2nd wave and 3rd wave/modern feminism is harmful and should not exist.
Debate Rounds (5)
This round will not be for acceptance.
2nd round opening arguments.
3rd round is new arguments/rebuttals (both,or one).
4th round is for rebuttals.
5th round is for rebuttals and closing statements.
Most may argue that my arguments only apply to the radical feminists, but the radical feminists are the famous and widely-known feminists that taint feminism. In countries like the USA, women have it much better thanks to laws like affirmative action or VAMA. (which is very unneeded and sexist)
1.Feminists victimize women, and assume all men are predators . If this is not misandry, then I honestly don't know what is! This is the most falsified claim feminism has made. There are many women who get let off free for raping a child, or a man. Just because men can't get pregnant, doesn't automatically make them rapists and unable to be raped.
2.Have a look at the second-wave feminist view of men for an example. Valerie Solanas, the radical feminist who shot Andy Warhol in 1968, provides a famous example of misandry in her self-published SCUM Manifesto. In case you're wondering, SCUM is an acronym for "Society for Cutting Up Men", practically a call for gendercide, the culling of men. Quite literally, Solanas expressed her desire to "institute complete automation and destroy the male sex."
3.Think "Violence Against Women Act" " notice something wrong in that? Notice how violence against men or children is not mentioned? VAWA implies, through it"s title alone, that men are the primary perpetrators of violence " despite 30 years of research and in excess of 130 scientific studies proving that intimate partner violence is roughly mutual. Time and time again, the results say the same "men and women are equally violent towards one another". And yet, when feminists demand preferential treatment or additional "rights", the government promptly delivers, like a good boy."
Links for the next argument(s)(in order).
Father"s rights group want shared parenting (equal custody) to be the default if both parents want custody and neither parent is unfit. They feel that men should not be punished for being men, and that women should not be awarded custody to their kids simply for being women. Currently women are awarded primary custody almost all the time, even if the husband was the stay-at-home Dad and the woman was the breadwinner.
Feminists fought against this. You can read NOW"s own statement here. Also note their usage of anti-male lies, i.e. "fathers are abusive, don"t give them custody." That is from 1997, but still remains valid today.
Men want protection against false rape allegations. They feel that a man"s life should not be ruined simply on the allegation of a woman who may be a vindictive liar. Currently, a woman can accuse a man of rape for no reason, and the man"s name is splashed in the paper and his life is ruined. So, they fought for laws granting men anonymity until charged with the crime of rape"not convicted, just charged.
Feminists fought against this, causing it to fail. Also see here, the London Feminist Network campaigning to defeat the proposal.
"The London Feminist Network is a campaigning organisation uniting London based feminist groups and individuals in activism."
Men want an end to the justice system favouring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men.
Feminists fought against this, arguing that no woman should be sent to jail, even women who had murdered multiple people.
Men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of "being male" under primary aggressor policies.
Feminists fought against this by trying to suppress evidence showing that half of domestic violence is done by women, by threatening the researchers with bomb threats, death threats, etc. Modern, younger feminists are doing it as well.
And sadly, they were successful in this effort of propaganda. For decades, and continuing today, violent men are (rightfully) convicted and punished by the state, while violent women are left to freely terrorize and harm their partners.
The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting primarily in having only male batterers criminally pursued.
Men want female rapists to be arrested, charged, and convicted with rape. In Western countries, women are rarely punished when raping men, due to the biased legal system. In some countries, women cannot be punished when raping men, since rape is defined as a male-perpetrated crime.
Feminists fought against this in India, arguing that "there is a physicality [in] rape" and that it would make things "more complicated for judges."
Feminists fought against this in Israel, claiming that changing the law would result in men filing false rape claims.
Men don"t want to be thrown in jail because they lost their jobs and temporarily cannot pay child support.
Feminists fought against this, trying to lower the amount to $5000 before a man is guilty of a felony for not paying child support. If a man loses a decent-paying job, he will now be a felon, go to jail, lose his right to vote, AND be unable to find future jobs"if he cannot regain an equal-paying job within a few months.
Men want equal economic support and help from the government. When the recession hit, male-dominated fields like construction lost millions of jobs, while female-fields like education and healthcare gained jobs. So the government proposed an economic stimulus for those fields.
Feminists successfully fought against this, arguing that it was discrimination to support men, and caused the government to give money to women who didn"t deserve it. Hundreds of professional feminists complained against the "sexism" of helping men (who had lost jobs) and not women (who had gained jobs).
A representative of the Michigan National Organization for Women testified in opposition to the Revocation of Paternity Act, which stopped the old law which stated that if a woman was married and cheated on her husband, the resulting child is considered to be legally the husband"s and the biological father had no legal rights to fight for custody or parenting time with his biological child.
As you can see, the claim that feminism fight for men"s rights is a blatant lie. Don"t believe any feminists that say that. Feminists fight for women"s rights. That is a good thing. Feminists also are happy to harm men"s rights, as shown above. That is a bad thing. Feminism is about female privilege, not equality.
Some may argue that these cases of feminists harming men is not "representative" of feminism. I ask you: Are there any cases of feminists helping men? No. Yet, there are many cases of feminists harming men.
It is reasonable to conclude from these facts that feminism fights to harm men.
5. Quotes of Famous and powerful feminists.
"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex."
~Valerie Solanas, the SCUM Manifesto
"The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist."
~National NOW Times
"I feel that "man-hating" is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
~Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he"s a machine, a walking dildo."
"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."
"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear"
~Susan Brownmiller (even though women are less than 40% of rape victims...)
"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men."
"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race."
~Sally Miller Gearhart
"All men are rapists and that"s all they are"
"Sex is the cross on which women are crucified " Sex can only be adequately defined as universal rape."
"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat."
~Hillary Clinton (How does that make women the victims...? The men are the ones that died or got caught as war criminals!)
1. My opponent provides no evidence. But I would like to point out something, at the end of this point he states " Just because men can't get pregnant, doesn't automatically make them rapists and unable to be raped." You are very clearly not a feminist but your saying men who are raped are rapists. You fall victim to your own point.
2.Again another unsupported argument backed by opinion and a cherry picked example, so let me respond with an example of my own. Eleanor Roosevelt, who " helped establish the non-profit Val-Kill Industries in 1926 in Hyde Park, New York, which was designed to teach local farmers skills to create colonial furniture reproductions to supplement their income" and "helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, in her initial assignment to the Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Committee, helped address the repatriation of displaced people. She became chairman of the Human Rights Commission and during her seven years as a delegate, traveled the world extensively investigating social, political, and economic conditions." sounds like she raped men and/or tried to make men sound like animals that only rape. you know when she was assisting Vets from WWII.
3. Another Unsupported Argument, and to answer your question NO, nothing is wrong with VAWA, lets look at some stats real quick, since VAWA "Between 1993 to 2007, the rate of intimate partner homicides of females decreased 35% and the rate of intimate partner homicides of males decreased 46%." that's right men stopped killing one another too. but that's not all "responding to urgent calls for help by establishing the National Domestic Violence Hotline, which has answered over 3 million calls and receives over 22,000 calls every month; 92% of callers report that it"s their first call for help; improving safety and reducing recidivism by developing coordinated community responses that bring together diverse stakeholders to work together to prevent and respond to violence against women, focusing attention on the needs of underserved communities, including creating legal relief for battered immigrants so that abusers cannot use the victim"s immigration status to prevent victims from calling the police or seeking safety, and supporting tribal governments in building their capacity to protect American Indian and Alaska Native women." if there really was no need for this law like you state why was there any improvements?
4. Another list of cherry picked examples, where a feminist, not all, responded against men in some way. most of these arguments aren't even tied to their articles alone, thus they are unsupported. its illogical for myself or anyone else to assume that these are correct, in fact the first one doesn't even tie to a website. thus these statements must be disregarded.
5. This isn't even an argument its simple quotes from radical female supremacists, not even modern feminists , to which I will quote too;
Brigham Young (YES A MAN)
"You educate a man; you educate a man. You educate a woman; you educate a generation."
R13; Brigham Young
"Ideally, what should be said to every child, repeatedly, throughout his or her school life is something like this: 'You are in the process of being indoctrinated. We have not yet evolved a system of education that is not a system of indoctrination. We are sorry, but it is the best we can do. What you are being taught here is an amalgam of current prejudice and the choices of this particular culture. The slightest look at history will show how impermanent these must be. You are being taught by people who have been able to accommodate themselves to a regime of thought laid down by their predecessors. It is a self-perpetuating system. Those of you who are more robust and individual than others will be encouraged to leave and find ways of educating yourself " educating your own judgements. Those that stay must remember, always, and all the time, that they are being moulded and patterned to fit into the narrow and particular needs of this particular society."
R13; Doris Lessing, The Golden Notebook
Simone de Beauvoir
"I am too intelligent, too demanding, and too resourceful for anyone to be able to take charge of me entirely. No one knows me or loves me completely. I have only myself"
R13; Simone de Beauvoir
"A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men."
R13; Gloria Steinem
"I know enough to know that no woman should ever marry a man who hated his mother."
R13; Martha Gellhorn, Selected Letters
tags: ernest-hemingway, feminism, hate, love, marriage, married-life, matrimony, men, mothers, psychology,
"There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women."
(Keynote speech at Celebrating Inspiration luncheon with the WNBA's All-Decade Team, 2006)"
R13; Madeleine Albright
a1. I provided evidence, very much so. "Just because men cannot get pregnant, doesn't automatically make them rapists and unable to be raped" is an anti-"all male are rapists" argument. I don't understand how my opponent misread/misunderstood that statement so badly. I do not fall victim to my own point.
a2. That has nothing to do with 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminism. She is, if anything, a 1st wave feminist, but that does not make what she did anything close to feminism in any way. This debate is about 2nd and 3rd wave feminism.
a3. There is something wrong with the VAWA, it only protects women, when men are the overwhelming majority of rape victims, and a large portion of domestic violence and abuse victims. Men are also 2x more likely to be raped/assaulted by a stranger.
Evidence of the above rebuttal.^:
1.)Men are :76% of homicide victims " DOJ
2.)Men are the overwhelming majority of rape victims
Male rape has been called "The most closely guarded secret of American prisons." (Weiss and Friar 1974)
There are estimated to be over 300,000 male rapes per year in American prisons and jails.
2.)Male rape victims of female rapists.
2.1% of men reported forced vaginal sex compared to 1.6% of women in a relationship in the previous year. From: Predictors of Sexual Coersion.
3.)94% of sexually abused youth in correctional facilities reported being abused by female staff. From: Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities, 2008-09.
4.)50% of homeless youth reported being sexually abused by a female. From: It"s Not What You Think: Sexually Exploited Youth in British Columbia
5.)Among inmates reporting staff sexual misconduct, ~ 65% reported a female aggressor. From: Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09.
This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.
That harassment is a systemic problem with origins that emanate from academe. Dr. Murray Straus, an internationally recognized expert on intimate partner violence published the following paper outlining the various ways that feminist ideologues suppress data and research on IPV that demonstrates gender symmetry in its incidence.
Men are fully half of the victims of domestic violence (26% of intimate partner homicides), yet are denied service at most tax payer funded domestic violence shelters. In another study the CDC lists male victims of domestic violence at more than 34%, but men injured in Iraq (and all other men) are by law in California excluded from domestic violence shelter services. Only one shelter in Lancaster, CA accepts men and it has been extensively harassed for doing so.
In 2008, overall rates of police-reported violent victimization were comparable between men and women, but the nature of their victimization differed.
In that year, men were more likely than women to be victims of the most serious forms of physical assault (levels 2 and 3) and have a weapon used against them.
Men were almost twice as likely to be the victims of assault level 2 than women (215 versus 114 per 100,000);
Though aggravated assault (level 3) occurs much less frequently than the less serious forms of assault, the rate of aggravated assault for men is over three times greater than that of women (18 versus 5 per 100,000)
Young men under the age of 18 are 1.5 times more likely to be physically assaulted than young girls.
Male victims were most often physically assaulted by a stranger or by someone else outside of the family. In 2008, men were the victims of 80% of all reported attacks by strangers.
Men were more likely to be robbed than women. They were victims in 65% of robberies in 2008.
Male teens aged 15 to 17 reported the highest robbery rates among all child and youth age groups and nearly 1.5 times higher than the rate for men aged 18 to 24.
Men were more likely than women to be a homicide victim, accounting for almost three quarters (74%) of homicide victims during a 5-year period between the years 2004 to 2008.
More than one-third of male victims of homicide were killed with a firearm, compared to one fifth of female homicide victims.
Men were 2.5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted in an institutional setting (school, non-commercial or non-corporate area) than women.
So how is my argument that the VAWA is a sexist and unneeded law "unsupported"? If anything we need a VAMA law.
a4. The articles directly correlate with the evidence. I am guessing you didn't bother to click them. You cannot conclude that, because only the first argument does not seem to be from an article that it is 1.) false 2.) all arguments are false or 3.) that
all statements must be disregarded. The first one correlates to the first link. Actually, the evidence supports the claim that many feminists responded in this way.
a5. The quotes are an argument, and they all identify as feminists (notably from the 2nd and 3rd waves and the 3rd wave is modern day). Those feminists are the most widely known and most powerful (and the leaders) of the movement and feminists follow them. (some of) Your quotes are also sexist towards men as are mine, which only proves my point.
1.) My opponent provided no new arguments and that should result in a deduction of conduct points. My opponent also used incorrect grammar (e.g. "your" when "you're" would be correct), which should result in a deduction of correct/good grammar points.
2.) Feminists often say there is a pay gap between men and women. This is false. I will provide evidence as to why the gender pay gap is a complete myth
Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more. Top 10 most dangerous jobs (from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics): Fishers, loggers, aircraft pilots, farmers and ranchers, roofers, iron and steel workers, refuse and recyclable material collectors, industrial machinery installation and repair, truck drivers, construction laborers. They're all male-dominated jobs.
Men are far more likely to work in higher-paying fields and occupations (by choice). According to the White House report, "In 2009, only 7 percent of female professionals were employed in the relatively high paying computer and engineering fields, compared with 38 percent of male professionals." Professional women, on the other hand, are far more prevalent "in the relatively low-paying education and health care occupations."
Men are far more likely to take work in uncomfortable, isolated, and undesirable locations that pay more.Men work longer hours than women do. The average full-time working man works 6 hours per week or 15 percent longer than the average full-time working woman.
Men are more likely to take jobs that require work on weekends and evenings and therefore pay more.
Even within the same career category, men are more likely to pursue high-stress and higher-paid areas of specialization. For example, within the medical profession, men gravitate to relatively high-stress and high-paying areas of specialization, like surgery, while women are more likely to pursue relatively lower-paid areas of specialization like pediatrician or dentist.
Despite all of the above, unmarried women who've never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men, according to Nemko and data compiled from the Census Bureau.
Women business owners make less than half of what male business owners make, which, since they have no boss, means it's independent of discrimination. The reason for the disparity, according to a Rochester Institute of Technology study, is that money is the primary motivator for 76% of men versus only 29% of women. Women place a higher premium on shorter work weeks, proximity to home, fulfillment, autonomy, and safety, according to Nemko.
This proves that the 2nd and 3rd waves of feminism fight for a nonexistent claim and are actually fighting to earn more than men.
3.) Chivalry when they like it, Sexism when they don't.
Example: "I'm the man I'll pay"=liked "I work more than that woman, but we get payed the same wage. I deserve a raise because I work harder and get more done!"=hated/seen as sexism due to feminism in society.
4.) Feminists always assume they know what is best and that they are always right in the way to do things. I understand that some (if any) feminists have good intentions, but they are carrying them out in a totally wrong way that hurts men, women, families, and society.
a1. Again not evidence but opinion and thus this point is un-weighted, and yes the way you presented this point does fall back on you because you hold the burden of proof and so far have not fulfilled it.
a2. Actually Roosevelt was a key 2nd Wave feminist, but you provided no evidence to show the opposite anyways thus the point is mine by omission of the evidence.
a3. I will address your relevant evidence, most doesn't apply to your argument so it can be thrown out, and no men are not raped more often then women, lets look at india, or china where women are scarce so human trafficking is a problem.
a3-1. This has nothing to do with rape or the VAWA
a3-2. this is male on male and its an issue in women's prisons too, any and all prison rapes are subject to security and aren't tied to feminism.
a3-2-2? This is a minute stat taken out of context from the study, in the study he selected the only district in Canada with this stat, in another part of Canada females have an 13.5% chance to be forcibly raped as compared to 6% of men. Faulty stat faulty logic.
a3-4. Lets just quote your study that you didn't read,
" Among older
street-involved youth (ages 19-25), a higher
percentage of females reported sexual "
a3-5. Realize in prisons men and women are separate, your stat just shows there is more violence in women's prisons.
a3-6.For your first card I will pull out another quote stated inside it "Men were more likely than women to strangle, choke, or beat up their partners." and to the rest, this doesn't tie to feminism at all, your still showing substantial damage to women and most of your men being raped cards is them being raped by other men. You have yet to fulfill your burden of proof showing women aren't the ones being hurt.
a4. no they don't directly correlate to your arguments you cant paste a bunch of articles at the top and hope we all go "I know where all of these refer to." The point of evidence is so in argumentation I can asses where the evidence is coming from. and maybe you should bother to click your own links, seeing as they them selves don't work, here is one you may like:
Wait that one, your first one, doesn't work. thus your arguments are invalid.
A5. I'm sorry but I think your arguing against Female Supremacists, not modern feminists, and yes there is a difference.
1)My opponent cant even count, look at his arguments in A3. He himself has typos and unformed sentences, most of his arguments are formed partially and uncompleted. He himself should have deductions in correct/good grammar points. And so my opponent realizes, grammar and spelling are different things.
2) I don't hold the BOP, it is not my job as neg to provide arguments for aff to refute, he has also just attacked how I debate, his lack of evidence however should lose him conduct points.
3)Apparently my opponent never looked at the pay gap study, if he did he would see they didn't look at all men and women, then compare the ceo men to unemployed women. They compared men in the same job as women, Secondly the pay gap exists because of people like my opponent, a women can work any job a man can. your statistics are showing the difference in men and women overall, and this isn't what the pay wage study did.
Lets look at the census where they did the math;
the Census Bureau released new numbers showing that the gender wage gap is at 77%, meaning women make just 77 cents for each dollar a man makes.The median earnings for men working full-time were $49,400 while women’s were just $37,800.
3) no evidence once again
4) no evidence once again
My opponent has not fulfilled the BOP he must provide in order to win todays debate. He lacks evidence overall and the only things he does dont say what hes trying to paint them to say. Thus we can only see a ballot in negation of the resolution.
The bottom line, says Venker, is that, "Feminism has sabotaged women's happiness." Worse, she adds, it's flipped male-female relationships upside down. Just one example: Men more than ever are seeking love, marriage and kids while women want independence.
As Schlafly's niece, Venker grew up seeing an alternative view to mainstream feminists views on TV and in the media. Now as a mother in Missouri, she's trying to help her aunt highlight what conservatives feel is wrong with feminism and to build a new understanding between men and women.
The book is controversial, especially in liberal circles, for lines like this: "Unfortunately, once feminism came along, women abandoned their pedestal in droves and decided they wanted to share the man's pedestal with him. They claimed they wanted both sexes on the same pedestal to represent equality and prove men and women are the same. Instead, they found themselves in conflict. Since there isn't enough room on a pedestal for both of them, feminists pushed men off to make room for themselves." She added, "That's not equality. That's matriarchy."
On sex: "Sex is a problem, too. More and more wives today say they're too tired for sex. ...Naturally, this poses a problem for husbands, who are rarely too tired for sex. Sex is a man's favorite past time, and the wives who are too tired to have it are often resentful of this fact. If change is going to come, it will have to come from women"they are the ones who changed the natural order of things. Moreover, men aren't the ones who kvetch about their place in the world"not because they have it so great, contrary to feminist dogma, but because it's not in their nature. Men tend to go along with whatever women say they need."
The duo have also raised concerns about Palin calling herself a conservative feminist. "You can't be both," says Venker, who adds that Palin is "confusing" conservatives by calling herself a feminist.
Mainstream media and liberal politicians and pundits also take a big hit, blamed for promoting feminism. They are especially critical of the "feminist elite" including Oprah, first lady Michelle Obama, CBS anchor Katie Couric, and Arianna Huffington. "What these women have in common is clout, and they believe they know that's best for women," they write, adding: "The problem is that the majority of women in this country don't have the power"feminists do. And feminists influence liberals as well as conservatives to confirm to the feminist message."
From the book and our recent interview, Whispers has pulled this list:
Five Ways That Feminism Has Ruined America
1. It hurt marriage. Women want to wait so that they can keep their identities longer and men are finding easy sex, taking away a big reason for marriage.
2. Undermines child rearing. More kids are in childcare where discipline is lax resulting in a "epidemic" of bad kids, childhood obesity, and bullies.
3. Two-income trap. With both husband and wife working it's hard to live without life's luxuries.
4. Undermines college sports. Title IX has ended many male-only sports at some colleges.
5. Emasculates men. It's better to be a wuss than speak up or mouth off and face charges of harassment or chauvinism.
Today, a stay-at-home mother is viewed as a kind of second-class woman. In fact, feminists do not even view stay-at-home mothers as persons. This derogatory view began with Betty Friedan. "[V]acuuming the living room floor"with or without makeup"is not work that takes enough thought or energy to challenge any woman"s full capacity. Down through the ages man has known that he was set apart from other animals by his mind"s power to have an idea, a vision, and shape the future to it. " [W]hen he discovers and creates and shapes a future different from his past, he is a man, a human being" (The Feminine Mystique). The basic idea of feminism was that women should have a choice to go to the workplace and become less animal-like. What does that make a stay-at-home mother? Since being a wife and mother was supposedly glorified in the 1950s, the women"s movement fought to demote that role to the lowest level possible. Many impressionable young women wholeheartedly believed this 1960s philosophy.
Unfortunately, this feminist teaching has planted deep roots in the consciousness of American women. The feminist tree has blossomed. Today, it is considered a great shame to be a wife and mother only. In fact, being a wife and mother is synonymous with the meaningless life of a lower, uneducated class of people. What are today"s fruits of this philosophy?
The fight for women"s rights has actually turned into a fight against the family. Even the mothers of modern feminism admit that radical feminists have worked hard to repudiate the family.
Feminist Stephanie Coontz, history professor at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wa., wrote in the Washington Post, "We cannot afford to construct our social policies, our advice to our own children and even our own emotional expectations around the illusion that all commitments, sexual activities and caregiving will take place in a traditional marriage" (May 1). You don"t have to read between the lines to understand that such thinking is destroying the traditional family!
It is within the Anglo-American world that feminism has been embraced the most passionately. These countries also have the highest divorce rates in the world, and are producing record numbers of fatherless children"which in turn creates many other social problems. Robert Sheaffer writes, "One can try to argue that the U.S. family died of natural causes at precisely the same time feminists began shooting at it, but after examining the depth and ferocity of the feminist attack against women"s roles as wives and mothers, such an argument fails to convince" (Feminism, the Noble Lie). Let"s own up to it: Feminism has caused some tragic results for the family.
If we are going to fix our social problems, we must recognize that feminism has led our Western families into serious crises. Here is how it happened. Although many young women answered the call to pursue a career, they could not deny their natural desire for a husband and children. Many then opted to have a husband, children and a career. Realizing that certain feminine desires could not be denied, a new movement slogan was quickly pushed into public view""having it all." This slogan lives on. But it ignores a hard reality for many working mothers: Having it all also means handling it all. Working career mothers were forced into a high-stress rat race. Having it all was supposed to be fulfilling, but it was not. Now, almost four decades later, women find they are not any closer to finding true, satisfying fulfillment. For some, "having it all" has meant losing it all.
The truth is, working mothers suffer. The children of working mothers always suffer. And should we forget"the husband suffers too.
Severe fatigue plagues many working mothers. Balancing career, marriage and child care is an impossible task. Few can actually do it all. To do it all, corners have to be cut. Unfortunately, because of feminist peer pressure, marriage and family are sacrificed before career. Many two-career marriages have crumbled. Children have been left at home alone. Can we begin to see the harm that working motherhood has done to families?
Our society of working mothers is a disaster. Experts agree that the industrial revolution produced families with absentee fathers. Now feminism has given us families with absentee mothers. What does this mean? Essentially, our children are growing up alone.
It is estimated that as many as 60 percent of American children do not have full-time parental supervision. Think about it. If children are blessed enough to be in a two-parent home, generally they still have both parents working outside the home. The children are left home alone. If the family is run by a single parent, that parent (whether male or female) is working. Again, the children are home alone. This means our youth are growing up with an ever-dwindling amount of parental love, nurturing and supervision. The average latchkey child (a child returning home after school with no parent to greet him) is alone three hours per day. Some of these children are as young as 8; most are in their teens. When we think about parents arriving home after a difficult day at the office, we can logically surmise that there is not much quality time left for the child.
All children and teens fundamentally need acceptance, praise, teaching and discipline. Children need to be taught right from wrong. Children need to learn how to be successful. This requires experience and activities. These needs are best met by parents. If these needs are not met at home, children have no other choice than to look elsewhere. This makes our children frustrated, angry and vulnerable to many dangers.
a1. I have provided proof.
a2. Your statement of her helping veterans had nothing to do with feminism.
a3. I have provided proof that men are the overwhelming majority of rape victims. Actually yes it does have something to do with VAWA.
a3-5. it shows that youth report sexual abuse from female staff. Feminists fight against men being able to be raped and women being able to rape or go to jail at all.
My opponent has a burden of proof as they have not provided any evidence that these wave of feminism is not harmful and should exist.
To start off, my opponents entire begging argument which is basically all of it can be dropped completely, he called in his first round for rebuttals in round 4. you can also drop it because he literally copied 2 articles and didn't provide analysis to why this applies. He is plagiarizing as well by not crediting what was actually typed by others, simply placing a link and not marking what they said is plagiarizing, and if he attempts to do it next round he is forfeiting his Final Focus round as well.
So ill move to the actual standing arguments.
a1. your proof was your opinion not actual evidence
a2.you claimed feminists hated men and quoted a woman who wanted to kill men, I showed a feminist that was fond of men, intern nullifying your argument.
a3. You showed a 1% difference in favor of men in a small area in Canada, just east there's a 7.5% difference saying women are raped more.
a3-5. you pulled a study and didn't read it, it doesn't talk about women in men's prisons raping men. that's not even viable, lets just use logic, sex offenders are being raped by women? no, just no.
The burden of proof lies on the affirmation, as they are trying to prove the resolution, at no point did I accept this burden so it still sits there for you to prove. As neg as long as the resolution isn't proven I win, Seeing as my opponent hasn't provided this BOP he has lost this debate.
At this point we can only see a ballot in favor of the negation.
Unfortunately my opponenet has gone throughout this round without learning what a BOP is, so lets review what stands at this point...
My opponent dropped his case in the last round and thus hasnt proven "2nd wave and 3rd wave/modern feminism is harmful and should not exist."
Because of this we can only see a ballot in favor of the negation!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ben671176 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: By Rights of All, SGM_iz_SekC is wrong and sexist. Even though Modern Feminism is on the down climb and isn't really a problem anymore since many wote feminists, too.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.