The Instigator
phuzzie
Con (against)
The Contender
levi_smiles
Pro (for)

Feminism in Today's Society

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
phuzzie has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2017 Category: People
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 654 times Debate No: 103921
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

phuzzie

Con

Feminism today is obviously a rising topic/issue/problem/whatever you'd like to call it, but nonetheless you can't argue that it isn't out there and isn't a big idea.

Feminism has been on the rise in recent years, but that doesn't mean it only just became an ideology. For instance, when WWI/WWII were happening and growing into a global conflict, it called for more of America's men to step forward and serve their country. Naturally, this calling opened up a lot of needed positions in the States because now our warehouse workers, truck drivers, office workers, and just about anything else you think of were out across the world fighting for the USA. Women decided to step up and take a stand back home, no longer voices and now wanting to become real parts of society from what they were (housewives, stay-at-home moms, cooks, etc.)

This was not a bad thing at all, in fact I think this benefited America in numerous ways, bringing in the equality factor, and also now that women were taking over jobs previously held by a man, I think the drive to be a harder worker and more competition for these jobs now by both men AND women sets the tone for the United States citizen's hardworking, get-s***-done spirit.

Nowadays, feminist rallies and rising tensions between women supporting feminism (in my opinion) has drastically, drastically changed. No longer do I see a lot of "equality" or "equal pay" or anything along those lines - in the news and on social media I see constantly, women in support of "feminism" is now about having women become the superior. Women need better pay then men. Women should be running large companies, not men. Women should have the big-shot jobs, not men. From what I understand, feminism was initially to bring equality over topics like jobs, and pay, etc. but as mentioned, I see a lot of "feminists" assuming all men everywhere are simply looking for sex toys and treating women like a minority, that we're all misogynistic and savage.

My debate here is - are you in support of TODAY's feminist movement? I for one am not. I believe if we're trying to have feminism around, it should be for equality and not what I see the majority of.

Go for it. I take criticism easily and won't respond with insults or uncivilized bashing.
levi_smiles

Pro

Thanks, Phuzzie.

Con's argument is essentially this: given that mainstream Feminism has been supplanted by female supremacy ideology, is Feminism worthy of political endorsement?

The question is moot because Con's core assumption is entirely unsupported. Con's sole evidence in round 1 is anecdotal: specifically and exclusively,, Con's personal survey of news and social media. In an era when media is customized to gauge and quantify political perspective and to satisfy individual presumptions rather than challenging with objective assessment, such anecdotal evidence is subject to distortion if not outright manipulation.

Against Con's single anecdote I will apply my own. I attended January's Women's March and keep in my acquaintance mostly Feminists, ranging from ordinary egalitarianists to radical anti-patriarchalists, with no experience of the supremacist ideology Con invokes. To the extent that one personal experience is not preferable on first impression to another, Con's anecdote is negated by contradictory evidence.

To make the case, Con must show that supremacist ideology is the majority position within Feminism. It won't be enough to simply supply radical essays, Con must demonstrate that Feminist leadership endorses supremacy with popular support. Con must demonstrate that women politicians publicly support supremacist legislation without reproach from the majoritarian Feminist community. As far as I can tell, feminist supremacy ideology was never more than an extremist, minority position, reaching its high-water mark in the 1970's, mostly in French-speaking countries, and with little appreciable influence on Feminist activism then or now.

Let's distinguish female supremacy from the notion that women, comprising the majority of the population and the electorate, ought to enjoy majority representation in elected offices or business leadership. Majority rule is just Democracy and need not imply superior civil rights or the disenfranchisement of the male minority. Let's also distinguish female supremacy from female separatism, the notion that women ought to only be governed by women or that some elements of the franchise ought to be exclusive to women. As radical and antiegalitarian as any segregationist movement, they don't necessarily imply supremacy, the subjugation of men to women's interests.

I support today's Feminist movement and find Con's caricature of modern Feminism less than believable hyperbole.

I look forward to Con's evidence based refutation in the second round.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by levi_smiles 8 months ago
levi_smiles
Sounds like a BS stat to me. Citation?
Posted by Fernyx 8 months ago
Fernyx
@levi_smiles only 12% of people in America consider themselves feminist.
Posted by levi_smiles 10 months ago
levi_smiles
*sigh*
Posted by levi_smiles 10 months ago
levi_smiles
Well, ghostlee, I'll debate u next if you're up to it.

We agree that gender ought not be a principle consideration in a political election, although I imagine there are at least as many men who would reject the better qualified candidate because she is a woman. I remember my high school American Politics teacher enlightening us that a woman could never President because her irrationality during her menstrual cycle would certainly result in nuclear war. 42% of women voted for Trump vs Clinton & I assume the majority of those women call themselves feminist.

I hadn't heard about the 10 walk/no walk lights in Melbourne that were given a female silhouette but I see no indication that this was done in response to "feminist complaints." Rather, it was done by local businesses as a celebration of International Women's Day and at no expense to taxpayers. The complaining, as far as I can tell, was entirely on the other side so I think you need to reverse ownership of your mountains vs molehills.

International Women's Day, I guess you weren't aware, is an annual function of the United Nations used to promote the civil rights of women via the UN Commission on the Status of Women (rights defined by the Beijing Declaration, where First Lady Clinton pissed off the Chinese govt with her legendary "women's rights are human rights" speech). Child marriage laws are one of the principle pressure of that Commision Melbourne's walk signals were an explicit recognition of the only international organization with the leverage and will to address child marriage laws in developing countries. The Trump administration, on the other hand, supported the appointment of Saudi Arabia to that Commision this year, so they may be less vocal on that issue next Women's Day.

In other words, Melborne walk signals were doing something to advocate for girls in child marriages, what were the whiners doing?
Posted by Ghostlee 10 months ago
Ghostlee
You can look anywhere today and see that Cons argument is correct. Mainstream feminism has severely changed from what is used to be, and for the worse.

If there are more better female figures than men, then yes, there should be more of them. But if more men are better political figures, then it should be those men. If a man and a woman is running for president, but the man is a better candidate, then he should be voted in. That's not sexist, that is simple logic, and that is the trouble with feminists today. They would vote for the woman just because she is a woman, and completely disregard the fact she is a worse candidate. And they make mountains out of mole hills, like in Australia when feminists complained that the pedestrian traffic lights were sexist, and should be changed to look more like a woman, whilst muslim women are being forced into marriage and some girls are being forced into marriage at age 12 and getting pregnant at very young ages. But do feminists do anything about that? No, they are too busy complaining about traffic lights and calling all men evil.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.