All feminist should be MRAs
Debate Rounds (3)
1) Feminist ideology stands for the equal treatment of women and men , however, we are currently seeing an strong political movement of feminist who propose the idea of patriarchy or male dominance of society. Whilst not all feminist address or believe in the patriarchy, it is pivotal to mention that all feminist believe that there is some sort of bias against females in society. Feminist need to realise that men have just as many standards abdicated to them as women do. Even the very idea that women are seen as less then men give men a standard to achieve. They need to achieve complete dominance. In society, we encourage and celebrate women's achievements and rightfully so, however, we never address the ideas that men should not need to fulfil the roles of masculinity imposes on them. Men cannot be intellectual or they will be seen as frail or cowardly. Feminist ideology supports equality for the different genders yet feminist constantly shrug of the idea that men have problems too. I am discrediting the intensity of female issues but merely asking for attention towards the neglected problems men face as well. The definition of a feminist encompasses the definition of MRA activism, hence, it would be a blatant hypocrisy for a feminist to not be a MRA.
You are partially correct in your definition of feminism. Feminism is an ideology for the equality of the genders, but many feminists recognize the bias against women in most areas. Or, as you stated, a patriarchy. A patriarchy is a system where men and masculinity are favored over females and femininity. Oh, and by the way, most of the "problems against men" are the result of said patriarchy. Let's review them.
1. "Men have to achieve dominance": Well, this isn't exactly correct. A better statement would be that men are taught to be dominant, and dominance is more easily given to them. I, as a boy, was told how to lead and take control, where my female counterpart would be called bossy. However, I find it kind of cheep to say "I am given a higher standard but more opportunities to reach this standard and thus the system is not in my favor.
Let's examine this from the female perspective. We see that (in January of 2013) women made up 18% of Congress, 20% of Senators, and 18% of Representatives (not even going to mention 0% of presidents). Perhaps there is a higher standard for men, although that hasn't been demonstrated, but as you I have shown this works more in the male's favor than against. Even if you disagree, then the negative effects of having 80% of the government represent males then those effects would be the fault of a system "favoring" men; a patriarchy.
2. "We respect women's achievements but don't adress masculinity": To be honest, I don't see the connecting points here. By the way, the only reason there are events like Women's History Week/Month, was because the achievements of women were being ignored, so not really a point in your favor. Even with Women's History Month, some spectacular achievements by women are ignored. From the link I'm giving , about 95% of awards for hard scientific achievement are given to men. Also, the rate of which women are nominated is inconsistent with the rate of which they win.
Some more examples of how women are not given enough credit: a woman arguably created the genre of science fiction in writing Frankenstein (Mary Shelley), and a woman was the first computer programmar (Ada Lovelace). Both of those fields are now considered a male dominant field. Women in science fiction, and especially gaming (which I will try to hit on), are harrassed by the males in their respective audience.
Thus we reach the final part of your argument: "we don't adress masculinity". I will agree with you on the most part, that men are expected to be tough, strong, and fit... Oh, well, except for the fact that men are allowed to be ugly, fat, and old in most forms of media. But they aren't allowed to feminine, I concede. Almost as if there was a system in place that favored masculine traits...
3. "Men can't be intellectual or they will be seen as scared": Again, I don't see how the latter half of your premise is connected to the first half, but I will just disect it the best I can. While this may have been true at some point, it certinly isn't now. People such as Einstein, Newton, deGrasse Tyson, and the such are not only respected members of the field, but also revered in most of the public, with the possibel exception of the more religious people. If you live in a stable country, you will be pressured by your parents and your society to get a college degree. In fact, if you go for a more physical career, like basketball or the such, most people won't even think such a possibility is plausible, or favorable.
Yeah, not sure where the coward part of this equation comes in.
4. Feminists don't believe men have problems: As a feminist, I disagree. Men and women face problems, and we can trace this back to a similar source: the patriarchy! Oh, but here is when I reveal the trick up my sleeve, the surprise argument you weren't expecting: Men Rights Activists are not for the equal rights of men! Mwuhahahaha!
Case 1: Men Rights Activism (MRA) is a response to feminism: If one were to fight for equality, especially against a system of rules that existed for such a long time, one would expect an organization to exist for a long time as well. However, it started in the 70s as a response to feminists threatening traditional gender roles . "But YaHey," I hear you counterarguing, "the Republicans weren't always old, white, racists! Movements change!" Yes, this is true, but to see where one is, it is important to know how one started. But this is only argument 1!
Sexists in sheep's clothing: I argue that most MRAs are actually just misogynistic sexists. This can be shown in the "Don't Be That Girl" campaign, which made a big show of false rape accusations. Despite the fact that a miniscule number of rapes are fake and so many rapists are never caught, these MRAs wanted to put more doubt on rape claims.
Here are some links for further reading why the MRM (Men's Rights Movement) is trash.
The Last Refutation, or Feminists should be MRAs: Here we see something I wanna call a DOUBLE STANDARD. You say feminists should become MRAs, but not the fact that MRAs should become feminists? If anything, the latter should be true, since feminism encompasses both genders, while MRAs focus on men.
However, there isn't the overlap you want to claim is there. The MRM, as a response to feminism, cannot therefore become feminism? Just like atheism, which is a response to theism, cannot become theism. The two sides are not compatible.
Firstly I thank you for accepting this debate and in terms of the definition of a feminist I really am not to fussed considering your definition is pretty much identical to mine if not very similar.
Also MRA- male rights activist
Since their is no dictionary definitions for MRA I am going with what the name says. A male right activist.
Let's begin with your major arguments then I will continue to rebut your rebuttals of my arguments and I will finish by elaborating on my initial argument.
" Case 1: Men Rights Activism (MRA) is a response to feminism: If one were to fight for equality, especially against a system of rules that existed for such a long time, one would expect an organization to exist for a long time as well. However, it started in the 70s as a response to feminists threatening traditional gender roles . "But YaHey," I hear you counterarguing, "the Republicans weren't always old, white, racists! Movements change!" Yes, this is true, but to see where one is, it is important to know how one started. But this is only argument 1!"
You have not really elaborated on this argument, you say yourself that movements do change and you obviously know that I am going to mention that so what is the point of is argument? It has already been nullified since I have a response to it and you have not responded to that response rather you have just stated it is a single argument. Just because a flawed argument is only a single argument does not bolster its legitimacy. I do praise that you have given some historic context but like you say yourself, movements change. Also, no I don't think the origins of MRA's are needed to be discussed. If you do think they should then please elaborate on that. Also, please do not use Wikipedia as a reference for controversial topics such as. MRAs as it looses it's neutrality when heavily opinionated topics are discussed. Anyone who is passionately against MRAs ( there are more then a few of them) can later to their hearts content.
"Sexists in sheep's clothing: I argue that most MRAs are actually just misogynistic sexists. This can be shown in the "Don't Be That Girl" campaign, which made a big show of false rape accusations. Despite the fact that a miniscule number of rapes are fake and so many rapists are never caught, these MRAs wanted to put more doubt on rape claims. "
Please note that I have never once grouped feminist together like you have done with MRAs ( I did mention a few generalisations but these all come back to the definition of a feminist and a MRA). MY generalisations of feminist not caring for male topics sparked of the idea that a MRA activist want gender equality by focusing on Male issues and feminist want to focus on female issue to create equality hence if you are JUST a feminist then you don't address male issues. If you do address make issues then you are a MRA, and like wise for feminism. You fail to recongize that male right activism is the male equivalent to feminism. On a neutral definitional bases it is trying to achieve what feminism are doing for women but for men. I am actually really surprised when so many feminist and MRAs are in argument when they are both pretty much the same thing except for two different genders. I digress, I have made generalisations about feminists but your gernelistaions about MRAs are nothing more then ad hominem or viscous name calling. Please back up why most MRAs are sexist or misogynist. I have never attacked feminist, I merely say they need to be MRAs so they can achieve equality. Also, your example of what some MRAs have done proves nothing. So can I make the judgement that Muslims are evil due to 9/11? Or can I say that Japanese hate animals due to their treatment of whales ? No, this would seem as undeniable offensive yet you use a few example to label MRAs. Of you want to criticise MRAs attests make it definitional criticisms. I can also mention projects that feminist have created that are just as bad like the ban bossy campaign or the sorry not sorry campaign. These do not strive for equality but rather strive for superiority ( this is debatable but let's leave that for another time, point is I can mention feminist projects that can be interpreted as bad just as you have for MRAs). I am jot saying feminist are bad but I am saying that what you are doing to MRAs can work the other way as well. Also, just for your information, some of the most popular YouTube MRAs are women and feminist, ever heard of honey badger radio? They are ALL women MRAs.
Also, I have a lot of criticisms for the articles you sent me but I don't think they were used as arguments by you so I will leave them.
" The Last Refutation, or Feminists should be MRAs: Here we see something I wanna call a DOUBLE STANDARD. You say feminists should become MRAs, but not the fact that MRAs should become feminists? If anything, the latter should be true, since feminism encompasses both genders, while MRAs focus on men.
However, there isn't the overlap you want to claim is there. The MRM, as a response to feminism, cannot therefore become feminism? Just like atheism, which is a response to theism, cannot become theism. The two sides are not compatible. "
Please elaborate on how feminist have been encompassing both genders? And if they do they are MRAs ! If you stand for make rights you are a MRA much like if you stand for female rights you are a feminist, I never said MRAs should not be feminist in fact I agree with you. Also, you have failed to define MRAs as they way they should be, activist of male rights. They are just as progressive as feminist and want to see a change. Your analyses of MRAs is not only based on Wikipedia off all sites but is a one dimensional one. You can have left wing and right wing views much like having feminist and MRA ideologies. Atheism and theism are direct opposites, MRA and feminism are not.
Now for a few rebuttals of rebuttals
Firstly, removing patriarchy may possibly fix male problems, but we need to directly attack male problems just as we do with females problems or people will either forget they exist or it will take too long. There are make problems that need to be addressed right now like suicide and we can't wait for the patriarchy to be removed before this happens. It is simply more efficient for feminist to become MRA rather then wait until patriarchy is removed to remove male problems. Female problems are being addressed now, so should make problems.
1) Dude, men are always expected to perform or supply. From fathers to boys in schools we are given standards to achieve just like women are. When I play a sport against a girl I need to win or I will be disowned due to societies expectation of women being weak and men having to be stronger. It is a standard for men and a attack on women. We expect men to do better then women in physical activities even though they are just as competent as us. This is why we need feminist to tell women they can be just as physically fit as a man and we need MRAs to tell men we can be beaten by women and we shouldn't feel embarrassed. Either way , this is just one example of a male problem and not really an argument.
3) and 2) These were just examples I used to show men have problems. Attack the arguments not the examples.
4) Definition wise , if a female is an activist for make rights they are a MRA. Please elaborate on how MRAs cannot be for equal rights.
Let's look at my argument again, o personally believe we should all be humanist.
Humanist : MRA + Feminist
We need to look at the bigger picture and point injustice in both genders, you cannot preach the ideologies of feminism yet neglect the problems men face on a day to day basis. This can also be said for MRAs. Overall, unless you are saying men have no problems at all, we should all be MRAs much like we should all be feminist.
My point in bringing up the origins of the MRM is that it hasn't really changed. Movements change, this one hasn't. Also, no source is objective but seeing as you just assume everyone takes your word as law, I'm going to assume I'm right. Get some "objective" source to contradict me and we can have a debate.
Jesus Christ. Do I literally have to say not all men before every statement? I even said "Most MRAs" but you said "feminists", as in all feminists! Is this a game you wanna play, buddy? By the way, feminism isn't the focus on JUST female issues, it is the focus on gender equality, and most feminists would recognize the bias against women called the Patriarchy. Our goal: gender equality. Our mission statement: "Down with the Patriarchy!"
My "generalization" was an ad hominem, but wasn't an ad hominem fallacy. I was making an attack on their characters, but I demonstrated this. If I were to call you ugly and thus I am right, then I would be comitting an ad hominem fallacy. Please learn the difference before you accuse me of this again. "They [feminists] need to be MRAs." That's what we call in the business a MAJOR WHOPPING DOUBLE STANDARD. You never once mention how MRAs should become feminists to achieve equality either. You must demonstrate why F must become M, and M does not have to become F. If not, then I think we can dismiss your entire premise, which is not about feminism and MRAs, but that F must become M.
Here is where you got those stereotypes wrong. One) Al-Qaeda was the specific group behind 9/11, and you can assume members of Al-Qaeda are at least dangerous. Same with whale hunters. The specific group was whale hunters hunting whales, so to assume all Japanese people hate animals is doubly wrong (where did all animals come from?). By the way, if one is to criticize a movement, one must look at it's actions.
You bring up Ban Bossy and Sorry not Sorry in response to the Don't Be that Girl (you say we can talk about these later, but you best believe I am gonna refute these right now). Ban Bossy was a campaign to stop girls from getting called bossy in leadership roles. You know, since women are disproportionately NOT represented in leadership positions? YEAH, THAT'S JUST AS BAD AS PUTTING MORE DOUBT ON RAPE CASES. I can't talk about Sorry not Sorry, since you gave no link. Actually, you are criticizing a movement which is the same as I was doing. You then bring up female MRAs (never said there wasn't any, but okay). This doesn't change the fact that the MRM is a largely sexist movement to the detriment of women. And men. Actually, I'd like to see where the MRM has been trying to fix these issues men are up against.
Actually, since MRM is pretty much just a response to feminism and not actual male issues, then they are opposing views. Oh, please stop griping on me for using Wikipedia once. Kind of hypocritical coming from a person that is getting their information from the voices in their heads.
Before I tackle your next paragraph, could you explain this sentence for me: "Female problems are being addressed now, so should make problems." What are you even saying? Anyway, I find your response to be pretty stupid, since we can address male and female problems by destroying the patriarchy. But yeah, let's help the men get the cracks filled in on their priviledge while the stupid women keep whining about lower pay and not enough representation in Congress, am I right? (Note, sarcasm was used.)
OR we can have a single movement (hint, it's feminism) that says a woman is a physically equal competetor and if you get ashamed by being beat by one, it's your problem. Just wondering, if I stabbed you in the leg with a fork (an attack) would you feel better or worse if I expected you to hold the fork in your hand correctly (a standard).
Hold the eff up, I'd like a better response to a large chunk of my response buddy. You gave examples, I showed how these were wrong. Now you have to get another example. I'm not doing your work for you, that's not how this is going to go down.
By your very definition, an MRA (Male Rights Activist, not make rights activists as you say at least twice) is for the rights of men, but not women. I mean, you admitted to that.
A humanist believesin natural responses to human problems rather than supernatural responses to human problems. Basically, if there is a flood, a humanist would like to send money and food for the victims instead of praying. A feminist can be a humanist, and a humanist can be a feminist.
"Overall, unless you are saying men have no problems at all, we should all be MRAs much like we should all be feminist." Well men have problems, but until you give some accurate examples, I feel comfortable saying these problems are due to the Patriarchy imposing a value of "manly masculinity" on boys. You haven't shown how MRAs actually strive to see equality between the sexes, and I have given examples of how they have really been a cute little disguise for promoting sexism.
1) you are adding arguments midway through the debate which is fine but you are treating those arguments as if you said them before. You need to elaborate more on your arguments rather then just produce short bursts of arguments.
2) No, Wikipedia is objective as anyone has the power to change it to fit their agenda.
3) Your argument seems to be appealing to emotion over logical debate which is the common route for argumentation in both MRA and feminism. This is just further discrediting your arguments and does not hold any ground in this debate.
4) You ignore a lot of my reasoning ( eg definitional reasoning, grouping on basis of a definition which you even approved of ) and instead you debate the superficial statements I make rather the analysing what I send across as my message. This is crucial in this type of debate as it is primarily definitional yet you are going on tangent and not bring back to the real picture.
5) You agree with my contention and arguments on multiple occasions like when you say that feminism does not only adress female rights. If it does not only address female rights, it must address male rights which makes them MRAs b definition which I have provided.
6) I would also like to point out how much you rely on pure angst to convey your argument rather then taking a neutral sophisticated tone. You have attacked me which I theory is fine if you do it critically but you attack me on such weak and superficial basis such as " rape doubting " that you only mock your own legitimacy. You are actually making it worse for feminist as this is what they are stereotyped as.
7) The assumptions made are not strengthened rather then just flamboyantly pushed upon us to accept as fact. I even mentioned that I want MRA activist to be feminist yet you continue to attack me for what I have not even said. This is not even debating anymore rather then just you rehashing rebuttals that I have already rebutted.
8) Your rebuttals don't address anything for me to address as you don't understand the very argument I proposed. For example your rebuttal to my al Qaida example completely ignores that I said Muslims and not al Qaida members. Sure, al Qaida is bad as an organisation but MRA is not an organisation as it is simply just a belief or doctrine. They are nots the same as they have nothing to connect them together definition wise. All they are is people who are activist for male rights.
9) this is an honest question, have you read my argument or did you just respond in haste as you had no time or you were busy? I really did respond to everything you said pretty well and I have faith that you have decent comprehension skills to see the logic over emotion.,
10) Why do you constantly come back to feminism? I can understand your patriarchy argument requires a rehash of feminists but this debate is about being a MRA and you still have not once refuted my logic rather then just pandered over emotions and attacks to take away the civilised though play I expected from this website.
11) Your main logic is based on the same logic as racism and sexism. You cluster people as a group and you still can't prove that definition wise MRA's are sexist. Not all MRAs are the same, it is not some Organisation in sync. MRAs are just as different as every other group.
MRA's have been defined by me. I have defined them as people who support male rights, I never said they don't support female rights but they support male rights and gender equality. In my definition they are the mirror of feminism. I have already pointed out that MRA started as a response to feminism but has evolved over time making it different to before. You also need to look at it in individual sense, if feminist were to become MRA activist then wouldn't you say that both MRA activism and feminism would become less sexist as they could understand each other better? Also they would be able to introduce problems that both sides have experienced to the opposite gender making them appreciate what they have.
I have define MRA as someone who believes in gender equality and activism for male rights
I have defined a feminist as someone who believes in gender equality and activism for female rights
They both believe in gender equality making them by definition, one of each other
Gender equality means equality for males and females meaning you cannot be a feminist and a supremacist nor can you be MRA and a supremacist. You are a MRA when you become a feminist as you believe in this gender equality and the same goes for MRA. That is why feminist need to recognise themselves as MRAs. Btw the main reason I talk about feminism becoming MRA is because that is the debate topic. The only way you could rebut this is with the patriarchy argument or that men don't have problems. You agree me have problems and I addressed how it is more efficient to target men's problems individually then wait until patriarchy is gone. We are constantly improving women's rights as the days go one and feminism is spreading more awareness, they can achieve all of this without bring down patriarchy yet . We should do the same for men so they start to recover from their problems before the patriarchy is brought down.
If you are really picky on the terminology
Then treat humanist as gender equaliser
Stick to the definition
MRA : for male rights and gender equality
Feminism : for female rights and gender equality ( I have justified both these definitions in my last argument )
See the similarities?
1) Okay, well I'm not sure what you mean by adding arguments. I'm pretty sure I just rebutted your stuff, maybe using different information. But even if I did add another argument, it's the middle of a debate. Nowehere did you specify that no arguments were allowed past the first round. You say I need to elaborate more on my arguments but I don't even know what you mean? The motto of this debate has been you accusing me of some bad practice but not giving examples.
2)I think you mean subjective, as objective is the opposite of what you state. However, if you would read the Wiki's page on adding information (I'll actually give the link because I'm not an animal. That's a joke) any unsourced information can be challenged and removed. While anyone can add info, that does not mean it will stay on there.
3) Here we go, more accusations with no examples. By the way, we are emotional beings and our actions are often based on our emotions. That includes our audience and their votes.
4) You give examples but not helpful ones. I don't even know how to reply here because I am not too sure what you mean.
5) Your definition does not fit our reality. Note, the premise is not that feminists are MRAs, but that feminists should BE MRAs. Your definition is wrong because it does not fit the movements; feminism being for both genders, MRM beiing for exclusively men's issues. Women can be MRAs as well (but I highly recommend against it.)
6) Are... are you even critiquing my arguments at this point? Like should I be taking notes? Will your tips I never asked for and aren't really thinking of applying to my arguments be on the test? You are putting doubt on rape victims, which is not only an important thing to discuss, but highly dangerous for issues not necessary to this debate. However, in my other debates about feminism I give some stats on rape, if anyone is interested in why this is an issue.
7) Okay, maybe I am just a moron, but I'm having some confusion here. You talk about how I attack your examples and not the argument (though an argument is only as valid as it's examples if you ask me) but I'm not entirely sure of the entire argument from premise seven? But let's talk about what you say, anyway. Note the title, "All feminists should be MRAs" (which would mean they do not fit the incorrect definition of the MRM and thus do not "advocate for male rights" which is something you needed to have shown). Let's read your first argument. Hmm... You actually don't say a lot that is actually noteworthy, now that I am getting back to it. You gave some arguments with some examples, I refuted the examples and thus the arguments, and you talk a lot about feminism. However, you do not address the other party here, the MRM. In fact, here is your following closing: "The definition of a feminist encompasses the definition of MRA activism, hence, it would be a blatant hypocrisy for a feminist to not be a MRA." You say F should be M, which implies M does not need to be F. This is what I was objecting too. Also, reading this again, I noticed you didn't list the definition of the MRM being solely advocation for male rights. I sometimes agree with Republicans, but that does not mean I am one.
8) Well there was a flaw in your analogy that I did not bring up, which is that a complex belief system such as Islam with it's old text that can be interpreted many ways and MRM is a relatively new movement with less numbers and even less diversity in ideas. My point was that Islam was not responsible for the 9/11 attack, but AL-Qaeda was.
9) Ugh it's kind of hard to stay objective when you act so condescendingly. Okay, so I actually think I know what point I made that you are talking about (please keep a consistent format, you go from kind of numbers to paragraphs to numbers again. I'm trying to match you but you keep flip flopping on me). I stated you didn't respond well enough to my argument, which was a good 2-3 paragraphs response to your examples, and thus your argument, and you thought saying "3) and 2) These were just examples I used to show men have problems. Attack the arguments not the examples." was a good enough refutation.
10. Yeah not sure what you are addressing here. This is a debate involving feminism and thus feminism should be included, but I don't know what you are talking about from my argument.
11. Here's something, screw your definitions! At first glance, the definition of communism sounds pretty good too, but there aren't a lot of real world examples of that turning out too well.
See, right in the middle of an argument you switch format. I know your definition is inconsistent with the real world (something I have actually shown). By the way, your argument appears to have been, when I accepted this debate, mind you, that feminists should BECOME MRAs. These two movements are polar opposites, as one (F) advocates for equality between men and women and the other (M) advocates solely for male issues. Sorry for popping up here with a new argument, but feminism isn't just for equality between these two genders, but for ALL genders. As in, ALL genders. While this is not including in the definition but if you do a tiny bit of research you will see this sort of acceptance from many feminists.
Your definition is wrong.
Your definition is wrong, for a different reason.
You claim they have the same goal, but different means. We all want economic succes, but we disagree on how to get there.
Well, this actually means you can not be justified in being for equality and a supremecist, but our actions do not always fall in line with our ideologies. Actually, I am not an MRA because I think the movement is wrong and fairly sexist, not to mention it's championing for an already priviliged sex. Yes, this debate topic is that feminists should become MRAs, and you chose the Pro side. This is, to the very least, misleading, especially as you spent the entire first round talking about the errors in feminism. I believe I have shown these ideologies are not mirrors of each other, but rather polar opposites. You could say "opposites attract" but tell that to the two political parties in America. If by addressing you mean mentioning, then yes, you addressed it. Not adaquately enough, and I poled my own holes in your argument, but let's forget about that, I guess.
You are the one who is being picky on definitions, mate. If you got a big love for definitions, then apply this to your own ideology, which advocates natural solutions to human problems.
Your definition is wrong, and thus I won't stick to them.
See the problem?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 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||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I'm nulling this debate. Neither side really presented a compelling case. Con had a bit of the edge, but attempting to handwave away defintions simply by saying "screw them" doesn't fly with me.
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.