Debate Rounds (5)
Well I haven't had a decent debate in a couple months and and figured why not discuss feminism in modern day North America (when I say this I'm referring to Canada & the US of A, sorry Mexifriends). I've been having a lot of "good" back-and-fourths with Stefy about feminism and equality and such in comments and polls and whatever, so if she could accept I'd love it, but if someone else does I'd be just as happy.
So as anyone who knows me on this site would already know, I'm against modern feminism in North America. I find it nothing more than an excuse to get women special treatment and put down others in order to make feminists look good. It "unknowingly" fights for female superiority under the guise of "equality."
I don't want to get too into this right now so I'll leave the first round for my opponent to open with arguments as to why feminism is or should be necessary in North America.
Inb4 "Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Therefore feminism is great!!!1!@" - Citing a definition does not mean the movement as a whole is beneficial or not detrimental.
Forfeiture of any round will result in a full seven-point loss. I can't make this clear enough, if you want to participate in a debate, please don't go on vacation half way through. If you do have to leave because your neighbour took your sister hostage, please just... deal with that on your own.
Five rounds, 72 hours, 10,000 Characters.
I won't mind if you get emotional and insult me because I stated facts that destroy your argument ;)
Come one come all, I don't care how many debates you've completed or not completed, if you bring up good arguments I'm happy!
Thanks and good luck!
To begin I would like to posit two major themes to demonstrate why feminism remains necessary and why the positives of the broad feminist movement outweigh any perceived negatives. I will then go into greater depth citing examples to flesh out both of these arguments:
1. While gains have been made by, and on the behalf, of women this process is and remains incomplete.
2. Those gains that have been made require a feminist movement to prevent "reaction" ('resistance or opposition to a force, influence, or movement; especially : tendency toward a former and usually outmoded political or social order or policy') by those who would seek to undo socio-political and cultural developments which have led to the creation of a more equitable society.
1. The gains made by feminism, as a movement, are historically well established. The suffrage movement of the 19th century after over half a century of campaigning succeeded in ensuring that women had the right to vote in every state in 1920.
By the 1960s feminism had taken on wider social objectives beyond merely concern with the franchise. Some of the successes of the Second Wave of feminism include important support for the Civil Rights Movement, but most presciently, equal pay. These can be seen in land mark legislation including the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Of course, these battles have yet to be fully won. In 2009, in the USA, women's pay remained only 77% of male pay. This is a vast improvement on the position in 1980 where it was only around 60%, by 1990 it stood at 71.6% and in 2000 73.7%. This highlights two important points worth observing. First, that feminism was and remains a movement which is actively making society more equitable. Second, despite those gains, a 23% point difference in pay indicates that this process has yet to be fully achieved. This suggests that continued social pressure is necessary to ensure that society will be still more equitable in future.
Of course, this is not merely limited to pay. Various employment sectors remain gendered 'spheres'. Academia, for instance, despite being recognised as a generally 'liberal' and 'progressive' profession, remains deeply gendered in its hierarchy. To take academic medicine as an example, despite 47% of graduates and 46% of residents being female only 21% of full professors are women. Still more concerning, only 15% of department chairs are women.
Third Wave feminism, with its origins in the 1990s, now orientates feminism to also strive to resolve crucial cultural concerns which are also absolutely relevant in 2015. These include highlighting otherwise 'hidden' social problems such as (but by no means limited to):
- Gender violence and domestic abuse, both of which disproportionately negatively affect women's lives.
It is estimated that one in four women will experience domestic violence in their lives and that each year 2.3 million women will suffer at the hand of their partner. However, since feminist groups began to highlight this problem in the 1990s, and offered support to women who have suffered abuse, women have felt more able to come forward and report acts of domestic violence. This has had a two-fold effect, first, as a society we have become more aware of the problem and are thus able to tackle it. Second, because these women have been able to call on established support groups the associated costs and pressures on local, regional and national services has been offset. This has been estimated to have saved $14.8bn between the passing of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and the year 2000. Thus, not only is a vocal feminist movement highlighting this problem, it is bringing respite to beleaguered victims of violence and also much needed relief to social support services which has significant economic benefit.
- Challenges culturally malevolent and socially constructed patriarchal modes of thought which had previous been normative. Not only do these modes of thoughts harm and restrict women but they also harm and restrict men.
The notion that it is the male role to be a breadwinner and a woman's to bear, rear and nurture children has no relevance in modern society. Multiple historical and contemporary examples exist to demonstrate this. For instance, in Britain during the Second World War, millions of women directly contributed their labour to the war effort, including over 600,000 employed in the armed forces. The notion that heavy, industrial and intellectual work was the preserve of men, and that women are best suited to domestic and sexualised roles, was conclusively and empirically disproved. Nevertheless, these kinds of socially constructed gender stereotypes continue to inform contemporary thinking and inform how we view the world from a very early age. This, I contend harms both men and women. It holds many women back from making as full a contribution to modern society as they otherwise might, and it also places pressure on men to behave in ways that do not necessarily suit them. Why, for example, should it be deemed 'abnormal', beyond the statistical point, for a man to stay at home and raise children (or perhaps only have a part-time job) while the mother of his children is the primary household breadwinner? [For anybody reading, I realise that this is an unduly cis-gendered and hetronormative familiar relationship I describe] Contemporary feminism has brought, and continues to bring, these kinds of issue to wider social attention.
2. [And I'll keep this short and snappy] The gains made by feminism are by no means guaranteed, and without an active feminist 'voice' within society, they can be easily eroded. And there are concrete examples of this, ranging from the recent gamergate storm-in-a-teacup to reproductive rights.
For instance, and not to get into a debate about abortion but this is important, Roe vs Wade has been under sustained attack. In 2006 South Dakota attempted to ban abortion in all cases except where the "mother's" life was in danger. I don't want to go into a lengthy screed on the reasons why I support the right for women to control their own bodies. If you're interested then I broadly agree with Judith Jarvis Thompson's 'Violinist analogy'. 
In very brief, I have cited some examples where feminism has clearly helped take progressive steps to make society more equitable. I have also shown that the work on this front is yet to be completed, and that a viable feminist movement needs to further work towards this goal and keep it centre stage in public discourse. Moreover, those gains that have been made are not, at least without defence from feminists, far from 'safe'.
Thanks a lot. I look forward to your counter-thesis.
Thanks for accepting Cartidge, and welcome to the site!
I'm glad we can come to a consensus that we both support equality, in regards to opportunity and treatment.
I guess I might as well quickly explain why I believe feminism is outdated and unnecessary before jumping into refuting your arguments.
Now don't get me wrong, at a time feminism (or some type of equality movement geared toward granting women and men equal rights in the workforce, government, education, etc.) was necessary, much like most equality movements. At a time, the only people able to vote were white, male, property owners . Different equality movements and groups formed over the centuries which in turn granted equal rights to everybody. Now this in itself is great, I don't have anything wrong with that.
However look at North America now.
Anyone (men and women) over 18 (or 21) can vote. Anyone (men and women) can apply for any job. Anyone (men and women) can attend any schooling. Anyone (men and women) can expect equal pay, with laws prohibiting lesser than equal pay if sexism or any type of discrimination is present. Anyone (men and women) can achieve anything they want if they earn it and fight for it.
So why do feminists feel the need to ask for more "rights?"
...Well, I don't know. And to be honest I don't think a whole lot really know they're trying to gain superiority over men. However looking at the statistics, women and men have equal opportunities in practically everything. Both sexes excel in their own fields, and both have their pros and cons, leading to some college/university courses consisting of mainly one sex over the other, or some jobs/careers consisting of mainly one sex over the other. I see you brought up the infamous $.77 figure, so I'm excited to jump into that when the time comes.
But for now, what do I think feminism is? It's nothing more than an outdated, unnecessary movement which has now "unknowingly" morphed into a female superiority regime. And that's what I'm against, not equal treatment of the sexes.
Now let's see what you've brought up.
1. Gains have been made. Plenty. Enough where I can say we're treated equally. Some people (people) are biased, sexist, bigoted, disrespectful, etc. But that does not mean society as a whole is against women (considering there are plenty of sexist feminists), and it does not mean we need a group of social justice warriors fighting for peace, as that's utterly unrealistic.
2. For a claim like this to be made, we would need evidence of a backward-moving social justice system. I only see us moving forward or standing still, I haven't seen any sort of recession in the two decades I've been alive, and from research I've done, I haven't seen any since some time before that. And considering the vast amount of people completely against the feminist movement, don't you think it would be rather easy to just ignore feminism and move backward to a society where women aren't treated as equal to men if we really wanted to? The fact of the matter is we don't want that - because there is no patriarchy, there is no huge group of men wanting to push our society back to the 19th century - women are treated as equal to men and are given equal opportunity, and that won't change any time soon. So we don't need a feminist movement to ensure it doesn't.
Now in my first round I did mention modern feminism, so I do agree with you that feminism/equality movements have done lots of good in the past, so we can agree to agree on that. However I will address the infamous pay gap and gendered hierarchy in the workforce.
So I'll just flat out say the 77% figure is... well, not worded correctly. Although it is true that women (as a whole) earn 77% as much as men, this is not due to workplace discrimination/sexism, and the 77% figure is nothing more than an incorrect assumption   . My fourth link, as you can see, gives some really good reasoning as to why men make more than women in general (notice I didn't say per specific job title, as that isn't the case.)
Personal choice, anyone? It always makes me laugh when a feminist claims women don't make as much as men and women don't have jobs in high paying professions as much as men, like Law or Medicine, and when I ask why she doesn't want to she says she isn't interested in a position like that. ...Soooooooo you can have a preference as to what job you want, but other women can't? I would consider that quite... well I don't even know the right word. Hypocritical, maybe? Either way, it's detrimental to women, yes, feminism is detrimental to women as well as men. It sets unrealistic expectations and feminists claiming women aren't doing as well, or can't do as well,as men (when they really are, or can be, yet just chose to do well in other areas) is more than detrimental to society as a whole.
Women and feminists are focusing on something that they misinterpreted. There is "equal pay day" , other government-approved organizations as well as non-profit and profitable groups that advocate and spend time organizing events for "equal pay," something we already have. Laws have been passed that make it illegal to pay someone less than another for discriminatory reasons, which I'm all for, but right off the bat we see that it's illegal to pay women less than men for the same work. And if employers actually paid women 77 cents to the dollar, wouldn't it be smart to hire a whole bunch of women? They'd save so much money having a mostly female staff. But the fact of the matter is they wouldn't, as the pay gap doesn't exist in the way feminists want it to.
Considering I've used up 60% of my characters and I haven't addressed more than one point... I'd say it's safe to pass off the fact that more men make up academic medical positions much more than women because women tend to enter different career paths with an education such as this. We also have to take into account that employers don't only look at education when hiring someone for a position. Well Dave went to school and graduated with the same GPA as Sarah, but Dave volunteered elsewhere and dedicated more of his time to extracurricular activities that follow a medical path, such as taking night courses or having jobs at universities or even hospitals. The thing about statistics like this is that it only addresses one aspect, and ignores every other factor.
Bad human behavior
Domestic violence is a serious issue, but I don't feel a feminist movement is what's needed. Considering three million men are victims of domestic violence a year and four million women are, the margin is not a very big one, and a movement dedicated to helping women is selfish and (shall I say) sexist. Women being victims of one type of violence more than men does not require a movement helping women, it requires a movement helping victims in general of domestic violence. And this is another reason feminism is detrimental to society - it is mainly geared toward women for issues that affect both men and women. As beneficial as it once was, creating countless women's shelters with next to zero men's shelters, as well as funding for breast cancer and other women-related-hardships, while men are affected with their own hardships almost just as much is ridiculous and does exactly what the movement is fighting against - separation and segregation of the sexes.
So back in the day... men hunted (or worked) as women were physically unfit to hunt animals, so the women stayed at home and took care of the children. Obviously we've abolished this mindset for the most part, however some men and women still sort of live by it. But I have one question - what's wrong with it? If a woman wishes to stay at home and take care of the kid and make food and clean and do what you consider "falling into a gender stereotype," then... why don't you let her? One more reason feminism is detrimental, it pushes women (and sometimes men) to do things they don't want. My Dad was able to take eight years off work to raise me while my Mom worked, and nobody cared at all. Nobody is forcing women to stay at home. Nobody is forcing men to be the "primary breadwinners." Nobody is forcing anything. Stereotypes exist for everyone. Feminism addressing ONE stereotype and trying to "fix" it (while it isn't broken, once again it's the woman and man's choice as to who works and stays at home) is not the right approach and is doing more harm than good. I've witnessed women complain that people are telling them they should get back to work after birthing a child and raising it somewhat, and allowing the man to take care of the kid, because of these "counter-stereotype" missions feminists are going on. Feminism is imposing itself on so many people's lives simply because the feminists don't agree with their choices. And yeah, emphasis on choices. Nobody is forcing women to do anything.
I agree with abortion and I believe abortion should be legal no matter what the case. However this isn't a feminist issue, as the cause behind banning abortion is usually a religious one, or an actual logical one, ie. nothing to do with blatantly denying the mother the rights to her own body.
Feminism has made some strong steps forward, enough to say men and women are treated as equal. If a group of people excel in an area over another group, this is not sexism or patriarchy, it is simple choice or just coincidence, with biological factors backing it up. "Problems" feminists think require a feminist approach are not feminist problems, they are societal problems if anything, or are simply choices made by women that feminists don't like.
First, you present the issue of feminism as being about the accrual of more rights. This, I think, is a misunderstanding of present day feminism, and overlaying historical notions of feminism (particularly the objectives of first and second wave feminism) with that which exists today. As we have both noted, historical feminism was geared towards legislative changes designed to ensure equality. Today, feminism is more to do with ensuring that this legislation actually translates into reality " i.e. that equal pay and anti-gender based violence legislation is properly enforced. Moreover, modern day feminism is also about deconstructing modes of patriarchy and encouraging both men and women to think about society and popular narrative of gender. To quote Lisa Jervis and Andi Zeisler:
"anyone who protests that a focus on pop culture distracts from "real" feminist issues and lacks a commitment to social change needs to turn on the TV"it"s a public gauge of attitudes about everything from abortion " to poverty " to political power. " The world of pop culture is " the marketplace of ideas".
This is, I suggest, absolutely true. The representations of femininity are often dismissive, sexualised and present women as objects. It does not take long, flicking through TV channels, playing video games, or going to the movies to note mass-media archetypes of femininity. Take for example, the film Spring Breakers, which on the one hand purported to be about female empowerment but was, in fact, incredibly leery and shot in a way designed to titillate male viewers. Of course, recently Hollywood and so on have started to sexualise and objectify males (see Twilight for example) for the titillation of female audiences, but this, I would argue is not a good thing either. And even if it were, we have yet to come even close to reaching equality in pernicious negativity.
Similarly, the Steubenville rape case, in which significant elements of the media spent more time worrying about the future of a talented group of high school football players, who raped a comatose teenage girl and humiliated her by proceeding to brag about their actions online and by post humiliating images and recordings, than they did about the victim. CNN correspondent Poppy Harlow said:
"[That she fund it] Incredibly difficult, even for an outsider like me, to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believed their lives fell apart"
Meanwhile, there is a rather pernicious element of modern society that reinforces a culture of victim blaming. For instance, when the personal nude photographs of various female celebrities were stolen and splashed across the internet, a common refrain was to blame the victims of the crime.So, I would suggest that there is still manifestly a need for feminism to highlight and challenge these forms of narrative. I also remain unconvinced that existing legislation designed to grant equal rights under the law translates to equality in reality, and I"d like to take some time responding to your points.
"I only see us moving forward or standing still, I haven't seen any sort of recession in the two decades I've been alive, and from research I've done, I haven't seen any since some time before that."
This, I feel misses the central point I was attempting to make. It is not necessarily that we, as a society, are moving backwards (though I cited concrete examples of forces of reactions attempting to do precisely that) as a whole " but rather that a feminist movement is necessary to challenge attempts to do so. Without feminist groups highlighting reactionary legislation and efforts, most notably around the subject of abortion at the moment (see my previous example in Round 1), the rights of women, even to control their own bodies, will be challenged.
I note that you have challenged the existence of the pay gap, and cited several sources which suggest, wrongly, that the pay gap can be explained by, among other things, personal choice. Sadly, this is not the case. The author of the Huffington Post article, quite frankly, has clearly never studied the issue. Those of us who conduct professional research in what is called "gender studies" (full disclosure, I"m a professional gender specialist and lecture in a UK university), refer to a phenomenon known as "gender occupational segregation" and the historical "separate spheres" ideology that continues to have a baleful influence on the modern workplace. Arguments which relegate the issue of pay down to "personal choice" miss the wider social-super structures which dictate behaviour patterns. The also ignore the fact that women, even doing precisely the same work as men, are typically paid less. This is actually illegal under US law, but the law is simply not enforced, thus: "women supervisors of retail sales workers earn 79 percent of what their male counterparts make; women nurses earn 88 percent of what male nurses make; and male elementary and middle school teachers earn 9 percent more than their female colleagues." Also problematic is the fashion in which work is gendered. Work typically associated with women is undervalued, thus they tend to pay less. As such women face a duel disadvantage in that they are regularly discriminated against regarding pay illegally, and that their labour is undervalued.
On the topic of domestic violence, I suspect that the figures you cite are misleading. 85% of the victims of intimate partner violence are women. That is not to diminish the destructive and malevolent phenomenon of violence perpetrated against male partners, but rather to show that domestic violence disproportionately effects women. To quote the US Department of Justice, "raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date. In comparison, only 16.2 percent of the men who reported being raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 were victimized by such a perpetrator." Also, qualitatively, women tend to suffer more being significantly more likely to be injured. Again, to quote the US Department of Justice: "Women are significantly more likely than men to be injured during an assault: 31.5 percent of female rape victims, compared with 16.1 percent of male rape victims, reported being injured during their most recent rape; 39.0 percent of female physical assault victims, compared with 24.8 percent of male physical assault victims, reported being injured during their most recent physical assault."
It also seems rather crass to suggest that feminists are being sexist by highlighting that domestic violence is a major "hidden" problem that disproportionately affects women. That is simply a fact. It is also worth noting that feminist groups have also been at the forefront in highlighting that domestic violence also, to a far lesser degree, affects men too. They highlight what I talked a little bit about in Round 1, about pernicious gender stereotyping. One of the resulting problems is that men are less likely to report that they have been victims of domestic violence to the police, because they do not want to broadcast what they deem to be a form of emasculation. This I think addresses your question regarding what is wrong with gender roles. In addition, they are illogical and serve no purpose. As noted above, they are the reason why women are undervalued and under paid, why the myth of the 1950s domestic goddess continues to hold sway, why women are less likely to receive promotion, and why women are disproportionately subject to objectification.
 Lisa Jervis and Andi Zeisler, bitchfest: Ten Years of Cultural Criticism from the Pages of "Bitch" Magazine (New York, 2006), pp. xxi"xxii.
Thanks, Cartidge. Glad I got your neurons firing.
I understand the main goal of feminism is simply to gain equal rights. I agree with the goal, I disagree with the actions feminists take to "achieve" this goal. "Achieve" in quotations due to the fact that we do have equal rights and we do have equal opportunities and we are treated equally. I have a couple examples of feminists (unknowingly) asking for more rights than men -
According to the site I got this picture from , "...or make it seem like rape is an everyday occurrence that cannot be avoided," is said, which implies rape can be avoided. So either feminists can't make up their mind, or they can't accept the fact that they can avoid rape - by dressing differently, acting differently, and overall ensuring the situation they're in is a safe one. Unfortunately for common sense's sake, most feminists tend not to understand that bad things happen, and a big part of avoiding those bad things is... well, avoiding them. Facebook pages , blogs , and other media outlets seem to think that teaching men not to rape makes more sense than teaching people in general to try and keep themselves safe. Considering this is only brought up with rape against women, and zero other forms of crime, this is a prime example of women/feminists asking for special privilege over men, even if they apparently don't realize it.
This falls into the same category as rape culture, it is implied that if we follow through with standard criminal investigative procedures, we are essentially blaming the victim for the crime committed against them . Now this is simply not true. I'll share a brief story with you while we're on the topic of victim blaming -
I was challenged a few times in high school, and when I was in grade 11, I was mugged by a couple guys. I filed a police report and the cops came to my house to ask questions and if I could identify the guys, etc. They also asked what I was wearing. So you know what I did? I told them what I was wearing. And you know what they did? They told me the gangs that were affiliated with the colours and brands of clothing I liked to wear. Christian Audigier and Dussault were big "gang colours" where I'm from, and the cops suggested I not wear clothes like that. So I stopped wearing clothes like that, and whattaya know, nobody even challenged me for the rest of my time in high school.
So what did I take from that? I sure didn't say "they blamed me, let's start a tumblr group against victim-blaming mugging-culture police officers."
This whole idea of "victim blaming" is also essentially trying to grant women more rights than men. It's implying women should not be questioned and women should not have to be careful in life because men should be taught to behave. Fun fact: (almost) everyone is taught the difference between right and wrong from a very young age. Some men and some women (yes, women can be bad too) have mental issues or are just not taught properly how to interact with society, so they do bad things. Avoiding those people is kind of smart, wouldn't you say?
Now I'm against affirmative action to begin with. Giving someone a position over another more qualified person simply because they represent a minority is not beneficial to businesses or society or the economy. One major area feminists ask for "special treatment" (getting positions simply for being female) is political . I'm sure everyone knows America has never had a female president and only about a quarter of office is female. Now it gets kind of tricky here, because I do believe there should be equal representation for every group of people in office to an extent, however when it comes to blatantly saying "more women need to be in office," that is asking for special rights or privileges. If men are elected over women, it's because they're more qualified than the women and the general public feels so. If a man is elected over a man, nobody bats an eye, but when a man is elected over a woman, all of a sudden it's sexism and discrimination. We can't elect female government officials simply because they "don't make up an equal portion to men." And just an FYI - women don't run for office nearly as much as men , so why should MORE women be elected if they don't run as much?
This will be short as there isn't a lot to say here, but this mostly deals with feminists complaining that women don't make up "equal amounts of job positions," while they give reasons as to why they themselves don't want to join that career path. Anita Sarkeesian (hooray) is a very popular feminist icon, mostly in regards to video games. She made a twitter post a while ago  saying game developers anger her because they consider it "too much work/time/money" to create female game characters (even though there are hundreds that can be named in very popular games throughout the decades), while she herself isn't doing a thing about it other than complaining. So in a nutshell, feminism also affects other women, as feminists complain that there aren't enough women in fields, such as game development, while they aren't doing anything to "lessen the gender gap" in these industries. Same goes for politics.
I don't think you've really shown how this is necessarily a bad thing. Humans are attracted to each other. Men like women, women like men. Sex sells. Also, this is not objectification. Objectification implies the person is treated as less than human and is only looked at for their body. To be considered attractive does not make them less than human. I am not attracted to a lamp. I am not attracted to a table. I am attracted to a human. If that human is being attractive to get what they want, or to sell something, that's their choice - for feminism to say they should stop what they're doing because they consider it "wrong" is wrong in itself. Sex is not a bad thing. Feminism acts as if it is. ....Which is detrimental to basically human culture and life.
Steubenville Rape Case
The two teens involved were sentenced, and four other people were charged  in relation to this crime. One news source getting attention in a different type of way is strange, however a newswoman approaching the case from a different angle does not represent the media as a whole or society as a whole. And looking at the amount of backlash, I can guarantee you that you, me, and loads of other people all disagree with what she said. One newswoman explaining how the kids could have had good lives is not a very good example of anything other than one person being ignorant/uncaring.
When photographs such as these are leaked, the only attention (usually empathy) is given to women. If anything compromising I took were leaked, I'd say "rats, I shouldn't have sent those," and leave it at that. Just like rape, there are bad people out there, but it makes sense to be safe... There has been numerous occasions of nudes leaked of males , and you know what happens? Nothing. No media outrage. No feminist group calling for the heads of the aggressors. In fact, people enjoy it when male nudes are leaked. So this affects both men and women, yet women get the sympathy and attention, while the media practically asks people to dig up male nudes. Once again, a problem affecting both genders, yet feminism focuses on one.
When someone is against abortion, it isn't because they want to oppress women. It's usually due to religious reasons, and if not, it's because they consider human life important. I'm 100% on your side in regards to abortion, but unfortunately I disagree with what it means when someone is against it. I don't consider male circumcision sexism against men, as pro-circumcizers (lol) have "valid" reasoning as to why circumcision is a "good" thing. Same goes for abortion, it isn't sexism or misogyny or the patriarchy, it's people believing killing an unborn baby is a bad thing. Just like circumcision is a "good" thing as it is for cleanliness, apparently prevents STDs (no idea) etc. NOT misandry.
For the source that you cited to be reliable, it needs to back up its figures. It also needs to provide much more specific job titles. "Supervisors of retail sales workers" is so broad that it's basically the same as saying "women earn less than men in general." A difference in pay between two people is not automatically assumed to be discrimination of any sort. Two groups of people? Teachers in British Columbia, Canada, earn about 18% less than teachers in Alberta, Canada . Now this is taking all types of people into consideration. So you'll seriously need to prove it's sexism when one group of people is paid less than another, and not just job performance, education, unpaid leave, etc.
And men are victims of violent crime much more than women . Laws and police exist to prevent this, not feminists or MRA's. Domestic violence is an issue for the cops, not feminism.
Feminists are asking for the laws to favour them, to not have any safety concerns, and for companies to hire them because "it would be sexist not to." I'd like to see some stuff feminism is currently doing for men, if you can.
Rape Culture & Victim Blaming
I would suggest that there is truth to both sides of the argument. On the one hand, we do not live in a perfect world when it comes to gender issues (hence my continued belief in the necessity for a feminist movement), and that the argument about women not taking some elements of self-protection into their own hands is dangerous " but only because society has yet to sufficiently instill into a sufficiently large number of men that rape is unacceptable. On the other hand, I entirely agree with the feminist narrative that there is something inherently wrong in society that women have to take such measures to feel secure. There is also a serious element of victim blaming in suggesting that women should not, for fear of being accosted by a violent misogynist man, walk on her own after dark; that she should not be able to wear what she likes; and that she should mediate her behavior in some other way, lest she become a target.
Of course, much of the conservatism in the arguments regarding how women should behave are covertly sexist " they are backdoor means of controlling women"s ability to express themselves through their own actions. Many of them are also outright fallacious. It is an opportunity to "sl*t shame" and to place the blame back on women. In reality, rape cannot be prevented by, to use your example, suggesting that women dress differently. The vast majority of rapists target women they know.  In fact, because rape is actually about power " the subjugation of one person by another, then modifying one"s dress to appear, for instance, less "sl*tty" may have the opposite consequence to that intended:
"If, as studies of rapists suggest, harassers look for more passive or submissive women, women who are provocatively dressed may appear more confident and are therefore less likely to be considered appropriate targets by potential harassers. Indeed, the cases involving requests that women dress more professionally or tone down their sexy attire suggest that people are generally uncomfortable with women who dress provocatively in the workplace. The power dynamic involved in telling women to dress less provocatively (essentially trying to control their attire) is also interesting. It suggests that there is power in dressing provocatively, and that employers are uncomfortable by such assertions of this power by women." 
Finally, it is no merely feminists on the internet who contend that a big part of the problem regarding rape is how elements of society tend to depict and codify femininity. Hard headed research, studying convicted rapists shows the same thing:
"While admitters and deniers present an essentially contrasting view of men who rape, there were some shared characteristics. Justifications particularly, but also excuses, are buttressed by the cultural view of women as sexual commodities, dehumanized and devoid of autonomy and dignity. In this sense, the sexual objectification of women must be understood as an important factor contributing to an environment that trivializes, neutralizes, and, perhaps, facilitates rape." 
This suggests to me that the feminist project to re-codify social conceptions of, and attitudes towards, gender and gender roles is essential. It is not asking for a special privilege " it is asking for the privilege not to be raped and for people to stop passing the buck back onto women as opposed to the real problem: the rapists. The kind of thing I am talking about above is at the center of the issue of victim blaming. Your personal example is a false comparison, and I"m afraid that you are slightly misrepresenting the issue and the arguments of feminists on this.
I entirely agree that affirmative action is dangerous nonsense. As a man who teaches and researches on gender, I find that plenty of the jobs I"ve applied for have gone to women. In some cases this is because they were indeed more qualified or performed better on the interview day. In others, however, I strongly suspect that the universities did not want to be seen to fill courses on women"s history and gender studies with a man. That aside, while there might be some well-meaning feminists who argue for affirmative action, I would suggest that they are not representative and there are excellent feminist arguments against it.  Indeed, I would say that feminists have actually been more effective than their opponents in calling out this kind of nonsense.
I don"t think that it is fair to straw man feminism via focusing on the flaws of Anita Sarkeesian " who is indeed, at least in my view, easily deconstructed through serious methodological flaws in her analysis. However, you are wrong to reduce her actions to mere complaining. While her videos lack the academic rigor and intellectual insight to convince me, her overriding point is correct: that the gaming industry is a male dominated sphere, that game development targets   a dwindling demographic of gamers (and developers have yet to catch up) and that elements of the gaming community are openly hostile to female participation or the development of games that might facilitate that. So, while I disagree with Anita Sarkeesian on plenty of what she say"s (in terms of specific content " nearly all of it) her overarching message is a necessary one. Setting up a dialogue, of sorts, it isn't just complaining " moreover, it seems to be having some effect on the industry. What she is doing is simply bringing public attention to points actual academics have already made. 
Objectification & Female Nudes
You suggest that I haven"t shown how this is a bad thing. Well, to re-quote an academic analysis already posted above: "sexual objectification of women must be understood as an important factor contributing to an environment that trivializes, neutralizes, and, perhaps, facilitates rape." The issue of female nudes, is, of course, implicitly and explicitly tied into this. The point is that feminism continues to be important in pointing out why the continued sexual objectification of women (in this instance unsolicited sexual objectification through the public airing of private property) is harmful and should be combated.
Well, you"re right that I took a particularly egregious example for its rhetorical value. However, the point was not that this case was entirely representative, but rather to highlight how the mass media, which is of course merely reflective of wider social norms in this instance, presents women and questions of gender through precisely the socially constructed gendered prism I have been discussing. Actual discourse analysis on the news media (though indicating that things are improving (hooray, third wave feminism)) continue to corroborate. 
At least one of the links I provided did supply statistical evidence, as examples: "women supervisors of retail sales workers earn 79 percent of what their male counterparts make; women nurses earn 88 percent of what male nurses make; and male elementary and middle school teachers earn 9 percent more than their female colleagues." Unfortunately, I do not have access to the raw data, the time to analyse and reproduce it here " nor the characters remaining. However, it is, I feel, fairly safe to assume that the assertions made in this popular scientific publication are accurate as they mirror what the US Department of Labor says on the matter:
"The pay gap cannot be fully explained by a set of measurable variables " when controlling for factors such as experience, education, industry, and hours, among others, the wage gap still persists to a large extent. Over the course of her lifetime this gap will cost a woman and her family lost wages, reduced pensions and reduced Social Security benefits. American families are relying now, more than ever, on the wages of women. Lower pay for women not only means less economic security for women but also for the families that depend on them, during their years in the workplace and in retirement." 
 http://scholarship.law.duke.edu... (p. 150)
So this probably isn't going to be the most put-together argument as I'm at work and all of a sudden some irrelevant company has decided to ask for our help, so bear with me. But thanks for the positive feedback, same goes to you - I'm enjoying this debate with you, as you're one of the very few people I've been able to discuss feminism with who hasn't resorted to ad hominems or just given up right out of the gate. So thanks for that!
This is the problem feminists produce. Instead of ensuring the safety of civilians in general, they focus on women. Men are killed more than women almost worldwide , but specifically in North America. In my opinion, death is more serious than rape. If you take a gander at random web pages of murder statistics, it's not that great either. Here  is an example of an article that jokes about murder, yet you don't see feminists upset - it explains about half of all murderers won't see the jail time, yet feminists don't notice that - and that if you're a man, you're almost 75% more likely to be killed than a woman, something feminists don't seem to care about.
Rape culture is a non-issue. Nobody is advocating rape, and by giving tips as to how to avoid dangerous situations (like all other forms of crime) is nothing but beneficial. Regarding slut-shaming, women do just as much as men , as I'm sure this falls into the same ballpark as black people calling each other "n*gga," so whites think it's okay too. This is not a "misogynistic patriarchy" issue, this is a "some people are mean/insecure" issue. And feminists are victimizing women and demonizing men through something that affects both genders , and, funny story, people held a double standard in favour of the girls 1% more than the boys. So there is equality written all over that, yet feminists decide to turn it into a "poor women, big bad man" issue - detrimental to society, as it takes away from the male victims and makes women look inferior, as they need a group of people to stand up for only them in an issue that equally affects both genders.
So I'm going to assume women choosing dressing sexy, looking good and flirting with men has nothing to do with their own personal choice to do so - but the patriarchy and society objectifying women. I still can't understand how considering a woman (or anyone for that matter) good looking is considering them an object. Look at Kim Kardashian, she basically shows everyone her huge butt in order to get attention. Are you going to tell her to stop objectifying herself? Is feminism needed to tell women to stop getting attention in a way they want? Once again, another reason feminism is detrimental to the whole of society - it's setting unrealistic expectations and standards and basically telling women how to dress - something I thought feminism was against - and men (instead of people in general) not to be mean to women (instead of people in general).
I fail to see how my example is any different. I was robbed (something that happens to men more than women) and I was told what to do to avoid it. A woman is raped (something that happens to women more than men) and she is told what to do to avoid it. All of a sudden nobody can treat women like anyone else, and have to take everything they say at face value , because apparently not believing a woman 100% without any questions "signals that that women don’t matter and that they are disposable" - an absolutely ridiculous claim which implies men can be disposable at the same time... so once again, detrimental to the whole of society, as it really is asking for special privileges - 100% trust at face value - and the non-necessity of men's well-being.
I'm happy we agree! However, ignoring or not including the feminists that are for affirmative action as a part of feminism is wrong. And having feminists fight with each other isn't really the greatest for feminism anyway.
I completely agree that it's incredibly easy to deconstruct basically all of Anita's arguments. However - Anita's YouTube channel has over 187,000 subscribers and her videos are nearing a total of 18,000,000 views . And judging by the amount of thumbs up, that's a pretty good chunk of people that agree with her and believe in the same type of feminism as her. And considering you believe her views to be flawed and easily deconstructed, this is not a positive thing. The only issue I would say needs addressing would be the hostility toward female gamers, however right off the bat I can tell you there's only a select few guys that are irrationally hostile toward women like that online. Way too often guys "white knight" their way to the girls' hearts and try to befriend them simply because they're girls. Girls also tend to use their sex to get attention, and more often than not I've seen girls join lobbies and openly start harassing other players. If we take into account the amount of girl gamers with headsets (not a lot) to disrespectful girl games, from my experiences anyway, it's pretty high. It's low for guys considering there's so many male gamers with headsets. This is all from personal experience, so if you choose not to believe me, I guess I can't do anything about that.
Objectification & Female Nudes
Although I agree that bad people should not be invading anyone's privacy (especially to this degree), this is not a feminism issue. The invasion of privacy in general (because this happens to men quite a lot, too) is not the patriarchy and is not part of rape culture and does not facilitate rape. If you wish to make claims like this, you should be able to say the leakage of male nudes also facilitates male rape. And guess what, feminists don't even mention the invasion of men's privacy, or really anything negative against men in general. You say over and over "...women..." "...."women..." "...women..." ...which is just why feminism is detrimental. Victimizing half the population and demonizing the other half is not beneficial to society.
I would completely disagree that this one instance is "reflective of wider social norms," considering this is the only news station out of the dozens that covered this story to address it in this way. If the media does in fact reflect society's social norms, then you should see that due to the fact that almost every single media source demonized the men, that society does not like rapists or anything of the sort.
Just like me bringing up the amount of followers Anita Sarkeesian has to represent that she actually does represent a large portion of the feminist community, you would have to show that this news source has a strong following to show that it actually does represent a large amount of people who "support rape" or are victim-blaming or whatever else.
Considering you are unable to provide a source showing that women actually get paid less than men, instead of earning less than men in general, I can still safely say the pay gap is due to the choices that women make, the hours they work, maternity leave, job performance, and much more.
There really is absolutely no data supporting the idea that women are paid less than men for performing the exact same job at the same level as those men. The only thing that hints at an actual "pay gap" is the data showing that women earn less in some areas (which can easily be attributed to hours worked, job performance, and much more - it would be up to you to prove it's due strictly to discrimination) and men earning less in some areas, as well. This can all be attributed to personal choice , and if you want us to think otherwise, well, you'll need some solid evidence.
So far I haven't seen a single thing that says feminism is needed and/or would be beneficial to society. And just for some fun, here's a bunch of female privileges that feminists seem to miraculously forget about when discussing privilege in general  - I'd appreciate it if you took a look at that, I learned a few things and I hope you would too! Also, notice "in general" being kind of a key term around here.
I think that your point regarding non-gendered violence which primarily victimises males is somewhat misleading. While it is not the primary focus of feminism I don't think, as you appear to be arguing, that this failure somehow invalidates the concerns of feminists. You and I have been having fruitful discussion on the topic of violence, yet neither of us has brought up gun culture. Does that therefore mean that we do not have opinions or concerns on this topic? I can say that, in my case, absolutely that is not the case, and doubtless a thoughtful person such as yourself will also have views on that. However, we have not discussed it because it is not relevant (or has not yet been made relevant) to the agenda of our discussion. By the same token doubtless most feminists also have a position on the problem of violence as a whole, but that it is not pertinent to the specific issue that they are campaigning about.
I also wholly disagree with you regarding the issue of the importance of their being a rape culture. As I believe that academic sources I provided earlier show, significant evidence regarding rape suggests that our culture, and the way in which it is gendered, and tends to objectify women, has a direct impact on rape as a crime. I think I've made this case in fairly clear terms.
Regarding the way that women dress in reality, as opposed to media constructed notions of femininity, I think that it is something of a none-issue. As discussed earlier, rapists tend to select victims based on perceived ability to dominate them. Whether a woman wears a thong and short skirt or not is very unlikely to influence the odds on whether she is attacked by a sexual predator. It is also misleading to homogenise feminism in this kind of fashion, some feminists would oppose the way that young women dress while others would see it as empowering.
Regarding your example, until you can show that women can take meaningful measures against being raped, then the point is moot.
Again, I don't think that, despite her popularity, that she adequately showcases feminism to be worth giving the oxygen of further discussion. I don't think that, despite her recent e-fame that she is representative of anything, and I also strongly suspect that she is not completely 'genuine'. I don't want to libel her with unsubstantiated accusations, so I'll leave it at that.
You sound like you have played a fair number of games in an online environment, as have I. Perhaps it is the different games that we both tend to play, but I would say (and it is only my experience, but one I think is well backed up by commentators I've referenced in previous rounds).
You contend that this happens to men as well, and that may be true. However, it seems to disproportionately happen to women. Why else is it, that this vast invasion of female celebrities privacy seemingly effected only female celebrities? Where men were involved, they were incidental to the main target of the hack.
Again, as I noted, I picked that example because it was so egregious. As I hoped I showed with my follow up, the wider point is to show general media attitudes which studies of discourse analysis have showed are undeniably gendered.
While you are correct that I have not directed you to the raw data, I think that given the other supporting evidence provided (including the conclusions of the US Department of Labor) that the material I provided can be considered a truism. Meanwhile, the articles I provided, which explained the phenomenon on a psychological level, have not really been addressed in your replies.
Anyway, again, I'm sorry that this reply is somewhat perfunctory. I hope to make it up to you in my concluding remarks.
Well... well I'm busy being... Prime Minister.... of Canada. So I'm busy with being more important. LOL
The "specific issue" feminists claim to be campaigning for/about is equality. And one cannot achieve equality by focusing on one bad thing that happens to one sex. If feminists want to fight for equality, they wouldn't refer to themselves as feminsists, a word (obviously) routed from female. I haven't witnessed any radical egalitarians, have you? Egalitarians seem to be rational, sane, non-biased, decent human beings, both men and women, who acknowledge hardships of both men and women, and address negativity's that deal with gender/sex as a whole, instead of the gender/sex that it effects slightly more.
If black people and white people both suffered from, some kind of disease, let's just say H1N5, but 80% of carriers were white, would you (or most people, really) consider it racist to only treat the white people? You're damn right they would. So why is it when a feminist does the exact same thing but in relation to gender/sex, it's "equality!!1!"??
No matter how you want to word it or look at it, treating only one gender/sex simply because they're affected more than the other is sexism - something feminists are "fighting against." This would not happen with an egalitarian.
HOW FANTASTIC, YEAH FEMINISM!
The rate of rape cases is on the decline , so if our culture is geared to "objectify women" - and in turn lead to more rapes... it's not doing a great job at it. "Objectification" is a different subject than rape culture - as rape culture is the idea that a group of people support rape for doing things that feminists don't like, such as ask simple questions pertaining to a crime. The people that do support rape are... well, rapists. And we have a police force to deal with them. I'm sure if rapists aren't afraid of life behind bars and getting the crap kicked out of them in prison, a group of angry women yelling at irrelevant men who are also against rape isn't going to do much of anything at all... oh and a side note - demonizing men who practically agree with the feminists - that rape is bad - for whatever reason - is detrimental to society and shows how useless, backwards and unproductive feminism really is. I've been called a rapist for trying to justify the sale of the game Rapelay. I don't support rape because a fictional game exists that I believe shouldn't be banned simply because it deals with extreme violence - I believe actual "wannabe rapists" can have a sort of release if they play a simulation of a rape, and it could very well deter them from actually raping someone. I know I feel better after I kill a few hundred men (men) in Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto...
Which Brings me to my next point - the banning of Grand Theft Auto in Australia because women are killed. That's right, if you hadn't heard, GTA5 was banned in Australia because feminists seem to think it promotes violence against women . Now as you and most rational human beings know, this is simply not true. Not only are you required to kill men to advance the story in GTA, but if you kill any innocent person - not just women, another instance of feminists asking for special privileges - the cops come after you, kind of hinting that killing innocent people is bad in general. But hey, feminists found a way to ruin the fun for millions of people, take away freedom of expression and speech, and cause a major company to lose millions of dollars - because they would like special privileges.
Although rapists don't always go after the girl who's dressed the "least," when someone wants to have sex, sex appeal is kind of a factor, no matter how you look at it. Ensuring your own safety is never a bad thing no matter what your gender or ethnicity or whatever, and to say it's adding to "rape culture" or "promoting rape" or "enabling rapists" is just ridiculous. The men (and women) who say people in general should "dress to be safe" if they are out at night are basically the exact opposite group of people that feminists should be addressing, if anyone at all... And feminists not being able to make up their mind on if it's empowering or endangering the girl's well-being is detrimental in the sense that there's way too much stigma on how to dress to look good for yourself/men while avoiding dangerous situations while pleasing feminists while having a good time... let it go, be safe. Saying "be safe" is not enabling rapists.
Here's a list of ways to avoid sexual assault  from a very reliable source. I'd say these are meaningful measures women can take without blindly thinking "don't tell me not to get raped, teach men not to rape" and carry on their way down a dark secluded alley in a miniskirt at 3am drunk and flirting with every random guy that walks by. When an entire group of people (feminists) say no to "safety first," I tend to consider that group of people detrimental to society, and at the very least, not a good group - as feminists are endangering the lives of their own kind by making them believe they should be able to do what they want without suffering consequences (and believe me, I'd love that as much as them, but unfortunately that isn't reality).
Unfortunately having tens of thousands of feminists support her (not only by liking and sharing her videos, but by donating money by the truckload) does actually have an impact on the feminist groups, and does show that a large proportion of feminists are just not well-rounded good people, even according to you, saying how Anita is "a damaging spokesperson for feminism," you acknowledge that she isn't that great of a person. Unfortunately with a backing of around two hundred thousand people, that means 200,000 people are damaging spokespeople for feminism... and unfortunately again, you can't just say "eh, brush those fifth of a million people to the side, as I disagree with their viewpoint, so it's not reflective of modern day feminism" - it actually is very reflective of modern day feminism, as that's quite a large chunk of society, let alone the feminist society of North America.
Here's an example of a girl irrationally getting upset (at something people do to men and women online) and right off the bat pulling out personal insults  and calling the guy "retarded" and having "special needs" before he even says anything rude or sexist or anything. In fact, just go here  and watch some of the videos if you want. And keep in mind, a popular argument is "well guys shouldn't be mean to girls in the first place!" - unfortunately saying "don't be mean to this group of people" is asking for special treatment. And when the guys aren't "mean" (they're just trolling, something they do to everyone) and the girl flips out or the girl just starts off by talking trash or whatever, it shows that girls are also just as rude as guys online.
Once again, let me show you  that male nudes also leak - the difference is that the media practically begs for them. If you just type in "leaked male nudes" into Google, the second hit has an article that says, referring to "the fappening" - "Unfortunately, NOT ONE of the affected celebrities was male." So in other words, "look at the bad things that happened to these women, LET'S MAKE SURE IT'S EVEN AND EXPLOIT MEN." You're right that it does affect women more, however women are talked about more than men. More people in general (including women) are interested in female nudes than male nudes. This is just natural human tendencies, something feminism cannot "fix." And it definitely cannot "fix" it by addressing only one portion of the entire affected group much like with the domestic violence.
And no, leaked male nudes are not "incidental to the main target of the hack," especially when the main targets are male.
"General media attitude is undeniably gendered." The general media attitude is geared toward whatever will get the most attention. When it's in human nature to be attracted to something more than something else, and feminism tries to... well, deny natural human instinct/emotion, that's kind of just not right. Feminists fight for women's rights, not equality. Egalitarians fight for equality. Whenever a man is killed, it's "man gunned down on 1st and Main." When a woman is killed, the entire news broadcast is dedicated to the coverage of the entire event and story. Women are favoured almost everywhere, so what is it that feminists want again? Oh yeah, special privilege. By pointing out that the media addresses females more than males in certain areas.
Obama said he wants women to get paid the same as men. Unfortunately he also misinterpreted the entire "pay gap" thing. Your quote refers to "lover pay for women," which is wrong - earning less is not the same as getting paid less. Women have the same opportunities as men. Everyone is bullied in the workforce, if the majority of people who take offense to that are women... then they should fight their way to the top like men instead of call it "sexism" or "discrimination" when it's not.
I'd like it if you did take a look at the female privilege list I provided in the last round, just to give you a sense of how easy women have it in North America. And that a couple "bad" things happening to people in general (and sometimes mostly women, like domestic violence or leaked nudes) does not mean feminism is necessary.
Thanks for a good debate, Cartige!
To finish up, I'm just going to write a short closing remark rather than readdress the issues we've been going back and forth over.
As I hope I have shown, feminism since its first 'wave' in the late 19th Century through to today is a vibrant and relevant movement. It is not, as my opponent believes, now unnecessary and nor does it constitute a demand to gain more rights than that which currently exists for men. It is a movement that strives for equality and to retain existing gains hard won over the last century.
While society has granted women equal rights under the law, it is clear that this does not always manifest itself in social, cultural and industrial spaces. The pay gap remains despite legislation, and claims that the existence of the pay gap can be explained by individual women's choices rings hollow. Women are regularly paid less than their male colleagues for the precise same work and hours. Moreover, the social structures in which we live are gendered. The routes open to women, deemed to be feminine and appropriate for women, are also socially constructed. Feminism, as a movement, is at the front-line in highlighting culturally damaging gendered stereotypes that affect both men and women.
The feminist movement also highlight other issues such as the objectification of women and the negative influence of that on the lives of women not only in the United States of America, but world wide. The feminist movement is also on the front lines in combatting forms of violence that predominantly effect women and, as a side effect, cause considerable financial damage to the state as it attempts to pick up the pieces.
My opponent quite correctly notes that much headway has been made in these arenas. However, this is not, as he believes, a sign that we, as a society, should drop feminism or that we should move ahead into a post-feminist world:
First, the work is yet to be completed as I believe I have demonstrated with ample evidence over the course of this debate.
Second, just because progress has been made does not mean that it is time to take our collective feet from the metaphorical gas peddle. If we drop feminism this opens up a window of opportunity for the forces of reaction. Already, as again I have demonstrated, various groups and individuals have striven and continue to strive to set us back as a society when it comes to gender issues - be it in the name of religion or cultural conservatism. A healthy feminist movement identifies and combats these malignant social forces.
Third, my opponent argues that feminism is problematic because it ignores issues which affect men. I disagree. While women's issues are indeed at the heart of the feminist cause, it is not the case that feminists do not champion wider causes for general equality. feminists were centre stage in the Civil Rights movement; they were centre stage in the peace campaigns of the 20th Century (I've just been reading a fascinating book called 'Pioneers for Peace' about the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom); and have campaigned more generally on issues of sexual, racial, and social equality, and they continue to do so today.
Ultimately, I believe in the continued need for feminism because what Shirley Chisholm, the first African American woman to be elected as a member of the US House of Representatives, believed back in the 1970s was true then and remains true today:
"The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says, 'It's a girl.'"
- Shirley Chisholm 
 Walter B. Hoard, Anthology: Quotations and Sayings of People of Color (1973), p. 36.
Feminism is just one branch of a wider desire for progressive social change, necessary to bring about an equable society.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lee001 1 year 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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con stuck to his argument's and justified them well. I found that Pro didn't necessarily come up with any argument's, but only rebutted Con's points. So the result of this is that Con wasn't really able to rebut anything because Pro didn't necessarily come up with 1 or 2 argument while Con had various justified cases, he also made them very clear and making the point that Feminism isn't a necessity is society. Also Pro didn't come up with any new argument's then just repeating over the same one.
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.