endvawnow.org...

  • PRO

    This is so because boys have been treated as defective...

    Feminism is no longer needed.

    The patriarchy, the wage gap, sexism in the workplace and many more. Illogical terms, with no facts backing them up, tailored made for the uninformed masses to consume. In 2016, society has never been more equal, and yet, feminist garbage is spewed over the media, leftism encouraging special treatment for women, social conditioning to ingrain inferiority in men. With all these things, we can discern that feminism is no longer needed. Graduation rates for males have dropped dramatically since the 1950's, the wage gap has been proven wrong, and women winning custody cases by landslides. 1) Graduation rates / The education system Informative video: The average GPA for males have dropped, and the GPA for females have risen over the past few years by a significant amount. This is not due to a sudden change in whichever gender is smarter, but simply, the tailoring of an education system for women. Think about it. When you describe disruptive, noisy, defective, dirty, and many other things in a classroom what comes to your mind? Of course, a boy. This is so because boys have been treated as defective girls in schools. There is a 0.4 - 0.5 GPA gap between females and males (Russell Sage, 2004), with the GPA even increasing to this day. This shows evidence on how the education system is change to tailor towards females more than males. Source: http://www.russellsage.org... 2) The wage gap The belief states that for every dollar a man makes in a job, for the exact same job, the woman would make around 66 cents, based on an average made across the United States. Firstly, the way the data is obtained is extremely flawed. An average then used to compare specific jobs around the world, which doesn't take into account occupation, hours worked, position, and choices each gender makes. The gap between the wages is, in reality, a broad brush calculation across a large demographic. Secondly, the mere prospect of having men paid more than women in it self is a logical fallacy. If companies could pay women less than males for the same job, companies could gain a gigantic market advantage over competitors spending less on wages for women. "The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than "77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men." The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That"s not at all the case. "Full time" officially means 35 hours, but men work more hours than women. That"s the first problem: We could be comparing men working 40 hours to women working 35." - Forbes.com Source: http://www.forbes.com... 3) Custody winnings For several decades, it has been so that females have a 60% higher change of a custodial win rate than men (Dalrock Wordpress, 2007). This is not due to women being better at winning cases, but pure bias towards women. Males are aggressors, and females are victims, so it goes. This innate belief in most people lead them to believe that the mother is a better care taker than the father. though this may not be an issue if the child can still regularly visit the other parent, it becomes a problem when the father (if he loses) still has to pay a significantly larger amount to child support, even when the mother loses custody (Villanouscompany.com). This shows that even a mother financially incapable of taking care of a child still wins the case, which is nothing but evidence for pure bias. Source: http://www.villainouscompany.com... Good luck to anyone up for the challenge. You'll need it