The Instigator
cha-the-politician
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
FuzzyCatPotato
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Feminism is no longer beneficial to our modern 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/8/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,949 times Debate No: 73093
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (38)
Votes (0)

 

cha-the-politician

Pro

This round is for acceptance. I believe that feminism is simply not relevant in our modern day society. Every round besides the acceptance round will be for arguments, rebuttals are accepted. Subjective arguments are immediately dismissed. Offending the opponent or talking about non debate related things are considered trolling and are absolutely banned. Do not over use caps lock and signs or symbols. Also, do not rebuttal definitions in arguments, you can do so in the comments section. Thank you.

Definitions:
Feminism: Any group that declares themselves as feminists and/or A movement for granting women political, social, and economic equality (or advantage) with men.

Our society/modern day society/our modern day society/the like: A lot of feminists point out data that are quite exclusive to third world countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. This should need no further explaining, if you try to twist my definition or haunt me with political correctness, you are doing it wrong.

Beneficial: does more good than harm to everyone.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Pro states: "This round is for acceptance."

But do they have any evidence to back this up?

Vote Neg.
Debate Round No. 1
cha-the-politician

Pro

cha-the-politician forfeited this round.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Pro has forfeited the 2nd round.
Debate Round No. 2
cha-the-politician

Pro

Sorry for forfeiting, there was a couple of urgent things I had to take care of. Since the BoP is on me, I will now give to arguments, one for the last round and one for this round.

1) Feminism had been beneficial but now we already have left the prejudice behind us. I am not saying that gender equality is no longer at presence, but only that it doesn't really matter anymore. If male truly have a significant advantage towards woman, if we really have control simply for being who we are, why would feminism even exist? And yes, you would ask me for evidence and I do have it, LOGIC. If man do have the upper hand wouldn't we want to control any outcry? Any voices? If not, wouldn't that mean we are NOT the sexist person feminism portrays us to be?

2) Feminists fail to uphold gender equality. They are hating on men and developing into a supremacy or at least gender exclusivity. If both genders are supposed to be equal, how come in every Japanese train/subway there are one whole car reserved for woman? How come feminist Marilyn Frenc's quote saying all men are rapists are still such a popular ideology with feminists? How come Room to Read and many famous foundations alike only offer academic education to women and in fact have a ad saying "Transform a Girl's Life, send her to school" on the home page and noone says anything meanwhile boy only schools are considered sexist? (St. Mary's, classic example). How come the "sorry, it's a boy" commercial was passed on to the Superbowl and even considered "Not Sexist" and to date not a single person apologised?

I get it, you may think that these are just individual examples, and you may be right, however, without feminism this would be much harder to do. What I am insisting is that we simply drop feminism as an ideology in our world. Or at least introduce some kind of Masculinism without being called sexist.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

REBUTTALS:

1) [A] "I am not saying that gender equality is no longer at presence, but only that it doesn't really matter anymore."

Why doesn't gender equality matter anymore? Women on average get paid about 81.2% of men [1], even accounting for a wide variety of factors [2][3]. Women on average are disadvantaged in numerous other ways, from sexual harassment to lack of contraceptive access to lack of reproductive rights, which males on average suffer disproportionately less.

1) [B] "If male truly have a significant advantage towards woman, if we really have control simply for being who we are, why would feminism even exist? And yes, you would ask me for evidence and I do have it, LOGIC. If man do have the upper hand wouldn't we want to control any outcry? Any voices? If not, wouldn't that mean we are NOT the sexist person feminism portrays us to be?"

Pro seems to think that feminism is attacking an all-powerful male-controlled institution that seeks to suppress feminist views -- the patriarchy. Most feminists don't think that, or anything close to that. Instead, most feminists view the system as being unfair, not oppressive. Most feminists don't see a gigantic network out to reduce female pay and suppress feminist views, but instead see that societal norms prevent women from getting equal pay and force women to do more child care, elder care, etc. Basically, it's not Big Brother who's the problem -- it's society's mindset.

2) [A] Feminists fail to uphold gender equality. They are hating on men and developing into a supremacy or at least gender exclusivity.

1: There are some female supremacists in feminism; they are not a majority, not even close. If you'd like, say, some examples of the feminist support for gender equality rather than female supremacy, see the many examples of pro-equality quotes I prove here [4].

2: Just because there are extremists in a movement does not mean the movement is bad. In the civil rights movement, the vast majority followed Dr. King and nonviolently protested for their rights. Some groups -- black supremacists, black isolationists, violent activists -- caused other people harm and brought shame to the movement. But the movement as a whole was a good thing -- it brought vastly greater levels of racial equality -- even though it had some bad apples.

2) [B] If both genders are supposed to be equal, how come in every Japanese train/subway there are one whole car reserved for woman?

1: This is a new thing to me. It appears that these cars are the result of rampant groping of women by men on Japanese subways [5]. Given that Japanese culture is extremely antifeminist, I think this is also a poor example -- the groping is a result of ongoing support of traditional gender roles, where women are submissive and must consent to sex.

2: Pro has yet to demonstrate that these train cars are a result of feminism.

2) [C] How come feminist Marilyn Frenc's quote saying all men are rapists are still such a popular ideology with feminists?

1: Is it? Consider, for example, a major feminist push to redefine rape in 2011, which ultimately changed the definition of rape from "vaginal penetration" to a much broader definition, which also now includes the rape of males, which previously was *not* rape, somehow [6].

2) [D] How come Room to Read and many famous foundations alike only offer academic education to women and in fact have a ad saying "Transform a Girl's Life, send her to school" on the home page and noone says anything meanwhile boy only schools are considered sexist? (St. Mary's, classic example).

1: Such programs are being considered sexist, by people like you. The reason such programs were not considered sexist is that women had disproportionate educational disadvantages -- as the disadvantages disappear, statements like yours will become a majority.

2: Pro has yet to demonstrate that such programs are a result of feminism.

2) [E] How come the "sorry, it's a boy" commercial was passed on to the Superbowl and even considered "Not Sexist" and to date not a single person apologised?

1: Er. The commercial in question doesn't exactly paint the person who said "Sorry, it's a boy" in a positive light -- she's painted as a rich, stupid, arrogant person [7]. What's there to apologize for?

2) [F] I get it, you may think that these are just individual examples, and you may be right, however, without feminism this would be much harder to do. What I am insisting is that we simply drop feminism as an ideology in our world.

1: These things *might* be harder to do without feminism. But so would the ongoing liberation of women in actually-repressive third-world countries and the reduction of inequality in other nations.

2) [G] Or at least introduce some kind of Masculinism without being called sexist.

1: What does Pro mean by this?

SUMMARY

Feminism is still relevant, not least because of the gender gap. Feminism does not fit Pro's description.

REFERENCES

[1] bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2011.pdf (p. 52)
[2] jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9118a9ef-0771-4777-9c1f-8232fe70a45c (p. 9-11)
[3] gender-competence.eu/files/IntConf/5.pdf (p. 6-7, 11)
[4] http://www.debate.org...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.feminist.org...
[7] https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 3
cha-the-politician

Pro

Thanks Con.
I would say it doesn't matter anymore because in our society women don't have it much harder and the work they have to do to achieve a similar amount of materialistic success as men. As of the payment gap, there are a few problems with using that as a source of argument. The minor problem is that the information is rather updated and women gets a paid maternity leave for about a year. The bigger problem is that it is a global data, not fitting with the rules of this debate. These is not factors listed under your sources. Boys are also often exposed to sexual harassment and the only reason men are not is because of natural physical advantage which men are slowly losing. As of birth control and reproductive rights, again, if you read the rules of this debate properly, third world and developing countries are out of the picture and I don't see UK and US having birth control problems right? You didn't define reproductive rights but I think you meant abortion which should totally be banned. Women should, just like men, be held responsible for their actions. Again, as of rape, we see a loophole, we can strengthen law enforcement but allowing abortion is like twisting the whole system to allow rape. Because the men do not have wombs, men don't have to care about abortion and birth control as much as women, but if they do, for some reason, well, they don't have much more rights.

As of the second rebuttal, yes, you can say they are not true feminists, but you have to admit that they are indeed sparked by feminism. And feminism is what makes them look appropriate and proportionate to some people. Quotes aren't that powerful, I just used a famous one to support my point because I was running out of time. Do you see any major feminist campaign that 1, doesn't call itself humanist/equalist and 2, provide equal service to both men and women? As of the racism thing, I have a similar view. At first it was great, Martin Luther King did a great job and achieved a lot. But today, if there are still people constantly stressing the fact that blacks don't receive equal treatment which, in some cases is true, I will be solemnly annoyed. The movement was good but if it is pushed any farther, it is a little too much.

I apologise for the Japanese example which you seemingly have no experience in (no offense, very few do). However, I can prove that I am right. (I am not going to now. If you want me to, you can tell me to in the comments section, I really am not trying to search for excuses, I simply want to stay on topic). In fact, I will post it in the comments section right afterwards.

I think you do have to remember that a lot of feminists still go by the "tell men not to rape" ideology.

The program will be perfectly fine IF it is not sexist to create a similar program that is boys only. "Pro has yet to demonstrate that such programs are a result of feminism". Umm... They are not, sort of. The fact is, without feminism, there will be no programs like this. Again, I wonder if you read the definitions and rules of the debate. Just read the definition of feminism...

Yes, it is true that the commercial didn't paint it in positive light, but that argument can be used on a lot of things. Can you defend ABC by saying Jimmy Kimmel didn't put killing all Chinese people in positive light? The fact that if the person said sorry it's a girl will cause an outcry proves my point. And you can try to prove me wrong in the comments section.

Again, what you said is true but you should have read my definition of modern society which is not correct but we have to settle for for the sake of this debate.

Yah, it wasn't very clear, but what I mean is that we need to be able to oppose feminism without sounding like trolls and keyboard warriors. Right now, this isn't entirely feminism's fault but it seems as if it is immoral to oppose feminism and anyone who is doing so is crazy and adsorb.

Now that I finished countering your rebuttals, here is another point I would like to introduce.

In our modern society, again, referring to my definition, feminists are simply too close minded. It seems as though they will just dismiss anyone who disagrees with their ideology as trolls and I think that is part of the reason it developed men hate. Men are less "proficient" at being "brainwashed" by this ideology while women, generally, become immediately attached to the concept.
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

Pro: "I would say it [the gender pay gap] doesn't matter anymore because in our society women don't have it much harder and the work they have to do to achieve a similar amount of materialistic success as men."

Women earn ~80% of comparable men, maybe ~90% if you're generous. Thus, women have to work 25% or 11% harder in the United States to achieve results comparable to men, simply because they were born female. I do not see how that could possibly be considered fair.

Pro: "The minor problem is that the information is rather updated and women gets a paid maternity leave for about a year."

1: My data is from 2010.

2: In many countries, such as the USA, there is no such maternity leave. Furthermore, how does a temporary leave for what amounts to a temporary medical condition resolve the pay gap? Unless women are on maternity leave for 20% of their time

3: In most countries that have a parental leave (to raise the kid), both men and women can use it. The only reason women "benefit" from such a leave is that women are forced into maternal roles.

Pro: "The bigger problem is that it is a global data, not fitting with the rules of this debate."

1: My data talks *only* about the USA.

Pro: "Boys are also often exposed to sexual harassment and the only reason men are not is because of natural physical advantage which men are slowly losing."

1: I agree. I cited a feminist group that helped redefine rape at the federal level, so that men can now get police assistance with their rapes, because the definition rape disincluded male rape [6]. Feminists just hate men, eh?

Pro: "As of birth control and reproductive rights, again, if you read the rules of this debate properly, third world and developing countries are out of the picture and I don't see UK and US having birth control problems right?"

1: In the EU: "The availability of abortion varies across the European Region: almost all countries allow abortion to save a woman’s life and 90% to preserve mental or physical health; 88% of them allow abortion if the foetus is thought to be impaired, or in case of rape or incest. Nearly 80% allow abortion for economic and social reasons, and slightly fewer offer abortion on request. ... In Malta and Andorra abortion is illegal on any grounds. In Poland and Ireland, legal abortion is severely limited in availability" [8]. Yet: "Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence; women seek desperate measures if they cannot obtain safe abortions. Data from Romania revealed that, when termination of pregnancy was banned by the Ceausescu regime, maternal mortality was more than 20 times higher than today" [8].

2: In the USA: Just look at the maps [9].

Pro: "You didn't define reproductive rights but I think you meant abortion which should totally be banned. Women should, just like men, be held responsible for their actions."

1: Banning abortion doesn't reduce abortions, and thus doesn't ensure that women be held responsible for their actions.

2: How does allowing abortion reduce responsibility?

Pro: "Again, as of rape, we see a loophole, we can strengthen law enforcement but allowing abortion is like twisting the whole system to allow rape."

1: ???

Pro: "As of the second rebuttal, yes, you can say they are not true feminists, but you have to admit that they are indeed sparked by feminism. And feminism is what makes them look appropriate and proportionate to some people."

1: This is just argument by assertion. Where's the evidence that feminism causes these effects?

Pro: "Quotes aren't that powerful, I just used a famous one to support my point because I was running out of time."

1: >Pro uses a quote to support case
>Con uses 20 quotes to support case
>Pro disregards Con's quote, but keeps Pro's quote

2: Prefer my quotes. There's a hella them.

Pro: "Do you see any major feminist campaign that 1, doesn't call itself humanist/equalist and 2, provide equal service to both men and women?"

1: ???

Pro: "As of the racism thing, I have a similar view. At first it was great, Martin Luther King did a great job and achieved a lot. But today, if there are still people constantly stressing the fact that blacks don't receive equal treatment which, in some cases is true, I will be solemnly annoyed. The movement was good but if it is pushed any farther, it is a little too much."

1: Why? Blacks are vastly underemployed as a result of societal and historical discrimination, kind of like women.

2: Pro misses my point. Pro talks about feminist extremists; I talk about the average feminist. Just cause feminist extremists are crazy doesn't mean feminism is.

Pro: "I apologise for the Japanese example which you seemingly have no experience in (no offense, very few do)."

1: Is fine.

Pro: "However, I can prove that I am right. (I am not going to now. If you want me to, you can tell me to in the comments section, I really am not trying to search for excuses, I simply want to stay on topic). In fact, I will post it in the comments section right afterwards."

1: Uh, OK.

Pro: "The program will be perfectly fine IF it is not sexist to create a similar program that is boys only. "Pro has yet to demonstrate that such programs are a result of feminism". Umm... They are not, sort of. The fact is, without feminism, there will be no programs like this. Again, I wonder if you read the definitions and rules of the debate. Just read the definition of feminism..."

1: Many programs are turning to equal treatment for both genders.

Pro: "Yes, it is true that the commercial didn't paint it in positive light, but that argument can be used on a lot of things. Can you defend ABC by saying Jimmy Kimmel didn't put killing all Chinese people in positive light? The fact that if the person said sorry it's a girl will cause an outcry proves my point. And you can try to prove me wrong in the comments section."

1: Let's say I have a commercial, and in it a neo-Nazi says something in passing and the main character of the commercial gets creeped out. Do I need to apologize for the neo-Nazi?

Pro: "Again, what you said is true but you should have read my definition of modern society which is not correct but we have to settle for for the sake of this debate."

1: Actually, killing feminism in developed nations is a sure way to kill it in nondeveloped nations, since much of the support for feminism in Africa and Asia comes from the West.

2: Women still aren't equal in the USA, EU, Japan, or South Korea; there's still impact in "modern society".

Pro: "Yah, it wasn't very clear, but what I mean is that we need to be able to oppose feminism without sounding like trolls and keyboard warriors. Right now, this isn't entirely feminism's fault but it seems as if it is immoral to oppose feminism and anyone who is doing so is crazy and adsorb."

1: Thousands if not millions of people oppose feminism without repercussion. Look at the Republican Party.

Pro: "In our modern society, again, referring to my definition, feminists are simply too close minded. It seems as though they will just dismiss anyone who disagrees with their ideology as trolls and I think that is part of the reason it developed men hate. Men are less "proficient" at being "brainwashed" by this ideology while women, generally, become immediately attached to the concept."

1: Sources for brainwashing and women-attraction?

2: Why are feminists any more close-minded than, MRAs?

[8] euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Life-stages/sexual-and-reproductive-health/activities/abortion/facts-and-figures-about-abortion-in-the-european-region
[9] fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/maps-of-access-to-abortion-by-state/
Debate Round No. 4
cha-the-politician

Pro

Thanks con.
I understand that your data is from 2010 and that still makes it five years behind. You could get data from this year, and the information could be easily manipulated as most companies don't reveal their employee pay rates. America has an unpaid 12 week maternity leave according to Wikipedia which isn't a lot compared to other countries but is still something not offered to their male co workers. Again, the data can not be confirmed and therefore shouldn't be your main argument or even an argument. Parental leave is different from maternity leave.

Yes, I was only rebutting an argument and even if feminist groups redefined rape, it still doesn't prove my point wrong. Boys are just as vulnerable as girls.

I know, a lot of people oppose feminism but usually they are simply considered sexist or trolling. The republican party isn't that anti feminist. AND they lost quite a few elections

Sources... Well, brainwashing really wasn't a good word but you do realise that most feminists are women and most women are feminists. Again, if you want to prove me wrong you can just go ahead and ask every women you see whether they are feminists. They are still majority. And yes, they are quite close minded, at least the ones I have see. It seems like they would not consider any other ideology and dismiss any attempt proving them wrong as trolling. And what is MRA? This is voting period so I am not going to add anything.

Feminism is NOT beneficial to our modern society. Vote PRO!
FuzzyCatPotato

Con

REBUTTALS:

Pro: "I understand that your data is from 2010 and that still makes it five years behind."

1: My data might be 5 years behind, but it's infinitely more recent than Pro's source -- none.

2: Pro has failed to show why 5 years is significant; reject this attack on my source.

3: 5 years is in fact insignificant, given that the wage gap has not shifted much in the past decade.



Pro: "You could get data from this year, and the information could be easily manipulated as most companies don't reveal their employee pay rates."

1: I *could*. I don't need to, because Pro hasn't provided a better alternate source.



Pro: "America has an unpaid 12 week maternity leave according to Wikipedia which isn't a lot compared to other countries but is still something not offered to their male co workers."

1: Yeah, I don't think an unpaid 12 weeks of "we can't fire you yet" counts as maternal leave.

2: This also means that Pro's argument that women get compensated via having a maternal leave is effectively null -- they don't get paid for it, meaning it doesn't factor into their pay in a significant way.



Pro: "Again, the data can not be confirmed and therefore shouldn't be your main argument or even an argument."

1: Pro states that the "data can not be confirmed" yet consistently fails to invalidate the data that I have presented, which univocally shows a wage gap between women and men. Pro has failed to provide *any* counterstudies. You, judge, *must* accept that a wage gap exists and hurts women in the workforce.



Pro: "Yes, I was only rebutting an argument and even if feminist groups redefined rape, it still doesn't prove my point wrong. Boys are just as vulnerable as girls."

1: Pro first argued that feminist groups argue all men are rapists and are insensitive to male rape. I showed that major feminist groups advocate for expanding coverage for *all* genders and types of rape. Pro's viewpoint is, in fact, the *opposite* of the truth.

2: Sexual violence affects both males and females. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that 18.3% (1 in 5) of females have been unconsensually penetrated or recieved an unconsensual penetration attempt, compared to 1.4% (1 in 71) of males [10]; furthermore, 4.8% (1 in 21) of males reported that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime [10]; furthermore, an estimated 13% in of females and 6% of males have experienced sexual coercion in their lifetime and 27.2% of females and 11.7% of males have experienced unwanted sexual contact [10]. 16.2% (1 in 6) of females and 5.2% (1 in 19) of males have experienced stalking victimization in their lifetime [10]. 35.6% (1 in 3) of females and 28.5% (1 in 4) males have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Sexual violence is a massive issue and should not be downplayed. However, sexual violence is statistically more significant for females than for males, especially for more violent and invasive forms of sexual violence.



Pro: "I know, a lot of people oppose feminism but usually they are simply considered sexist or trolling."

1: That's because a lot of the people who oppose feminism *are* sexist or trolling. Of the others, almost all are able to voice their views without opposition.



Pro: "The republican party isn't that anti feminist. AND they lost quite a few elections"

1: The party that thinks "Kinder, Kuche, Kirche" is a good domestic role for women is antifeminist in my books.



Pro: "[M]ost feminists are women and most women are feminists."

1: And? Most black civil rights advocates were black. Does this invalidate civil rights?



Pro: "And yes, they are quite close minded, at least the ones I have see. It seems like they would not consider any other ideology and dismiss any attempt proving them wrong as trolling. And what is MRA? "

1: Again, some evidence (even analytics) is necessary to support this claim.

2: MRAs are "men's rights activists", the modern antifeminism [11].



REASONS FOR DECISION

Conduct: Neither.

Grammar: Neither.

Arguments: Clear Con vote. Pro had the burden to prove Feminism is not beneficial to modern society. They have failed this burden. Pro has no standing arguments as to why feminism is hurtful. Feminism has not been shown to censor opposing opinions. Feminists do not promote false ideas about rape. Feminists aren't necessarily closeminded. In opposition, Con has cited studies to show that a wage gap exists and that Pro's responses do not affect this fact, which means that feminism is still relevant in its efforts to seek equality. Con also showed that feminists opposed rape and male rape, showing positive impact on today's society. In summary, Con had no burden, but fulfilled it; Pro had a burden, but failed it.

Sources: Clear Con vote. Con used 11 sources; Pro used 0. Con cited government studies; Pro didn't.

Vote Con!



REFERENCES

[10] cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf
[11] rationalwiki.org/wiki/MRA
Debate Round No. 5
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cha-the-politician 1 year ago
cha-the-politician
Please excuse my forfeiteing the second round. I did list two arguments on the third.
Posted by cha-the-politician 1 year ago
cha-the-politician
@Blade-of-truth
I think there is 5.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 1 year ago
FuzzyCatPotato
no idea
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
Who are the judges for this debate besides myself? I'm somewhat surprised by the lack of votes on a judge-only debate. I have to go run errands for a few hours, but I'll be voting on this myself tonight around 10 pm.
Posted by cha-the-politician 1 year ago
cha-the-politician
@zarroette
by the way, I am male. In fact, I am a boy.
Posted by cha-the-politician 1 year ago
cha-the-politician
WHEN DID SOMEONE START A DEBATE IN THE COMMENTS sECTION?!
Posted by hect 1 year ago
hect
make the debate 72 hours and ill accept
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
RFD (1/1)

All arguments dropped by Saska via his angry, Ad Hominem response, thus argument points go to Zarroette. Conduct to Zarroette for the personal insults staged by Saska. It was a shame that Saska did not respond to Zarroette's points in a worthwhile manner, but instead filed for mental bankruptcy with a hissyfit.
Posted by Saska 1 year ago
Saska
@Zarroette

Thanks for your repsonses. It's good to know that your opinions (which is all you have) don't stem from an informed view. I can comfortably ignore your rantings as irrational BS. You'd think a female would be interested in understanding a thing or two about females. Maybe you'll grow up someday.
No votes have been placed for this debate.