args

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

Thanks for having me. I am currently overloaded with finals so I'll have to do a very quick round(in under 2 hours). However, this is no such excuse so I ask all voters to evaluate my case based on merit alone. Discredit the emphatic lens please. I will do my best to provide an insightful and entertaining case instead of just completing it for the sake of praising the RNGesus of Finals. That said, Let's begin. === Indicators of societal progression can be seen through changes within the social norms of a given culture. Changes are usually made and directed by social groups and these groups usually hail from a large array of resources. One of those resources happens to be feminism and I will argue that despite the immeasurable amount of social variables to weigh on, feminism is still a positive force. Challenging pre-existing norms is a valid cause Hitchens regarded women as the "gentler sex" () and that there is always a reason why they were regarded as so. He also testified how incredibly difficult it is for a male to take the role of a nurturer and that each male should continue to be the breadwinner. In addition, Bill Maher also did a stand-up comedy mocking feminine values as well as calling submissive men as cowards unworthy of life's succulent adventures(). He argued that men should return as former "mustang" adventurers prioritizing fun over "safety". The amount of male bashing they did are all part of a belief that holds women as the inferior type. Women are often regarded as the inferior sex because they are usually less "adventurous" than men and that they are much more comfortable soaking up emotions from the leading breadwinner. They are socialized to accept that one gender has an assigned social construct, in such that cooking is an exclusive feminine activity restricted to only women and that leading financial gains is often only restricted to only men. From this point of reference, they like to form further soft comparisons of how each gender should be geared towards. Domestic Issue Awareness The problem with social values is that not all values are transmitted throughout society. The prevalence of sub-culture itself promote isolation and isolation prevents proper integration. Nuclear forms of marriages often receives the brunt of this weight. If a couple decides to work together, lots of "back-door problems" may start to arise, where intentions fail to translate into actions. The Bureau of Labor Statistics show that women's domestic workload is twice to that of their male counterpart, despite both being full-time workers (http://www.bls.gov...). Moreover, women are seen as the primary child-rearing parent and they are seen to have twice the amount of nurturing time(http://www.bls.gov...). It is an acceptable premise to argue that in domestic chores and child rearing, women are seen as the leading caretaker. Whether that translates to inequality the same way Bill Maher regards Men as mustangs is debatable but I'd like to argue that most women do experience a sense of inequality given how both genders are now full time workers. That said, It's important to distinguish the line which different feminists advocate. The rather common versions of feminist critique regarding this issue is often so that men do not hold similar concerns and that they're often selfish due to the existing norms that shape them. While this may be true for unique cases especially the narcissist likes of Hitchens and Bill Maher, whose ideas are often misogynistic in nature, it is however untrue for the majority of men. Recent studies made by Gerson shows that Men do care and that their feelings are often known to their spouses that they wish for an egalitarian relationship (https://workfamily.sas.upenn.edu...). Men do aspire to be nurturers and valiant cooks, in such that they wanted to equalize the amount of workload between both genders. They are aware that there is a pattern of inequality and they wish to work against such pattern. Gerson specified that in an era of industrialized society, people often have flexibility in their workload, and this allows them to distribute different ranges of domestic work despite being full-time workers. This model is the ideal form for most family structures. There is no "mustangs" in the family and there is no "gentler sex" when it comes to the breadwinner. There is only an advocate towards equality and the only way to do this is to have men being consciously aware of the position that they're in and that they should cater equally in terms of household work. This is the best that I can do. I leave the floor to Con for his case.

Feminism is inherently bigoted.

Bump.

Feminism is inherently bigoted.

This will be divided into two parts, one part to challenge the pay-gap theory and one to argue it's irrelevant. I dislike how you use data. Just because women are in majority in campuses today, does that mean they should make more money? If anything, the opposite. More of them obviously work low-paying, part time jobs between semesters and on the weekends. What is relevant is how the work force looks. In order to get a high paying job, you typically need experience and and a good education. Just for the sake of argument, let's say 20 years of experience. If college is four years, that means we have to look at enrollment levels from 1991 and earlier, not today in order to find out who is likely to make a lot of money. Here (1) you have enrollment levels, and as you can see all through the seventies and somewhat in the eighties, more men enrolled in college. A majority of the well educated, experienced workers in America should therefore be men. This probably increases, since men are much more stable in the workforce, this (2) isn't brand new but as late as 2010 women worked around 21 hours per week compared to men's 37 hours. The reasons for this is irrelevant for this discussion. It's also relevant what you study at higher levels. Guess who dominates the liberal arts and women's studies programs, compared to engineering and mathematics. Demanding equality of opportunity is fair, demanding equality of outcome is not. Another perspective would be the legal aspects. If anyone who reads this know of any employer that does discriminate, I'm sure that happens from time to time, there are authorities who should be contacted. Also, if a company could save a quarter of their salary budget by simply hiring women instead of men their shareholders would be able to sue any board who hires a man for anything. That would be a completely irresponsible way to treat the shareholders investment. Once you start asking some questions around this theory it begins to look like paranoia. Why would anyone hire a man if this was true? The same can be said about senate, strange bit of cherry-picking to single out the congress by the way. The majority of voters in America are women, more women are born and the sentencing disparity makes more men ineligible to vote. It would seem they do not vote based on genitalia, but rather policy or affiliation. Since there are 18% female members, there is obviously nothing structural that hinders them from applying or from winning. They simply seem less interested as a whole. The real question still has to be "who cares?". A few more of a couple of hundred privileged people are men. How is that relevant to the other 300 million citizens? How does it benefit men as a whole? Regardless of if there is wage discrimination or not, you proved my initial point. Feminists do not care about men. It's about self interest rather than equality, like it's always been. I guess that's ok though, since there is freedom of speech and you can always arrange your own meeting if you want to battle suicide rates. Oh wait (3). 1: http://www.census.gov... form 226 2: http://www.pewresearch.org...

Feminism is inherently bigoted.

I am of the opinion that theory, practice as well as linguistics show that the feminist movement is not concerned with equality. Definitions: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Feminism is inherently bigoted.

I assume this debate is over. What a shame.