The Instigator
Ferare
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Benleal13
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Feminism is inherently bigoted.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Ferare
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 589 times Debate No: 78313
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Ferare

Pro

I am of the opinion that theory, practice as well as linguistics show that the feminist movement is not concerned with equality.

Definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Benleal13

Con

The Feminism movement's core is equality, I don't know what you believe it is since your argument is vague. Essentially all that's been said is that you believe that they are, "unfairly disliking other people", In this do you mean the opposite gender?
Debate Round No. 1
Ferare

Pro

I would argue the core of feminism is to organize in support of women's rights and interests. No one denies that such areas exist where that is valid, but if you only care about one in a subset of two those will not be equal. That does not mean equality, unless it is your view that only women suffer from gendered problems. If we use America as an example, the male- to female suicide rate is at least 3-1 (1), two thirds of the homeless are males (2), 90% of work related deaths (3) and 93% o prisoners (4) are males. These problems are not seen as gendered, despite obviously being such, because they benefit the right sex. I'm not blaming feminists for these problems, I'm saying their lack of empathy becomes visible by their complete lack of interest in them. I was drafted, talk about objectification. Once again, my argument is not that women are privileged, these are just examples that feminists do not care about.
The only laws that discriminate based on sex are instituted by feminists. Duluth policies created by feminists seem designed to ignore men being abused. The sitting foreign minister of America has the audacity to say that women are the primary victims of war, because they lose their husbands, sons and fathers in war. (5) Could you imagine the reaction if Obama had came out and said men were the primary victims of breast cancer, since they might miss their relatives?
Feminism is not about equality, it never has. Could you think of one onerous situation where women wanted the obligation and the right, and not just the right?

1: https://en.wikipedia.org...
2: http://www.endhomelessness.org...
3: https://en.wikipedia.org...
4: http://www.bop.gov...
5: https://en.wikiquote.org...
Benleal13

Con

I would like to point out that the feminist movement does not "not care about" the problems men face. If you were in a group that loves McDonald's and your city does not have one and their is a group who wants a Taco Bell, your not going to think the people who want a Taco Bell are wrong, your just more focused on your McDonald's because you just happen to like it more.

This translates to prove that what Ferare thinks is flawed, its not that women necessarily don't care about these issues its just that they are more concerned with their own problems and they have plenty of those in which they need to fight for, including their rights and their equality.

Lets use America in sake of consistency with Ferare, men have almost all of the power in America's government. In the US Senate 19% of the people in the Senate are women and women only make up 18% of the Congress. Statistically women have a higher GPA when they get out of high school than men do, women have an average of 3.10 while men have an average of 2.90. Women are also more likely to go to college, 70% of women have either gone to college or have their bachelors degree, while 61% of men have gone to college or gotten their bachelor degree. Despite this gap in education men still hold more power than women and on average women only make $.77 of every dollar men make, meaning that men make 23% more than women on average despite women having a greater education.

http://thisnation.com...
http://money.cnn.com...
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov...
http://cnsnews.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Ferare

Pro

This will be divided into two parts, one part to challenge the pay-gap theory and one to argue it's irrelevant.

I dislike how you use data. Just because women are in majority in campuses today, does that mean they should make more money? If anything, the opposite. More of them obviously work low-paying, part time jobs between semesters and on the weekends. What is relevant is how the work force looks. In order to get a high paying job, you typically need experience and and a good education. Just for the sake of argument, let's say 20 years of experience. If college is four years, that means we have to look at enrollment levels from 1991 and earlier, not today in order to find out who is likely to make a lot of money. Here (1) you have enrollment levels, and as you can see all through the seventies and somewhat in the eighties, more men enrolled in college. A majority of the well educated, experienced workers in America should therefore be men. This probably increases, since men are much more stable in the workforce, this (2) isn't brand new but as late as 2010 women worked around 21 hours per week compared to men's 37 hours. The reasons for this is irrelevant for this discussion. It's also relevant what you study at higher levels. Guess who dominates the liberal arts and women's studies programs, compared to engineering and mathematics. Demanding equality of opportunity is fair, demanding equality of outcome is not.

Another perspective would be the legal aspects. If anyone who reads this know of any employer that does discriminate, I'm sure that happens from time to time, there are authorities who should be contacted. Also, if a company could save a quarter of their salary budget by simply hiring women instead of men their shareholders would be able to sue any board who hires a man for anything. That would be a completely irresponsible way to treat the shareholders investment. Once you start asking some questions around this theory it begins to look like paranoia. Why would anyone hire a man if this was true?

The same can be said about senate, strange bit of cherry-picking to single out the congress by the way. The majority of voters in America are women, more women are born and the sentencing disparity makes more men ineligible to vote. It would seem they do not vote based on genitalia, but rather policy or affiliation. Since there are 18% female members, there is obviously nothing structural that hinders them from applying or from winning. They simply seem less interested as a whole. The real question still has to be "who cares?". A few more of a couple of hundred privileged people are men. How is that relevant to the other 300 million citizens? How does it benefit men as a whole?

Regardless of if there is wage discrimination or not, you proved my initial point. Feminists do not care about men. It's about self interest rather than equality, like it's always been. I guess that's ok though, since there is freedom of speech and you can always arrange your own meeting if you want to battle suicide rates. Oh wait (3).

1: http://www.census.gov... form 226
2: http://www.pewresearch.org...
3: https://www.youtube.com...
Benleal13

Con

Benleal13 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ferare

Pro

I assume this debate is over. What a shame.
Benleal13

Con

Benleal13 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Benleal13

Con

Benleal13 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by medv4380 1 year ago
medv4380
FerareBenleal13Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made the better argument even if discard Con Forfeiting the final rounds. The Census was the best resource for this, and I was hoping for more once it was brought up. Unfortunate Con wasn't able to continue.
Vote Placed by Teaparty1 1 year ago
Teaparty1
FerareBenleal13Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit and arguments left uncontested by con