The Instigator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Sisyphus67
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Feminism has reached a point where it is now more harmful than good.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Sisyphus67
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,330 times Debate No: 20626
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (3)

 

The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

A Fools challenge:

Feminism has had a positive impact in many aspects but it has reached a point where a fair evaluation of its progress and necessity. Is due.
Obviously this is going to run in contrast with the modern status quo and the majority of beliefs. So I don't expect to win your beliefs or opinions but rather judge my ability to proof is true and provide evidence when necessary. Part of the purpose of the argument is to open our minds to take a look at the beliefs we take for granted without thinking.
"It is fortunate for us in power that people don't think" Adolf Hitler

Don't get wrong woman I love woman. The world would be useless without them. But I believe that the feminist critique has not really allowed itself to be critiqued itself fairly.

“Of course I agree with basics such as equal education choices and voting, driving, etc.”

So my claim is that Feminism has reached a point where it is now more harmful than good.

Send your best only; youmust have at least 2 years of university or 3 years of college minimum.
Sisyphus67

Con


The assertion that feminism has reached a point that it causes more harm than good is false. There are many logical fallacies why this claim might be made, but they do not hold up under scrutiny. Much circumstantial and anecdotal evidence might be given to support such claims, but they beg the question as to whether feminism is the cause of the evidence.


The facts will show that equality of the sexes has not been reached in this country, let alone much of the rest of the world. That this lofty goal has not been met does not imply that feminism failed, nor does it imply that feminism succeeded but that this is as close as we can get to equality. The facts only show we have far to go; not as far as we once did, of course, but still miles to go before we sleep.


A June 2010 report by the U.S. Department of Labor(1) read that, in 2009, women who were full time salary or wage employees earned only 80% of their male counterparts. Though the gap is less than in 1979 (where they earned 62% of males), it can in no way be considered the best we can do.


Of course economic earnings are hardly the only factor to determine equality, and was not the prime cause that gave rise to the feminist movement. The prime cause, the overarching grievance of the movement, is oppression.


Feminism is grounded on the belief that women are oppressed or disadvantaged by comparison with men, and that their oppression is in some way illegitimate or unjustified. (2)


So it is not the equality of incomes that will signify the success of the feminist movement, but the eradication of all oppression against women. Oppression is the flipside of liberty, and liberty can be gaged by choices. Women today have many more choices than they did even twenty years ago, and so I concede that the yoke of oppression is lighter, but it has not been thrown off.


The roots of sexism go back thousands of years. The patriarchal societies in which women have sought to thrive can point to their holy books to give ‘proof’ of the subservient role that women are supposed to assume. Men who were comfortable with their role as breadwinners and protectors were taken aback by women who asserted their authority and power. Many men lost their identity as a direct result of women redefining theirs, but that is not a failure of the movement, it is a failure of the men.


Women struggled mightily to define themselves apart from their traditional roles, because it was those roles, in part, that were keeping them shackled to the past. Women shattered the notion that they could be only housewives or secretaries. Then they shattered the notion that there were any jobs that could only be fulfilled by males. It wasn’t inferiority that made it difficult for women to break into the military, the police, the firefighters, et al. It was the stubborn refusal of the male mindset to change.


We came very close already to running a female for the Presidency, and I anticipate we will have a First Husband in my lifetime. But having women in such places of power does not mean that there is no more sexism any more than having a black President means there is no more racism. It means we have come far, but the race is not run just because you can see the finish line.


Though there is much good yet for the feminist movement to accomplish, my opponent will also argue that the movement does more harm than good. The hardships and failures that inevitably result from any evolutionary process in no way indicate that the struggle is not worth it. It is always difficult when someone in power has to give up some of that power. Many women, perhaps, have abused their newly claimed power but, considering the thousands of year of oppression, there is no indication that more harm is being caused than good.




(1)U.S. Department of Labor, 2010, Highlights of Women's Earnings in 2009, 1/25/2012, Meridianville, AL, www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2009.pdf


(2)James, Susan. 1998. “Feminism.” In Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 10. London: Routledge, p. 576.


Debate Round No. 1
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro


Thanks I thought nobody would be in for it. My Greatest respects.

Sincerely, me


The Fool says: Money, money, why is it always about money? Is that all woman want, with their diamonds, cloth and jewellery. Get you grubby fingers out of here…Its mine... Its mine I tell you.. all mine. ;)

Me: I must say that was not even funny I apologize.

A Sophist report: A June 2010 report by the U.S. Department of Labor(1) read that, in 2009, women who were full time salary or wage employees earned only 80% of their male counterparts. The fool: the problem with this stat is that the sentence seems to give the impression that they are speaking within a framework of similar jobs.. as oppose the general set of Labour jobs. That is, it does not entail either or.

1. For let it be the case woman work in the same job and they get less pay.

A fool’s job:

I have worked in construction, and when I entered I got less pay then everybody, why because I was new and less practiced. Even when I took on new duty I got more but the other guys would get paid more as well. Why? Because they were now more experience in these new duties. They did the job faster and with fewer mistakes. Eventually I read the top. But the others at the top still got more pay because they had been there longer and were still more experienced. And most companies only need so much people. I am black and the rest of the company is white. I could start complaining that it’s because I am black but that doesn’t make because I understand the complexity of the issue.

If woman are entering larger variety of jobs gap it is to be expect that there will be this effect for a while. It is immoral to just presuppose you are owed what other people have worked for. But instead stealing it gets renamed into owing by some divine notion of righteous.

2. For let it be the case that woman get paid less in the general labour jobs or in general all together.

An important thing to think about is, that there are still many more house wives in relation to house husband. If this is true then we have all the right to expect there to be this gap, since men in general are more likely to be the wage of more than one person. Moreover if a family is successful with this strategy we should expect these men to be the people who make higher salaries then others, for it is really a salary of two people.

If we account for the important factors I have mentioned, we may even see a slant in the other direction. If feminist seek equality why is this information being omitted from feminist studies.

A fool test: walk up to some feminist mob and start asking these questions. The anger will turn into HATE very fast, just for asking questions. But if they are speaking the truth, why would they do that? I have done it. Lol. But I have always been more of a Galileo then a Copernicus. (More on hate later)

Even worse:

Wage is not the only source of funding, if men pay more taxes because of making more and with the increased tax rate. Men pay more taxes then woman. But more taxes go to woman.

When we look at social programs to help females and males, there is a huge majority in toward woman and woman only programs. In large part in particularly by feminists programs. Some other forms are in educational programs, e.g. females only in scholarships; focus on female encouragement, more resources. This is all besides the fact that more shelters, and guidance counsellors more social supportive resources.

Even aside from what has been mentioned men still spend more on woman then woman on men. That is woman get more free goods then men in general.

The issue of finance is not as simple as same job same pay. Don’t be fooled. (these are slippery these ones)

The fool Says: the r- Sophist over simplifies when it is in their favour and then appeals to complexity when it is not. For these are the sophisms of the relativist. Look out for their switchiness nature. ;)




A fools warning:

One thing I want to make clear is to not mistake feminist or feminism with the sex: woman, in this case people with XX chromosomes. For the Fool is at war with fundamentalism. In this case the fundamentalisms’ within Feminism. My claim is that it became and I more harmful society.

The Fool
: When I reflect on my studies about the history of feminism. I remember only a small group of feminist, and even then they would speak as though they were speaking for all women past and present for all eternity. But this will always be a problem because, feminists could never be representative sample of population of woman because they will always be a sample with more conviction, motivation and often more hate in relation to the actual population of woman. In what sense is this ever accounted for in feminist claim?

F-fundementalism: what I mean by this is any content of a belief system, or beliefs/faiths, opinions, viewpoints are considered truths base from expectation alone.

It is very familiar to hear people say that everything is a belief or it’s all a matter of opinion. What do is the difference? What could we know for sure?

Well for example I have concept/thought of a unicorn. But let’s say a Sophist tells me that it is a belief, I would say no it’s impossible, why because I don’t believe in unicorns. Therefore it would be a contradiction. That is, your thought is synonymous with the mental concept. You could never be wrong about what you are just thinking. Your thought is your thought it is always and absolutely true or you couldn’t even be thinking it. We can call this a self-evident truth;

Proof:

Just picture a tree in your mind, no matter what I think or believe or other people say your mental conceptions (ideas) are true as an idea. This is always absolutely true even if you don’t believe it.

For example you may forget tomorrow that you thought of a tree just now, but it will always be true that at this time right now you had that thought whether you even believe or not. Even if no one can recognize it still happened. No matter what anyone tells you could never be wrong about what you’re thinking. The sophist will try and trick you out of it.

A belief/faith is different because they depend on expectations, which is more than just a thought. When we say we believe in a tree we mean a tree in another context then thought alone.

Proof: thinks of something that you belief in but you don’t’ expect to be true. (try) you will see it doesn’t make sense. That is to not expect something to be true, is to not belief.

So remember to expect something doesn’t mean it will be true, it just mean you expect something to be true.

But remember what you believe in can turn out to be false. So there is the belief and the content (the thing you believe in)

What we are doing here is working with the mind. It is your mind that is the proof of these things.

If you get what I mean you should understand your own mind

A true belief means the content is true.

To claim that a something is true just because you expect it too is f-fundamentalist belief.

So to have f-knowledge it must be more than just a belief, that is it must be a belief+evidence

Evidence is simply a form of verification. (Experience) it doesn’t have to be physical.

So we may say that knowledge is justified believe.

Another level, the highest level is f-certified knowledge, which is proven justified belief or it can be called True justified belief.

We consider math to be TJB

The fool: the relative sophist is a very slippery creature. It strength lies in vague term and the manipulation of definition. We must begin by throwing some sand on it.

Sisyphus67

Con

Sisyphus67 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Sisyphus67

Con

Rebuttal of Pros Arguments

1. For let it be the case woman work in the same job and they get less pay.
The example given was not balanced; pro continually compared her salary to those who had more experience and seniority. To use these qualifications as a reason why women get paid less than men is a red herring.

2. For let it be the case that woman get paid less in the general labour jobs or in general all together.
My opponent attempts to justify the pay inequality by rationalizing that many men are supporting wives and we should expect the inequality. I am unwilling to concede this point, as it flies in the face of everything I know about business and has not a shred of evidence to back it up. However, even if this were true, that men are getting paid more because their employers know they have wives to take care of, then this is a fine example of institutionalized discrimination that should be added to the list of things feminism needs to address. It does not excuse the system from being discriminatory and trying to economically shoehorn women back into the role of housewives, a role so many women have fought to break free of.

Then my opponent went off on a tangeant about how if these suppositions were raised to a feminist group they would be met with disdain. In my estimation, disdain for these points is warranted, because they are nothing ludicrous attempts to justify discrimination and they are not even well reasoned justifications.

Even aside from what has been mentioned men still spend more on woman then woman on men. That is woman get more free goods then men in general.

Finally my opponent had the audacity to imply that women deserved less pay because they received more gifts from men. "Stay at home and be a good little wife and we will bring you a nice present." I think not.

My opponent spent the rest of her space exploring philosophy and epistomology. Interesting subjects, indeed, but not relevant to this discussion.

The only aspect of my opening argument that was addressed was the financial aspect, which is the least of the arguments in favor of continued feminism. The true reason feminism is still needed is because there is still sexism.

None of my opponents statements have demonstrated that feminism is doing harm of any kind, which is the basis for this debate. I was prepared to counter many arguments, but I have received none.

I forfeited the last round and explained to my opponent that the burden of proof was her responsibility. Though I had nothing to refute, it was ill-mannered of me to let my time slip away without making a response. For that I apologize to my opponent.

Supporting Arguments
The good that has been accomplished by the feminist movement can be seen everywhere. Though my opponent graciously accepts that women should be allowed to vote and drive, her arguments prove that there is still much good that the feminist movement needs to achieve. My opponent allows that woment deserve an education, but it is the patriarchal mindset that needs to be educated.

Oppression is about lack of choices. Women have been oppressed for millenia, and my opponent seems content that women be forced back into the roles that men picked out for them. I am not. An injustice done to anyone is an injustice done to everyone, and no one has a right to determine what a woman should do with her life EXCEPT the woman herself. Would the shoe be on the other foot one would expect such a hue and cry from the male population that the mountains would tremble.

A persons worth and place in society should not be determined by their genitalia. This should be res ipsa loquitur, but obviously it is not, because this discussion is still taking place. So I will speak for it.

Women, who once had only a handful of jobs from which to choose (teacher, librarian, nurse, et cetera) are now free to pursue almost any career they choose. Women are soldiers, police officers, firefighters, politicians, astronauts and doctors. For any who once said that women could not do these jobs I invite them to eat those words now. There is nothing a woman can not do.

To be sure, women were and are harrassed by the men who wanted to keep these jobs the venue soley of the male population, but they persevered. But the stereotype is not completely broken.

A woman who chooses to pursue a career is tacitly accepted by society, but it still comes with presuppositions. Women who work outside the home are still expected, overwhelmingly, to do the 'woman's work' when she gets home from her job. If the couple descides to start a family it is the woman who is expected to stay home and raise the children (if either parent does, that is).

Feminism still has good work to do in helping women destroy the last of the stereotypes. There is no harm caused by it that could possibly outweigh the good that it has accomplished and has yet to accomplish.


Debate Round No. 3
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Sisyphus67

Con

Pro has conceded in comments.

As Pro has forfeited another round, has yet to provide a valid argument to support the assertion that feminism is harmful and my points have been aptly made supporting the contrary position, there is no point in adding to my arguments here.

Debate Round No. 4
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Sisyphus67

Con

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this subject.

My opponent has not shown any reason to support the resolution that feminism is harmful at all, let alone that this harm outweighs the positive effects of the movement.

As my opponent still has not posted any new argument I will let my argument stand.

I wish my opponent luck in this and future debates.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Yes that is "exactly what I wrote" lol
Posted by Flame 5 years ago
Flame
"Finally my opponent had the audacity to imply that women deserved less pay because they received more gifts from men. "Stay at home and be a good little wife and we will bring you a nice present." I think not."

Fool may be annoying and logically ridiculous, but I have to admit that was funny, lol.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
ah I suck.lol
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
you are right I think you are having problem understanding what I am saying, all forfiets also have votes.. It doesn't have to do with my layout it has to do with lack of rounds, I am happy with my layout I think most of it is going over you head, because it is as if you are reading a completly different set of words. Its okay I get it now.
Posted by Sisyphus67 5 years ago
Sisyphus67
I am here to talk outside of a competitive framework.

I don't understand what your last statement is supposed to mean. There are well established standards of what a strong argument is and how it is built. Though I am not an expert in debate, I came here because attempting to unravel the rambling arguments of the general internet audience is tiring.

Your challenge said only people with college or university should attempt. That, at least, implied you were confident of your ability to lay out your argument in the structure you proposed. Especially since you were attempting to argue such a tenuous position, you should have been better prepared.

A forfeit based on votes is not a forfeit. I am not repeating this debate with you, it was tiresome to unravel your arguments. By all means have it again with someone else and bring out your big guns. I'm moving on.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
no I don;t think you getting me, I am talking out side of a competitive frame work here. I havent begun my put my main stray of arguments, The match was planned for 5 round, because obviously I am running againt the established belief. And the lose of so many rounds will not enable me, to finish my set, so you are not facing my arguements I didnt hardly began to put them out. And so you will have a forfiet win based on votes. But you won't be a related to my set but a few that got fit in.
wouldnt you rather have a win against my position rather then an imcomplete set.

"II'll win or lose based on the strength of my argument, the weakness of yours, or a combination"

yeah I think we would all hope for that but the challlenge is convincing the voting audience which there is a varience in what a strong argument is.
Posted by Sisyphus67 5 years ago
Sisyphus67
II'll win or lose based on the strength of my argument, the weakness of yours, or a combination thereof
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
This is really the way you want too win?
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
would you accept the same challenge ?
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
I think you are too eager too see as an opponent. I meant over all, its a large topic.. lots of avenues to go through..
I was interested in that one.... don't think of me as an evil opponent.. IF I am arguing for something it is because I think its rationally support able. I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong.. you can have that win..
I would rather restart the argument fresh.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
The_Fool_on_the_hillSisyphus67Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
The_Fool_on_the_hillSisyphus67Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 5 years ago
Doulos1202
The_Fool_on_the_hillSisyphus67Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: pro ff