args

The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

Okay so by natural order I mean the natural characterisations associated with each sex. Though masculine and feminine traits may be on a spectrum, it is not a perfect equilibrium; instead is it polarised. Meaning males majorly posses masculine traits and females feminine traits. So when I say to attune to the "natural order" I mean to legislate and organise in order to enable and use these traits to our advantage. This argument is not about alternative social orders but instead about the impact of the idea that "housewives" are inferior. I argue that feminine traits are well suited, and indeed naturally designed for, childrearing and caring for people in the community; so to discourage "housewifery" is to go against the "natural order" of things, to an extent. Do you understand where I am coming from? I am not saying that women should not be equal in every way. I must highlight this specifically as my opponent keeps attempting to strawman my argument with this claim. I demonstrate my sincerity by explaining my position: women having a choice makes no difference to my argument; that the movement to discourage housewifery is detrimental to relationships. How does it? I am well aware that many women can be highly successful at anything a man does and so it would be morally irreprehensible to restrict them; this freedom would also have to apply to every female because it would be immoral to differentiate. This is basic morality, can we put this to bed? My argument is more complex. It is difficult to decipher what my opponent"s specific arguments are here. The sarcastic comment at the beginning; I"m not sure if I am to address, or how to address. You say in sarcasm that "society is made up of a mass of pre-programmed mandroids who have no control over social attitudes" and do not actually offer a reasoned rebuttal for me to discuss. However I will say that your statement is actually partly true; we are "pre-programmed" to a very large extent. I don"t wish to be insulting but what the hell: you don"t recognise this and this tells me that your heavily effected by it and its surprising you don"t see it because this is not even questioned by any sociologist A-level student; but what the hell its low hanging fruit for me. So on being "pre-programmed", let me explain: Many people don"t reach what is known by psychologists as "higher self-awareness" until late teens to early adulthood; many people don"t reach it until 30,40,50 or even never reach it. For the sake of argument let"s say that you are as self-aware as you are now when you are 16; your smart and aware of the pitfalls of thought that you are capable of and the impact of influences etc. You would have had 16 years of social imprinting from your society up until that point; then your "free-will" would be completely anchored in that worldview. Then into adulthood, you would be heavily encouraged to adopt the practices of the wider society for fear of social exclusion. Up until that point however, the point of self-awareness, you are essentially "pre-programmed" because you do not bare the capacity to question what value system is put on you. By the time you can question it, you have been heavily moulded by it. I have a three-year old and I tell you, there is no philosophical reasoning going on in there, he believes what he is told and copies what he sees (he is being pre-programmed). Indeed, this is no controversy, it is a part of nature that a creature must, in adolescence, learn the intricate details that will help them survive in their particular environment. The innate instincts that are born with are not enough by themselves and that is why the environment moulds our personality. So, to a very large extent, we are indeed pre-programed. And I have not even touched upon the pre-programming of our brain that supersedes societal influence. I don"t understand your point about my relationship. Yes my experiences here have formed my opinion, but I made the generalisations after looking outwards. I found that all of my frineds had similar problems and that such large volumes of people talk about it in both comedy and academia. Also, I did a study on this in university and found a lot of evidence to support the idea that egalitarian attitudes are associated with increased instability and conflict in relationships. You challenge" You need to try harder to convince me that social attitudes affect my relationship more so than I am able to!" What if you were born in the Amazon rainforest in a remote tribe? How would your relationships be then? They would not be the same. Thus, your attitude now is a reflection of your cultural heritage and society, as you would have a different opinion/attitude if you where born in the Amazonian tribe. I have highlighted a number of different attitudes and value systems within cultures that relate to behaviour within relationships, and if you think that if you where born 1800 years ago in Northern Gaul that you would have the same opinion as you do now then I cannot help you. But thankfully it is not you I need to convince, and I am sure that the majority of observers understand this concept. My opponent writes" I fail to see what point my opponent is trying to make when he talks about "the influence of technological, social and interlectual factors. He claims that these factors take place outside of the individuals control. Of course they do! Beside our bodily functions, ALL factors take place outside of our control. As individuals, we choose to react to these factors. Our choice is still the defining factor here!! What technological factors is my opponent talking about anyway? Is he trying to claim that we are being controlled by our phones and tablets and laptops? It is our CHOICE to engage in technology, it is our choice to let certain information influence us on our additudes. I don't know of any technology that physically drills ideas and attitudes into our head without our consent, and if this technology does exist, I would recommend not using it. Just a suggestion though, it's your choice in the end!" I am responding to your argument that all societies values are derived from and created by the individuals within that society at their free-will. I am showing how people don"t just gradually become smarter and "progress" as you put it. We are influenced by the structures in society. The reason why things stagnated for 6000 years and then made more advancement in the last 100 years than in the previous 6000 is not because we are now super-smart humans with philosophical powers! We are still cavemen. What changes am I refereeing to? Well let"s see" I"m trying to think of some differences between an Amazonian tribe and the United States of America. Can you think of any? Don"t be ridiculous, society has changed in unimaginable ways to a point where it is nearly unrecognisable, even since 400 years ago it has. Of course these changes in the social order effect our attitudes and values I am sure I have made this point enough times now. "Their choice to use a phone"? you say; sorry but I feel your not looking deep enough into this issue or understanding it properly. In Conclusion. Housewifery is discouraged by branches of Feminism " undisputed Looking after children and focusing on their family over a career makes most women more happy than single-mindedly pursuing a career; as this is in tune with their nature " undisputed Discouraging this idea is leading to conflict and instability in relationships, as women are being told to pursue something that generally makes them less happy; likewise those who do adopt this role of the "housewife" are made to feel like they are submitting to the patriarchy and are looked down upon-leading to unhappiness.

Resolved: Modern American Feminism is Both Correct and Needed

Underrepresentation of Women in Positions of Power I would like to begin by refuting my opponent"s case on the biological differences between men and women, particularly his citation [3]: Del Giudici's paper is not uncontested, (1) and is, itself, responding to a contrary and more popularly accepted paper, Janet Shibley Hyde"s "Gender Similarities Hypothesis" (2) (it should be noted that Hyde"s paper utilized aggregative meta-studies, whereas Del Giudici"s paper did not). All of that said, we can"t rule out the supposed liberal bias of psychology, (3) though Del Giudici does not disclose his own personal beliefs in his paper. All that being said, having read Del Giudici"s paper myself, (4) I found his methodology to be absolutely bogus. Del Giudici"s findings (and Irwing and Booth"s findings) rest on the outcome of a self-filled standardized personality questionnaire! By this paper"s reasoning, quizzes at the back-end of Cosmopolitan are just as empirical! It"s tautological. Karl Popper also refutes this sort of research in the Degrees of Testability chapter of his seminal "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", and to a degree in his preface vis-"-vis Wittgenstein, Berkley, Locke, Hume. (5) In actuality, this data reinforces my case - if all the data does is confirm how women perceive themselves and not necessarily how they are, it speaks to a reading of gender and sexuality that is culturally or socially imposed. Similar data could be and has been drawn from studies on race and socioeconomic status; (6) unless we wish to infer that the disadvantaged are biologically predisposed to be that way, we may consider the a posteriori psychological ramifications of being black, or being poor, or being gay, or being a woman, etc, etc, ad nauseum, considering the weight of social and cultural expectations, of the effect of mass media on the conscious self. Furthermore, human beings actually have remarkably low sexual dimorphism - one may notice this if they have ever been attracted to famed transgendered super model Valentijn de Hingh, (7) or felt confused looking at a billboard featuring female model for men"s clothing Casey Legler. (8) Based on the above information, I continue to possit that it is not in fact a woman"s natural disposition that determines her role in society, but the pathological expectations that that society has for HER. While my opponent"s reference to the low number of women in dangerous fields is not unacknowledged (it should be noted, however, that is is still reflective of social expectation - masculine culture absolutely romanticizes the "dangerous job", etc., though ofc the fitness of some of these jobs certainly favours those with a larger physique, which is primarily men. THAT being said (anecdote incoming), my sister is a competitive powerlifter, while I, a man, am a lanky writer), it pales in comparison to the lack of women representing women within government, a system which functions to represent the people, yet as of now primarily represents old white men. Furthermore, while evolutionary psychology attempts to bank off of sounding like it"s a hard science, it"s actually almost completely unempirical and its methodology, as far as Karl Popper is concerned, pseudo-science. (5) A statement about the evolutionary role of the genders is about as scientific as most social science-based arguments in favor of feminism: it"s largely, while no doubt intellectually entertaining, speculative, only seeks to confirm itself, but is not really testable, refutable, or falsifiable. Reproductive Fairness I"d like to refute the term "feminist brainwashing" as it colours the position: reeducation is a core tenet of social progress. Certainly children in schools today already have gone through decades of education on racial equality to better prepare them for the contemporary social climate. It seems to be slowly working; a lot more people now care about race issues than ever before, general racial tolerance is up, (9) and we"ve certainly stopped forming lynch mobs. An evolutionary psychologist could easily argue that our previous state was biologically ordained: as postulated in Frances Cress Welsing"s "Cress Theory of Color-Confrontation", the white race needed to practice explicit racism in order to survive. Killing black people, and thus thinning the competitive genetic herd, was an evolutionary necessity, as was segregation. Contrarily, my opponent could then combat my strawman and claim that it was in fact the growing acceptance of racial minorities that was evolutionarily advantageous, because it diversifies and strengthens the gene pool. In matters of gender, one could turn to the arguments of Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva, or even Valerie Solanas, or, if one really wanted to, even Friedrich Engels as providing contrary evidence of "evolutionary psychology" which posits arguments that entirely counter those of the ones my opponent had been attempting to use. As one can see, such a position is infinitely flexible and pseudoscientific. Again, not unlike the leagues of online feminists who attempt to augment practical arguments with academically fascinating, but unempirical and irrefutable, critical theory alone, because they happened to glance at a Judith Butler article in Gender Studies 101. Anthropology has showed much evidence that social circumstances have been demonstrably flexible throughout history, which includes attitudes towards female promiscuity. Warren Dawson tells us that, in some regions of Central Africa, polyandry (the practice of a woman taking several exclusive male partners) was common practice. There still exist cultures in the Amazon who practice multi-paternal families, in which a woman has sex with several men of her choosing before conceiving a baby that is to be their collective son. (10) And what of the matriarchal societies of ancient Vietnam, or of the Hopi and Iroquois Indians, ancient regions of India, the still thriving Mosuo people of Eastern China, etc.? To contend with the abortion argument: the sanctity of life argument of course begs the "unjust burden" counterargument. If we conclude that it"s unethical to force a fully conscious human being to surrender his kidney to save another, or that it"s unjustified for the very, very rich to comfortably support the poor masses the world over, then it is of course unethical to oppose a woman"s right to end the burden of pregnancy. That this is opposed at all suggests (though not entirely affirms!) a double standard, (11) to of course say nothing of the enormous barriers that still face women in the United States when they attempt to get a legal abortion. (12) We don"t necessarily have to get into an entire debate about abortion or the ethics thereof, however, as it IS it"s own highly-contested issue and could lengthen this debate tenfold - if my opponent is willing, we could just toss it out entirely. Looking forward to what looks like is going to be a great debate, even if I didn't proofread my argument and likely made some serious grammatical gaffe for which I will be greatly ashamed. (1) http://blogs.scientificamerican.com... (2) http://www.apa.org... (3) http://www.scientificamerican.com... (4) http://journals.plos.org... (5) http://strangebeautiful.com... (6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (7) https://www.google.ca... (8) https://www.google.ca... (9) http://static.ijreview.com... (10) https://www.sciencedaily.com... (11) http://www.debate.org...

feminism NEEDS to be stopped

you said OMG, Really? Violence is bad in both cases, but look: https://www.huffingtonpost.com... The percentage are horrible." well a study found this out, "Roughly 40 percent of the victims of severe physical violence were men." https://www.yahoo.com... and https://www.theguardian.com... also other studies found that men are less likely to report it look at this other study that found "Only 10 per cent of male victims will tell the police Around 27 per cent of women will tell the police" http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk... 47% of the perpetrators are women aswell. http://www.slate.com... and the sad thing about this is most of the organisations to help people of sexual and physical abuse accept men way less than women , because people think men being raped is rare, but it isn't. you also said "More men died in war? Then don't go to war, I don't understand what does this have to do with feminist." well, men have been forced to be drafted for more than ONE-HUNDRED YEARS!!!! And catcalling?????? everyone hates that, cat-callers are looked down upon by society!

feminism is not needed in the west

Well it proves the females aren't oppressed since you didn't give me anything to refute

feminism is not needed in the west

Con, you are the one advocating for inequality of women. But I do have evidence of the contrary. Here are some statistics, note that these are for the U.S. only but the other western countries show similar data: U.S. Population is 49% male and 51% female. This gives us a basis of what the other statistics should look like. 79.3% of workplace fatalities are men, meaning men are four times more like to die at work than women. 78% of suicide deaths are men. While women are three times as likely to attempt suicide, men are just under four times more likely to die from it. This is because men mostly use 100% lethal means, firearm being prevalent, while women tend to bleed out from slit wrists and overdose on pills. The overwhelming majority of combat deaths are men, even though women are being integrated into the military. I will show statistics from older wars to compare. 1. Korea 99.99% of people who died were men. 2. Vietnam 99.99% again. 3. Gulf war 96.07%. 4. OIF 97.54%. 5. OEF 97.83% Men are more likely to commit murder, and more likely to be murdered. 78% of homicide victims are male and 64% of known killers are male. Men are fourteen times more likely to be sent to prison and receive 63% longer sentences than women for the same crime. 83% of felony defendants are male. 93% of the prison population is male. Chance of being bailed is 62% for men and 80% for women. First time offenders sentenced, 29% of male cases and only 17% of female cases. Chances of probation or parole for men is 66% while for women it is 85%. 72% of homeless individuals in shelter are male. 66-80% of divorces are initiated by women. Men win custody only 18% of the time. 674,000 men receive alimony while 5,588,000 women do. References Population by gender 2013 Workplace Fatalities 2013 Professions by Gender Suicide Rates 2013 Combat Casualty Statistics Combat Casualty Statistics OIF/OEF Murder Victims 2013 Murder Offenders 2013 Prison Statistics 2009-2013 Sentencing statistics Sentencing statistics 2 Homelessness 2013 Custody and Alimony Divorce Divorce 2 These are all public records

First World Feminism in the USA

That's totally fine. we can have a by round and continue next round.

First World Feminism in the USA

This topic is definitely something of worth to me, since my views are getting nuanced, especially on gender issues. Just another note though, I have spring semester starting tomorrow, and so I might be busy and Imight delay my responses but rest assured, I will get on time. Just don't expect quick responses.