The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Feminism is a poisonous belief system that needs to be done away with.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,563 times Debate No: 41446
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)




This is my first Debate and first time on this website. I appologize in advance if I place something in the wrong category or mess up the format. I will write this in a research paper style complete with works cited.

The word patriarchy is thrown around left and right in newsrooms, college campuses, and coffee shops across the world. But what is the patriarchy exactly? Well, that depends on who is asked and when. Merriam Webster defines it simply as "a family, group, or government controlled by a man or a group of men." Whereas feminists seem to attribute every single terrible thing to ever happen to women to this mystical all powerful force. According to modern feminists, and pseudo pop culture feminist bloggers the patriarchy is the reason that women have eating disorders, earn lower wages than men, and are shamed for being obese. (Herrin, and Matsumoto). (Hodge). (Bedelia).
At the end of the day, anything that causes problems for women can and will be blamed on the patriarchy by someone. The patriarchy is the boogey man of old. The always available scapegoat, and whatever modern day feminists want it to be to prove whatever point they are trying to make at the time.
The very idea of patriarchy is harmful to women on two fronts. First, it encourages victimhood and discourage women from seeking solutions to problems or working through them. This creates a destructive cycle of some women experiencing a problem, then instead of meeting it head on, blaming it on an entity outside of their control. Which, in turn causes the problem to get bigger, or causes other problems which then are also blamed on the patriarchy.
Secondly, because of the acidity of the attacks on men by many modern day feminists they aren"t being taken seriously. While some complaints are indeed rooted in victimhood, or unwarranted blaming, some grievances are legitimate. Even so, when the men who would have acted to solve an issue hear nothing but waspish attacks they are far less likely to do anything to help solve the problem. This can be especially harmful in relationships where the man in question feels unloved or unwanted.
Rape Culture is the belief that in the world today, we live in a society that perpetuates rape and views it as a social normalcy. The idea is that rapes and sexual assaults are so common in today"s world that they are pretty much to be expected. The numbers thrown around by most modern day feminists and women studies groups are that one in four women will be victims of rape or sexual assault in their lifetimes. This number is of course staggering, and should raise serious causes for concern if it were not for one tiny detail. It is a completely bogus statistic. The one in four myth came from a study conducted in 1985 by a young lady named Mary Koss whom at the time was a professor of Psychology at Kent State University. In this study published by Ms. Magazine Mary Koss interviewed over three thousand female college students nationwide asking them a series of ten questions about sexual violence. Here is the interesting part of this survey. Mary Koss never actually asked any of the students if they believed they had been raped. Miss Koss used her own criteria, and because of this she decided that 15.4 percent had been raped and 12.1 percent had been victims of attempted rape. (Sommers, Pg 210-211).
Another interesting side note to this already shaky statistic is that 73 percent of these women who were already surveyed stated that they did not believe they had been raped when asked directly. An astounding 35 percent had sexual relations with their alleged rapist again. (Sommers, Pg 211).
Even if this faulty statistic is taken away, the term "rape culture" still does not hold much water. Nowhere is rape cited as normal or romanticized in today"s modern society. However, other crimes are. Movies frequently glamorize bank robbers, drug dealers, and even sometimes murderers in many popular gangster films. Movies such as Oceans Eleven and Now You See Me show the glitz and glamor of professional thieves, but nowhere will you find the story of the cocky, cheerful rapist. Rape, when it is used in film or elsewhere is generally used for its shock value or to bring pity upon the main character. Sometimes it is used simply to demonize the villain of the story. Simply put, nowhere in the modern world is rape considered an acceptable form of procreation. And to suggest otherwise is an entirely incorrect and harmful statement to make
Domestic Violence
The myth widely embraced about Domestic Violence is simple, and designed for simple people. The myth states that domestic violence is almost solely perpetrated by men against women. And occasionally that is true. However, this does not even come close to defining the problem. The Center for Disease and Control out of Atlanta Georgia had some shocking statistics on the matter. First, almost 24 percent of relationships had some level of violence, and in about 49.7 percent of those relationships the violence was reciprocal. Of the relationships that were not reciprocal more than 70 percent of the perpetrators were female. The study did find that in relationships where there was reciprocal violence injury most often occurred to the woman. (Whitaker, Haileyesus, and et al, 941-947).
That women were the most likely to be injured in a domestic violence dispute should not come as a surprise, because generally men are larger and stronger than women. What should be surprising is that over 70 percent of the nonreciprocal violence was initiated by the woman. Put simply, in many domestic violence situations the man who was doing the injuring was, more often than not simply defending himself. This throws a startling revelation on the domestic violence issue, and brings up serious questions that cannot be ignored.
Dr. Gelles is an internationally known expert in domestic violence and child welfare, as well as the dean of Penn State University. He also holds The Joanne and Raymond Welsh Chair of Child Welfare and Family Violence in the School of Social Policy & Practice. He, along with Suzanne Steinmetz and Dr. Murray A. Straus conducted a survey with nearly identical findings. After their research was published Dr. Gelles was quoted as saying, "The response to our finding that the rate of female to male violence was equal to the rate of male to female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism but intense and long-lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned into conference centres [sic] and buildings where we were scheduled to present." (Gelles).
Obviously, this myth is so deep rooted that modern educated feminists would rather ignore facts and empirical data than even consider that they might have been wrong about who domestic violence victims actually were all these years.
If feminism is not the harbinger of equality that it appears to be than what is? What is the correct way to bring forth a true system of equality in today"s world? The answer to both of these questions is the egalitarian movement. But where to begin? A few ideas posed by scholars on the subject might have some insight.
Dr. Farrell Proposes an "Equal Rights and Responsibilities Amendment." According to Dr. Farrell this amendment would outlaw the current males only draft policy. It would only permit community property with group responsibility. It would also help to give incentives to schools to teach young women to take sexual initiative and risk being rejected by the other party instead of just teaching men how to do it correctly. Sexual harassment in this bill would be taught in the workplace, however it would be seen and taught to both genders as possible instigators instead of the myth that only men make sexual advances. A bill like this would allow for affirmative action in the workplace. However it would protect employers from hiring nonqualified, or underqualified workers simply to meet a quota. It would also deprive district courts of funding if the children in disputed custody cases were given to the mother more than sixty percent of the time. It would lower funding for colleges which are saturated with Women"s studies groups and have no Men"s Studies groups. Finally, it would revoke federal licensing if the Federal Communications Commissions found a consistent pattern of Man bashing or constant attention to women"s issues with the neglect of men"s. According to Dr. Farrell it would be a new era of shared rights and responsibilities in our world. (Farrell 367).
Work Cited
1.Bedelia, Jennifer. "Don"t Be Silent!." Life In The Patriarchal Matrix., 04 Oct 2012. Web. 26 Nov 2013. <;.
2.Farrell, Warren. The Myth Of Male Power. New York: Simon & Schuster , 1993. Print.
3.Gelles, Richard. "The Missing Persons of Domestic Violence: Battered Men." Women. (1999): n. page. Print. <;.
4.Herrin, Marcia, and Nancy Matsumoto. "Gloria Steinem on patriarchy and eating disorders." Eating Disorder News. Gurze Books, 13 Dec 2010. Web. 26 Nov 2013. <;.
5.Summers, Christina. Who Stole Feminism?. New York: Touchstone, 1995. Print.
6.Whitaker, Daniel, Tadesse Haileyesus, et al. "Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence." American Journal of Public Health. 97.5 (2007): 941-947. Print. <;.



I extend a very warm welcome to DDO and thank you for choosing to debate a topic that I feel very strongly about.

I agree that *some* so called feminists,especially in the west, claim absurd things just to gain cheap publicity and distract people from real challenges women face around the world today.I am a feminist myself, but coming from a country like India, being a feminist means something totally different from what it has come to mean in the west.

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.

You claim in your opening statement that feminism itself should be done away with.Since you did not specify any particular region, I simply assumed that it meant from the entire world.This is where I disagree,because I believe that actual feminism is something that is a vital need in today's society.

I will only give my opening statement explaining my stance in this round and will be providing rebuttals only in the second round.

I claim that feminism is necessary because:

1.In most parts of the world Patriarchy is still followed
Feminism is needed in the world today simply because in most parts of the world women are not even given basic rights.In Saudi Arabia for example, the testimony of one man is equal to the testimony of 3 women in a court of Law.Women can't even drive or go out without being accompanied by a Mahhram(A male relative who cannot marry the woman) or her husband.

While this may seem like an isolated,extreme example, women actually face a lot of discrimination for not just education and freedom, but even for basic needs like nutrition and medical care in most parts of the world, especially in Asia and Africa.This is simply because there is a cultural bias against women in these societies that assigns traditional gender roles to women and requires them to stay inside their homes.Women are considered to be just the property of their husbands and there are a variety of practices that encourage violence against them
I will just list 2 of the most barbaric practices that the Partiarchial culture of these countries dictates on women:

a.Female Genital Mutillation
This is a practice that is widely prevalent in many parts of the Muslim world which involves the removal of a woman's clitoris and the external genitals.It has absolutely no health benefits whatsoever and many rationalists in these countries claim that it is to prevent women from enjoying pleasure during sex.
According to a 2013 UNICEF report, 125 million women and girls in Africa and the Middle East have experienced female genital mutilation.
According to the same UNICEF report, the top rates for female genital mutilation are in Somalia (with 98 percent of women affected), Guinea (96 percent), Djibouti (93 percent), Egypt (91 percent), Eritrea (89 percent), Mali (89 percent), Sierra Leone (88 percent), Sudan (88 percent).To think that over 80% of all women in these countries actually have their own privates mutilated must give you an idea about how patriarchially biased these societies must be.

b.Bride Burning and Dowry Violence

In most parts of India(my own country), the second most populous country in the world a weird custom is followed by almost everyone, where the bride's family is expected to pay exorbitant amounts of mmoney to the groom simply for agreeing to marry her.Many men keep demanding their dowry well after marriage is over and often, women are killed by the husband or his family if they are not satisfied with the dowry.
In India, in 2011 alone, the National Crime Records Bureau reported 8,618 dowry deaths, while unofficial figures suggest the numbers to be at least three times higher.You must realise that this is greatly under-reported because of the state of society here.

While this practice has been outlawed,and strict punishments are awarded to those who get convicted, most families are unwilling to bear the shame of being unable to pay dowry and do not even report cases until the bride commits suicide or is murdered.

Any movement that aims to end this widespread and barbaric violence should necessarily be good for the World as a whole today.

2.Women are extremely under-represented even in most modern democracies

Women constitute roughly 50% of the population of most countries.Yet they continue to be under-represented in most modern democracies.The United States currently has only 20 women senators and 82 women in the house of Representatives out of 435.The US is yet to see even a single woman elected as the president, while many Muslim countries such as Bangladesh and Pakistan already have a woman Head of state.On October 2013, the global average of women in national assemblies was a mere 21.5%

While one may argue that the laws are fair and that there is nothing that prevents women from contesting in elections, one cannot simply ignore the invisible glass ceiling of the personal prejudices that many voters will have about voting for a woman.

3.Violence against women is prevalent even in Western and 'modern' countries

You had agreed in your opening statement that most men were physically stronger than women and hence women get injured more during domeastic fights.However, you ignore the fact that a lot of them tend to be victimised by people who they know intimately and are regularly forced into abusive relationships due to various reasons.

I will be refuting some of the statistics and arguments you gave and will demonstrate how widespread in even Western society.

I would like to add that women are much more likely than men to be murdered
by an intimate partner according to a number of trusted sources. In the United States, in 2005, 1181 women, in comparison with 329 men, were killed by their intimate partners. In England and Wales about 100 women are killed by partners or former partners each year while 21 men were killed in 2010. In 2008, in France, 156 women in comparison with 27 men were killed by their intimate partner.

Most cases of abuse go unreported even in these countries and the number of women with abusive partners can never be known.


I hope these reasons alone show how far behind we are from achieveing true gender equality in the world.To declare feminism itself as wrong just because a few silly women trying to sound political claim absurd and irrational things is to completely ignore the pressing need for gender equality that is denied to women in most parts of the world today.

With the mass immigration of Muslims into many parts of Europe and the growing demands of these immigrants to implement Sharia'a law,the future actually looks bleak for women.

All these reasons make a belief that women need to be treated as equal extremely relavant in today's world.A political movement or ideology to overcome this bias against women that has existed probably since the beginning of time cannot be a 'poisonous belief system that needs to be done away with.'

Hence I assert that Feminism is neccessary in today's world.


1."Feminism – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary".
3."Intimate Partner Violence: Overview". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2006. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
4.CDC – Consequences – Intimate Partner Violence – Violence Prevention – Injury.
Debate Round No. 1


In Saudi Arabia for example, the testimony of one man is equal to the testimony of 3 women in a court of Law. Women can't even drive or go out without being accompanied by a Mahhram(A male relative who cannot marry the woman) or her husband*
This is true but there is more to it than meets the eye. The normal rule is that women should be safeguarded against the contingency of having to appear as witnesses in judicial proceedings. Therefore, normally a woman should not be called upon to attest a document recording a transaction. This rule may be relaxed in an emergency. But then another difficulty would arise. In the case of male witnesses their memory of a transaction that they attest as witnesses would be refreshed when they met socially and the transaction was recalled for one reason or another. 1n the case of a document recording a transaction, which is attested by one male and one female witness, the female witness, under the Islamic social system, as will presently be appreciated, would not normally have frequent occasion to meet the male witness and talk to him, so that there would be little chance of her memory of the transaction being refreshed. To overcome this lack of opportunity of refreshing the memory, it is wisely provided that where only one male witness is available two female witnesses may be called upon so that, in the very words of the text, one may refresh the memory of the other.
This provision is concerned only with the preservation of evidence, and does not deal with the weight to be attached to the testimony of a male or female witness. An illustration may help to clear up any doubt on the matter. Assume that a transaction recorded in a document attested by one male and two female witnesses becomes the subject of a dispute which comes up for judicial determination. It is then discovered that one of the two female witnesses has in the mean time died. The male witness and the surviving female witness are examined in court and the judge finds that their respective accounts of the terms of the transaction are not entirely in harmony; but he feels very strongly that taking e very relevant factor into consideration the testimony of the female witness is more reliable than that of the male witness. In such a case it would be his plain duty to rely on the testimony of the female witness in preference to that of the male witness. There could be no question of discrimination in favour of or against a woman.

*.This is simply because there is a cultural bias against women in these societies that assigns traditional gender roles to women and requires them to stay inside their homes*
I could not agree with this more. However, gender roles are not a one way street. Men are EXPECTED to go to work, raise money for the wife and kids, even in developed first world countries. A woman chooses to go to work if she wants. The only difference between the western world and the eastern countries that you have just mentioned is, that in those eastern countries the women are also expected to fulfill their (supposed) gender roles of having children and keeping the home. This again, is a human issue not a male only or female only issue. As far as the medical care and nutrition care goes. You are going to have to give me statistics and data on that. I have studied this issue out thoroughly and I have never heard of someone receiving less care simply because they were female. if anything women tend to be taken care of first. (such as the old Titanic adage women and children first!) So I won't believe that until I see some evidence.

*Female Genital Mutilation* This one, I have to be honest I can't even believe you're bringing up. With the amount of male genital mutilization running rampant in the world. It is a common practice the world over even I am circumcised. I am not saying that stopping female GM isn't important. I'm saying that I can't believe that you are using it as an example of how the "Patriarchy" keeps women subservient. It is wrong and terrible to be sure, but it isn't a sign of worldwide domination.

*Bride Burning and Dowry Violence*
I have never been to India so I can only comment on this as an outsider. First, let me say how sorry I am this is happening in your country. I truly mean that.
The very fact that there are such strict punishments on this should prove that it isn't socially acceptable. This again can be chalked up to the mantra "Crappy people do crappy things." again if this were truly, the Patriarchy keeping women down it would be glossed over or it would be completely ignored. It isn't which means your countrymen and women have discovered an issue and are doing their best to resolve it. It's a movement forward.

*Women are under represented in most modern democracies.*
This, on the surface is true. Look into how many women are running for offices however. Women who do run and win positions of authority are lauded as heroes, and proverbial Joan of Arc's. Because of this it is reasonable to assume the only reason more women are not involved in politics is lack of interest. Not some great female destroying private organization. Simply put, it is very reasonable to assume the glass ceiling is woman made, due to lack of interest.

*Domestic Violence*
I posted more than enough evidence on this in my original statement so I will keep this brief. Couples fight and yes, when things turn deadly it's mostly men killing their spouses. However the data provided by myself shows why this might be the case. 70% of non reciprocal violence is female initiated. what happens when they hit to hard or go to far? The answer of course is males retaliate. I'm not saying it is correct or proper but to be sure if a woman came at me wielding a knife and I also had a weapon please believe that I would kill her in a heartbeat to save myself. I really enjoy living and I would like to remain alive as long as possible. Many numbers presented here by you are assuming that men are just murderous psychopaths who are lying in wait to kill their spouses when this just isn't the case. When it comes down to it, men more often than women get beaten, and women more often than men get seriously injured or killed when the other person retaliates.

Every single issue that was brought up by you could be solved by egalitarianism. And to hang on for dear life to an ideology that has outlived it's usefulness and caused more harm than good is absolutely insane. Equality can be achieved but feminism will do nothing but hold that dream back.


Hello again!

Thank you for your rebuttal.

Firstly, when you say something like:
"Every single issue that was brought up by you could be solved by egalitarianism."I could not agree more.

You and I seem to be having serious differecnces about the definitions of some key words in this debate so I will clarify them again for you:

1. Feminism: It is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.
2.Equality: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities

I am saying that historically and all over the world feminism is an attempt at gender equality.A few feminists in western countries where feminism has already succeded in bringing gender equality to a certain degree may make absurd claims at times, but this does not reflect reality all over the globe, nor does it change the definition of Feminism itself.

1.Nature of equality

I assert that giving support to someone who is suffering from a serious handicap is an attempt at equality.For example,building a ramp or reserving a special parking lot for someone suffering from an disability is not special treatment, but an attempt at equality.

Women's bodies are generally weaker than men because their bodies undergo tremendous hormonal changes and discomfort to enable child rearing.A woman carries a baby in her womb for over 9 months, suffers pain that is roughly equal to breaking 20 bones, and risks her life itself to make new life possible.She then feeds it with her own blood for the next year or so.This is not something that is voluntary and is decided by nature at birth itself.

Couple this with centuries of suppression and denial of a right to education and power as well as an ongoing prejudice in almost all spheres of life, and it will become obvious that women face a serious handicap that must be compensated for hence certain provisions were made in the laws of almost all countries.

2.Evidence for a bias in Nutrition and Healthcare

For this I can assert that this is a common practice all over Asia through personal experience.Sons are seen as the future providers of the family and are usually given the best of everything.However, I could gather statistics only from India.There is a 35% excess female child mortality in India when compared to males and a 10% excess females who are malnourished.

I have provided 2 research papers to support my claim in the sources[3] and[4]


a.Female Genital Mutilation

When you are talking about male genital mutilation I seriously hope you don't mean circumcision.The removal of the foreskin does not impair a male's sexual function in any way, and is a widely recommended procedure even by modern doctors in certain cases of infection.

Female genital Mutilation results in the woman being unable to experiecnce sexual pleasure for the rest of her life,has no medical purpose and leaves her much more vulnerable to a variety of infections, cyst formation and diseases.This is a widely prevalent practice all over the islamic world and i have already given adequate statistics to prove this in the opening statement itself.

b.Bride Burning
Once again the feminist movement in India is not that well developed and in vast areas of the country this contiues to exist inspite of the strict laws that feminist activists have succeded in implementing.If anything, this shows how relavant Feminism is in removing such unjust practices and the need for this movement to continue for a long time to come.

c.Under-representation of women in Parliaments.
I assert that most women stay out of politics mainly because of a variety of reasons that include:
1.Traditional Gender roles
2.Lack of suppport from families
3.Prejudice and insubordination of subordinates.

In countries like Sweden and Rwanda where these 3 things do not exist because of successful policies of feminists,women have occupied upto 47.3% and 56% of the parliament across party lines.If women in these countries can do it why not in other countries too?Why can't we continue feminism till we can achieve a parliament that truly represents the population of women?

d.Domestic Violence

I never said anything about men being murderous psychopaths, because I am a man myself.I am glad you accept that more women die due to domestic violence.

It is just that unlike in the states, in many countries, especially Islamic countries following Sharia'a law domestic violence is legally sanctioned and the perpetrators are almost exclusively male.The surah al-Nisah,34 in the Qura'an states:

"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. "

Relevant statistics:
1. Domestic violence is so common that 85 per cent of women admit to experiencing it in Afganistan. 60% of all women report being victims of multiple forms of serial violence.
2. WHO, United Nations study, 30% of women in rural Bangladesh reported their first sexual experience to be forced. About 40% report having experienced domestic violence from their intimate partner, and 50% in rural regions report experiencing sexual violence.
3.The World Health Organization reported sharply increasing rates of domestic violence in Indonesia, with over 25,000 cases in 2007. Nearly 3 in 4 cases, it is the husband beating the wife; the next largest reported category were the in-laws abusing the wife. The higher rates may be because more cases of violence against women are being reported in Indonesia, rather than going unreported, than before

These cases serve to illustrate what a wide spread problem domestic Violence is in the world.Even if 70% of the initiators are women in the US, we must consider the fact that they are physically weaker also.

e.Saudi Arabia
What you said was correct to some degree.I will now show you why the value of a woman's testimonial is considered irrelavant here:
"In a document called A Country Law Study for Saudi Arabia which is not readily available and is considered restricted
reading there it cites four reasons why women are not allowed to give evidence in a Sharia Court. It might be worth while
stating them here:
a.women by nature are forgetful and therefore testimony is unreliable
not participating in public life, they are usually not capable of understanding what they observe
b.they are dominated by men and will give testimony according to what the last man told them
c.being more emotional than men they will distort their testimony accordingly"

I completely agree with you when you claim that some women feminists are taking feminism too far.But unfortunately, the facts speak for themselves and women still have a long way to go before we can even dream of a gender -equal world.Feminism would be the only vital thing that can achieve this till then.

Kind regards,

8.Afghanistan - Ending Child Marriage and Domestic Violence Human Rights Watch (September 2013), pages 11-13
9.Violence against women World Health Organization (UN), 2012
10.Intimate Partner Violence WHO (UN), 2012
12.Gender-based violence in Indonesia, United Nations WHO (2008)
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your rebuttal! I understand that I have taken entirely to long to answer this. So should time run out, I encourage you to place your final closing argument in the comments section. I sincerely apologize. I had no intention of "running out the clock" so to speak.

Egalitarian as described by Merriam Webster: : aiming for equal wealth, status, etc., for all people.
Feminism as described by Merriam Webster's dictionary: organized activity in support of women's rights and interests.

To be sure, I am completely aware of the terms I am using and advocating. I also tend to believe you were using this point as a way to undermine my credibility. I would ask the voters to notice this.

As far as your view of historical and global feminism goes, I seriously disagree. I would go so far as to say Feminism has succeeded in a vast majority of the world. Hence, my desire to se a change to the Egalitarian movement. And definitions and uses of words change over time to reflect their current meanings. A quick example if I may, Just because the Spartans were considered the greatest warriors of their time does not mean we should arm any current military with spears. The same holds true for feminism. In it's time it did great things for equality. We must now move on.

1.Nature of equality rebuttal
I agree with this, if someone is handicapped than we should most certainly help them achieve everything a fully functional human being would if it were in our power. To do nothing would be a complete and heinous moral misstep.
However, in this statement of yours you have, without knowing it uncovered the blatant doublethink of the modern Feminist movement. Are women weak or strong? You say that women have a "handicap" which needs to be overcome which I find a bit misogynistic in and of itself. Women are better at some things than men are and men are better than some things than women. This does not, however immediately show a lack of equality. Women's bodies go through a great deal in child birth, yes. However I fail to see what this has to do with a quest for equality. Women give birth, and currently they are the only ones in the US, who have any choice about reproducing. A woman can get an abortion, or a woman can take birth control. Men do not have that luxury. Women and only women can choose whether a man must be a father. and if he refuses to take care of his child he is thrown into debtors prison. (Something that was supposedly done away with hundreds of years ago.) until he can or is willing to pay child support. I'm sorry I do not see where women get the short end of the stick in this scenario. Any other point you were trying to make with this entry I am missing. I do not see how having the ability to make babies immediately translates out to a handicap.

2.Evidence for a bias in Nutrition and Health care
The India Stat article was the only one I was able to open as the other page had 404'd I would like to take an excerpt from the conclusion of the paper that you pasted here as proof.

*However, there appears to less discrimination against the girls in terms of nutritional status. In fact there appears to be greater malnutrition amongst the boys*

As far as the mortality rates are concerned they bob back and forth between male and female based on ages. I see no discrimination here. What I see is hurting children that need food desperately. I encourage the voters to read the evidence posted in these findings.

**When you are talking about male genital mutilation I seriously hope you don't mean circumcision. The removal of the foreskin does not impair a males sexual function in any way, and is a widely recommended procedure even by modern doctors**
I most certainly AM talking about circumcision, how dare you belittle the suffering of any child. Female genital mutilation is very wrong and it is a terrible practice. Male genital mutilation is just as wrong and SIGNIFICANTLY more widely practiced. I am not here to get into a word war about which procedure does the most damage. What I am trying to show is that both sexes go through this terrible procedure. and it should stop for both sexes. As far as a circumcision being recommended. No it isn't. again you will need to provide information. I have never heard of any modern doctor anywhere recommending this act.

**Bride Burning**
At the risk of sounding callous. I understand this is a problem. I also understand that your government is working on it. At this point this is a race to stop heinous practices. Since it is illegal, and your society is taking a stand to stop it. I cannot speak more on this issue because I am not and have never been involved in your countries culture. This leaves me at a severe disadvantage.

**Under-representation of women in Parliaments.**
Lets take a look at one of these feminist Utopias shall we?
"A Brief History of Swedish Sex: How the Nation that Gave Us Free Love Redefined Rape and Declared War on Julian Assange" It cost just "5 from Amazon.
The book gives a chronological account of how Sweden was transformed from being a so called Utopian "liberal democracy" into a modern day totalitarian witchocracy. It is a destiny that Australia is frighteningly staring down the barrel of unless the political and legislative classes there can miraculously find the courage to stand up for common sense.
Sweden is a showpiece example of how ridiculously scary Radical Feminist rule is and how Sweden is an international embarrassment. Hotel workers there are trained to spy on their guests in case they should indulge in any untoward sexual activity. To be male is to be regarded by some as equivalent to Taliban terrorism. A girl being teased on a school bus can try to claim rape because she thought the boys" willies stood up.
Leading Swedish Radfem academics, Professor Christian Diesen and Eva Diesen from Stockholm University published a book calling, not for 200 men to be convicted of rape each year but 25,000. "The average Swedish man should ideally spend a year of his life in gaol [jail] due to poor sexual interaction with women."
In the blind insanity amongst the political classes the drive for "one upmanship" has left Swedish citizens with no electoral choices as the different political parties seek to show off who can be more feminist by calling for ever stiffer penalties against men only. Sex is not illegal to sell, only to be perceived to buy.
The dark tide of tyranny, directed at a single sex has created a misandric paradigm that can only be described as psychotic as the Nazis or Stalinists ever were. Sweden is a dream society for radfems where a man, accused of rape, has to prove his innocence. Anyone with an ounce of logic will know that to prove a non-event is extremely difficult.
So why is Sweden like this? The answer is, of course that when the feminist movement gets into power. It is never the equal rights seeking peace lovers that make it there. it is the Radical Feminists. I show you this to show the importance of the Egalitarian movement.

**Domestic Violence**
I find it interesting that you are absolutely determined to make DV an issue only to women and show only men as the perpetrators. I have never said people are not violent. What I have said is that it is a two way street. Yes, Sharia'a law is backwards and ignorant. However it doesn't make this a male only problem. I'm also going to bring up something that you might not have ever considered. What if, just MAYBE men in these countries didn't report domestic violence against themselves because they would be considered weak for it. Having been to both Iraq and Afghanistan I can guarantee that most males who live in a society that practices Sharia'a law would never do this. When discussing cultures like this you have to look at both sides of the coin and bring up societal normalities such as the gender stereotype of the men having to be the "Big tough provider"

**These cases serve to illustrate what a wide spread problem domestic Violence is in the world. Even if 70% of the initiators are women in the US, we must consider the fact that they are physically weaker also.**

Really? Must we? Here in the south we have a phrase for a little guy who tries to pick a fight with a much bigger person. We call him an idiot. And I don't see any reason to to treat a woman any differently. (we're going for equality here right?) If a woman steps up and strikes a man on the jaw, I would say she should be ready for a counter strike. Whether she is weaker or not ceases to be an issue. She initiated contact and she will be the one to pay the consequences for her actions.

If we want equality, we must be Egalitarians. A world where one gender is carried around on the shoulders of the other gender is not equal. It is privileged. I propose that instead of affirmative action which degrades a woman's ability to conduct herself as a completely independent and competent member of society we take up the rallying cry of equality for all.

One final point. Feminism is anti-democratic. It wants to silence all opposition, and has no respect at all for the principles of free speech that are essential for liberty. Why is it so insecure? Why does it fear, that if people hear alternatives points of view, they won't subscribe to it's ideology, if it's ideology is so wonderful? (brettcaton)
I suspect it's in the position of the Catholic Church, determinedly arresting anyone who pointed out that the Earth is not the centre of the universe.


I would like to thank my opponent for a very interesting debate and would like to thank all who have read and voted.
Very Respectfully,


I certainly have my hands full in this last post.I apologise if I sound condescending at times, but many of the claims that you make were simply too much for me to bear.

1.Definition troubles
Firstly,about the definition of Feminism, I have been giving the definition of Feminism from the 1st round itself. It is truly unfortunate that you ignored the difference that we have in the definition and are coming up with a totally new definition in the last round of the debate.You should have defined it in the 2nd round or the opening round as you are the instigator.I recommend the readers to see the definition themselves in the site and see who is misreporting.

I stand by my initial claim that feminism is the the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.
This is something I have been saying from the first round itself.Just because a few "radical" feminists may define it otherwise, it does not change the meaning of a word that is atleast 200 years old.

If it is an attempt at equal rights, then your claim that we must have an "Egalitarian" movement falls flat on its face, because feminism is an attempt at "egalitarianism".Thus, you cannot say that equality is needed while feminism is not, because I have given ample proof that the two are defined as one and the same!

2.The Nature Of the World

You seem to have a very limited and narrow world view and seem to be completely oblivious of the condition of women outside the US and Western Europe.I have conceded that in these regions the feminist movement has gone too far from the 1st round itself, but that is irrelevant as we are talking about the world at large.

I have given a number of UN and WHO studies and have even given quotes from the Qura'an itself to show how patriarchy and the subjugation of women is rampant in the Islamic world and in Asia.There are over 1 Billion muslims alone, not to mention another 1 billion Hindus in India(my country) that has a much larger land area than Europe(excluding Russia) combined.How these regions that consitute over 1/3rd of the worlds population, can be convineintly ignored by you is really astounding.On what basis you claim to have a better understanding of the condition of women than UN and WHO officials working in these areas for many years really baffles me.

Yet you totally ignore all this and go on to make rash statements like "I would go so far as to say Feminism has succeeded in a vast majority of the world."

Sorry, your opinion could not be more wrong, as anyone who reads the various reports I have cited will realise.

Bottomline:Has feminism succeeded in the West?Yes! But it is far from succeeding in the East and is the only movement that cares for women in the Islamic world.This debate is about the world at large, not just the west.

3.Nature Of equality

I am sorry if you were not able to understand my arguments, because I thought the meaning was self evident.

Some Feminist movements may seem like they are getting special priviledges for women, but in reality they are compensating for the special nature of women's bodies.The argument sought to explain why women are given prefence for custody in cases of divorce,given alimony, as well as special employment benefits like Maternity Leave.I was saying that this is not a special concession but an attempt at equality.

Women better get those choices you mentioned as they are literally risking their lives.If a guy does not want to look after his child he should have used protection, or better still, abstained from sex itself!He can't simply use a woman's body like a toy and then leave whenever he wants.If he can't pay child support, HE DESERVES to go to prison as he is forcing the woman to commit murder otherwise or to live with a lifelong responsibility that is partly his!

The ability to give birth is not a handicap, the risk to one's own life due to complications during pregnancy IS!I don't see how this is Misogynistic, it is a fact of nature.


I am sorry for not giving adequate sources in the previous round.Those are government released statistics, and unfortunately in India we have a really corrupt government.All documents should be read for the actual numbers, and most claims should be taken with a pinch of Salt.I forgot to mention how to read these documents
I reccommend that the voters read the links that were given below, as well as these links that I have provided here before forming your opinions.

5.The Remaining Issues


I concede that it is a painful practice for both men and women.However the reason why it is more widely prevalent for men was also explained in the previous round.For men, It is actually beneficial! It is a recommended practice even by modern doctors in extreme cases of infection and Phimosis.

But women who have their genitals mutilated can NEVER experience sexual pleasure their entire lives! Not to mention the fact that they are going to suffer from various complications at childbirth and are going to be much more vulnerable for to a host of other problems and infections.

This makes it much more serious that over 80% of the women in many countries live with this horrific practice.

b.Domestic Violence and Sharia'ah
Everything you wrote as a rebuttal is just your own opinion with no reliable source.What I am giving is the result of many well documented WHO and UN sponsored studies .I recommend the voters to take this into consideration, and to read my argument carefully and once again.

Also,even if the 'little guy' was wrong, there is something called 'Civility' and 'Restraint'.The world is much bigger than 'Here in the South'! I have shown how even in those countries where even Pro agrees that feminism has succeeded, more women are literally Clobbered to DEATH by their intimate partners.It is amazing how you actually seek to jusify this.


The reason I brought up Sweden is to rebut your claim that women are somehow not motivated to come to Politics.Since you have not given any rebuttals for that, completely Ignored the other example Rwanda, I am assuming you don't have anything to add in that discussion.

The private hatred you seem to have for Sweden is irrelavant and none of my concern.Even if Sweden is all the things you claim it to be, it does not alter the fact that women have the desire to take part in politics and will succeed if given a chance.

The remaining issues like Bride Burning etc. you don't really seem to be making any points so I won't bother refuting them.
Pro seems confused about what he really wants.Feminism as was defined from the 1st round of the debate was an attempt at equality between the genders.I too want Equality, and I say feminism is one such way to achieve equality.

He keeps claiming that "equality" is needed completely oblivious to the fact that feminism all over the world, ever since the word itself was coined was an attempt at exactly what both of us seem to want.

Feminism is the only source of hope for millions around the world.I humbly request voters to look beyond their immediate surroundings,and the actions of a few radicals, but at the world at large when voting.
Your Sincerely,

These are Non-Governmental Organizations that give a better picture of reality:;;
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by batgirl125 3 years ago
I do not think that any gender is superior to the other. However, I do not think that feminism is "poison". Feminism, on the whole, is a firm belief in equality. Sexism is poison. What is wrong with wanting equality? Surely, only a sexist, ignorant fool would think that the fact that men and women are equal is some sort of "poison".
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
I would have loved vote on this one.

I'm assuming the time for voting was short and I messed it.
Posted by whiteraven252 3 years ago
Thank you for the Ragnar! I'll start doing that
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
For future reference, anyone whose made comments is likely to have subscribed to the comments... Therefore posting in the comments to let us know it was ready to be voted on, can be a very helpful tool.
Posted by whiteraven252 3 years ago
I enjoyed it immensely! Take care
Posted by CynicalDiogenes 3 years ago
What else can i say?It was a nice debate Whiteraven . Hope we can get better audience participation in the nexts debates.

Posted by whiteraven252 3 years ago
Yeah... I guess not lol
Posted by CynicalDiogenes 3 years ago
And absolutely no F***s were given on that day.Awesome....:)
Posted by whiteraven252 3 years ago
Yeah I'm with Diogenes on that. I can't speak for him but I know I spent a LOT of time constructing that argument lol
Posted by CynicalDiogenes 3 years ago
Your comments and all are nice. But it would be better if you would vote too!
No votes have been placed for this debate.