The Instigator
Youngastronomer
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
6gty5jf
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Feminism is not equality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
6gty5jf
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2017 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 756 times Debate No: 101226
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Youngastronomer

Pro

I'd like to debate any feminist out here because it isn't equality. Feminism has quite the hypocrisy considering men are justhe as oppressed as women but feminists are silent on them but shed millions of tears for women.

Con will argue this is false and feminists are targeting equality.

Rounds
1) Acceptance
2) Rebuttals
3) Defense

Rules
1) No trolling
2) No profanity
3) No ad hominem
4) No forfeiting
5) Use evidence and sources.
6gty5jf

Con

I accept the terms of your debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Youngastronomer

Pro

Thanks for accepting.

Feminism is full of angry women who hate men, some want them all killed. They claim to get paid less, but this is not the case, the pay gap you see is average payment, this means women generally work less than men, men do the most dangerous jobs in the world, war, taxi driving potential killers, boxing, police work, bouncer, labour, etc.

Feminism complains about men being rapists, but there are women rapists too. Feminists don't even realise 100-140,000 men are raped in prison
https://www.hrw.org...

http://womenagainstfeminism.com...

https://ec.europa.eu...
6gty5jf

Con

It's my pleasure to debate you.

1) Establishing the definition of feminism

From Wiktionary {1}


Noun

feminism (countable and uncountable, plural feminisms)

1. (obsolete) The state of being feminine; femininity. [from 1851; less common after 1895] Q95;
2. A social theory or political movement which argues that legal and social restrictions on women must be removed in order to bring about equality of both sexes in all aspects of public and private life.


From Encyclopedia Britannica {2}

Feminism, the belief in the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. Although largely originating in the West, feminism is manifested worldwide and is represented by various institutions committed to activity on behalf of women"s rights and interests.

From Merriam Webster {3}

Definition of feminism

1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests


2) Conclusions from definition

As you can clearly see, equality is inherent to the definition of feminism. If someone violates the tenets of feminism, i.e., equality of sexes, it is not the definition of the word that is compromised, but merely the integrity as a feminist of the individual that violates it.

A simple syllogism suffices to demonstrate this:

Belief in God and Jesus Christ makes one Christian
"Man A" believes in God and Jesus Christ
"Man A" is a Christian

And of course, the contrary holds true as well:

Disbelief in God and Jesus Christ makes one non-Christian
"Man B" doesn't believe in God
"Man B" is not a Christian

No one would argue that if a man who claims to be Christian denounces the existence of God, Christians no longer believe in God. That man simply stops being a Christian. This same logic will apply to feminism as well.

Belief in the equality of sexes makes one feminist
"Woman A" believes women are superior to men
"Woman A" is not a feminist

Therefore your premise is flawed, in that the conduct you described would not be the conduct of feminists.

3) Refutation of opponent's points

Of the three points my opponent makes, none actually support his premise that feminism is not equality, as they are all sensationalist promulgations with no facts to support them.

You claim some women hate all men and wish they were all dead. This is probably true, as there are many women in the world, and it's more likely than not that at least one of them feels this way. However, the same applies to men as well, and there is likely at least one man that wishes all women were dead. Neither of these points say anything about either group as a whole, as those individuals have no mandate to speak for those collective bodies, whether the body in question is man, woman, or feminism.

The claim about the wage gape has no bearing on my argument. If a (female)feminist is being payed less for the same work as a man, she would no doubt be upset and wish to rectify the situation. If she is being payed equally then she will be content.

As far as employment goes, women work in every profession mentioned by my opponent.

I consider these three points I've made so far as self-evident, and believe they require no substantiation.

Pro's testament that there are also female rapists is not salient to the discussion. It is also worth noting that the two sentences in conjunction in his second paragraph seem to imply that men are being raped by women in prisons. The is completely untrue, and the source used to support it is a study on men being raped by other men in prison. Of course in the U.S., the world leader in incarceration rates{4}, this couldn't possibly happen as prisons are gender segregated.

The second source provided by my opponent is just a blog reflecting the opinions of one who is not an authority on the subject, and is not credible for sourcing.

4) Summary

In summary I would like to leave a quote that bolsters my two avenues of argument (definition of feminism, poor sourcing and presentation from my opponent).

"Feminism is an interesting word. It suffers from being an ""ism".

First, people make the assumption that feminism is only for women. Second, people mistake feminism for an ideology, something you either believe in or not, and third, many people still view feminists as dogmatic or dangerous.

The irony is that these stereotypes are exactly what anti-feminists have wanted us to believe, since the suffrage movement began in the 19th century. As I see it, true feminism is simply to stand up for equality. In the words of Gloria Steinem, "a feminist is anyone who recognises
(sic) the equality and full humanity of women and men."

Where does this come from you ask? It is an excerpt from an article titled "Equality isn't just a women's issue, it's a human one", written by Carlos Moedas. The interesting thing about this is that I am not the one who introduced this article to the debate. This is a direct excerpt from the article linked to by Pro's third source, which contradicts his own argument, and strongly supports mine.

{1} https://en.wiktionary.org...

{2} https://www.britannica.com...

{3} https://www.merriam-webster.com...

{4} https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Youngastronomer

Pro

My opponent uses the definition to see what feminism targets, which is supposedly equality, actions speak louder than words, feminism is also not required since women have plenty of privileges which we don't have. "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests". It's equality, why not everyone with the same rights? Women have plenty of rights we don't have.

1) Women have the right to genital integrity

Regardless of how you personally feel about the practice of circumcision (I personally find it barbaric, cruel and completely unjustifiable), the legal fact is that infant girls are protected against any genital cutting of any kind and infant boys are not. Many feminists will argue that female genital mutilation (FGM) is a magnitude of brutality beyond male genital mutilation and while that may be true, I do not find the "it's only a little bit brutal" argument to be very compelling. It's like saying cutting off a toe is okay because cutting off a foot is much worse. Ultimately, the argument is immaterial to the fact that women have the legal right to be protected from having their body parts sliced off. Men do not.

2) Women have the right to vote without agreeing to die

In the US, citizens are free to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to democratically choose their own leaders through the process of casting a ballot in an election once they reach the age of 18. Women achieve this right by the simple act of surviving 18 years. Men may not actualize their basic rights as a citizen without first signing a Selective Service card, in which they agree that at the discretion of the democratically elected government, they will take up arms and die to defend their liberty and way of life. The draft. Men may vote if, and only if, they agree they will face death if required. Women have no such obligation, but they do get to vote for the governments that can potentially send men to meet death. Again, regardless of how you feel about the draft, women have the right to vote without agreeing to be drafted. Men don't.

3) Women have the right to choose parenthood

I've written about this before, but it is worth repeating. Women have three options to absolve themselves of all legal, moral, financial and social responsibility for children they did not intend and do not want. Women may abort the child before it is born, they may surrender the child for adoption without notifying or identifying the father or they may surrender the infant under Safe Haven laws and walk away from all responsibility and obligation. Women cannot be forced or coerced into parenthood, but they are legally allowed to force men into financing their reproductive choices. In many states, men can be forced into financial responsibility for children whom they did not biologically father. As long as a particular man is identified as the father, he will be held accountable. Paternity fraud is legal. In no state is legal paternal surrender permitted without the express agreement of the mother.

Again, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with legal paternal surrender, the fact remains that women have the legal right to choose parenthood. Men do not.

4) Women have the right to be assumed caregivers for children

When parental relationships irretrievably break down, current custody laws assume one primary caregiver (almost always a woman) and one tertiary caregiver (almost always a man). In order to win equal or shared custody, the tertiary caregiver must litigate to prove they are worthy of equal parenting, a proposition that is not only very difficult to "prove", it is also very expensive. The legal presumption of shared parenting upon divorce "that children have a legal right to an equal relationship with both their mother and their father following relationship breakdown" is strongly resisted by the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other feminist organizations who know that women will almost always win custody of children under the default laws. In actual fact, men who can afford to purse legal remedies and challenge primary custody stand a good chance of winning, because women do not have the market cornered on loving or caring for children. So while the law does not specifically indicate that custody will be awarded to women, the de facto result of primary/tertiary caregiver custody law is that women have a legal right to be assumed caregivers for children. Men do not.

5) Women have the right to call unwanted, coerced sex rape

The original FBI definition of rape specifically identified women as the victims, excluding the possibility of male rape victims. When the FBI updated that, it did so in way that includes a small minority of male rape victims but excluded most male rape victims by retaining the "penetration" clause. Penetration of any orifice must occur for rape to have happened. The FBI does collect another set of statistics though, under the category of "other sexual assault", it's the awkwardly named "made to penetrate" category, which includes men who were coerced, tricked or bullied into penetrative sex with women they would otherwise not have had sex with. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey similarly considers the two types of assault separately, despite the fact that occurrences are virtually identical. 1.27M women report rape (p.18) and 1.26M men report "made to penetrate" (p.19). By collecting the information under separate categories, following the legal definitions, women have the right to have their rapes called "rape". Men do not.

Why does any of this matter? Feminism is under attack in the popular media for failing to address real problems that have real consequences for real people. Despite insisting that feminism cares for everyone, and wants equality for everyone, the facts suggest the opposite is true. Women have more rights than men and those discrepancies need to be addressed. But more importantly, gender is just one thing that defines who a person is, what advantages and disadvantages they might have, what opportunities are in front of them, or foreclosed. Class, wealth, race, ability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, all of these things have a profound influence on individuals, and the only way to understand how a specific person can be helped or hindered is to see that person as a human being, first and foremost. Perhaps the reason I don"t need feminism is because what I really need is humanism. And maybe you do, too.

Women can accuse men of rape without evidence

Yes they can and it has happened a lot of times, when evidence is proved that they have not done the crime, the one who did the damage faces nothing and goes away freely. Is this fair? I don't think so. When men report rapes without evidence, they'd get laughed at or they'd get told something like "Bet you enjoyed it" or some rubbish.

"Guilty until proven innocent"
What's this supposed to be? Anyone who is accused must be guilty? Is this fair as well? Don't think so, actions speak louder than words, if feminism is truly equality, then it barely exists, it's just a definition not being used.

Why aren't feminists complaining about the problems men face? My opponent only uses definition for evidence, but feminists seem to be using otherwise?

Funny how feminists will run to the dictionary to argue that "feminism" is about equality but shy away from analyzing what a root word and a suffix add up to.

And let's assume that feminism DOES mean "equality". Fine. Now it's up to every so called "feminist" to prove they measure up. The problem is, very very few of them do measure up. Christina Hoff Sommers comes to mind as one who does measure up.

{1} http://thehill.com...

{2} http://thoughtcatalog.com...

{3} http://womenagainstfeminism.com...
6gty5jf

Con

To begin with, the vast substance of my opponent's text does not address my points at all, in fact it seems to not even acknowledge the existence of my side of the debate, instead following a narrative of women having more rights than men. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I have opinions on this, but they are hardly pertinent, as the premise of the debate is the definition of feminism(Feminism is not equality), not that women or men are treated better or worse than each other in modern society. There is an explanation as to why Pro's argument only lightly skirts mine at the beginning and end, and not at all in the core of it. This is a bit embarrassing for me, but here it is:

http://thoughtcatalog.com...

Youngastronomer's entire dissertation from "1) Women have the right to genital integrity..." to "...And maybe you do, too." is taken verbatim from this article, written by Janet Bloomfield. It is certainly not standard conduct in a debate to have one side call upon a third party to come and argue their case for them. It is a minor detail, but seeing as the vast majority of my opponents response was written by someone else, I feel that this occurrence merits notice.

I have explained in the first paragraph why the aforementioned text does not refute my arguments, and the same rebuttal there applies to the points of "Women can accuse men of rape without evidence" and "Guilty until proven innocent", namely the fact that we aren't discussing the current conditions of sexual-based institutional biases.

My opponent also raises the etymology of the word "feminism", positing that if you are going to adhere to the narrow dictionary definition of feminism, why not take it a step further and and use the origin of the word. He also claims that feminists " shy away from analyzing what a root word and a suffix add up to", implying that that analysis will contest with the views on feminism I have purveyed. This is not at all the case. The word feminine means "of the female sex...", "feminine, female; with feminine qualities, effeminate"{1}, and the suffix -ism means "word-forming element making nouns implying a practice, system, doctrine, etc."{2}. To summarize, the most literally meaning would be, "the practice of being feminine". Actually, when the word was coined(c. 1851){3}, this literal interpretation would have been more insulting to women, as at the time traits valued in woman were things now seen as negative characteristics, such as complacency and servility. In conclusion the etymology of the word provides no support for Pro's case of feminism meaning superiority of women.

Finally, this debate is a contest of semantics. Semantics are a sub-field of semiotics, or the study of symbols. Semantics is specifically the study of words(symbols) and meanings. Words are symbols, and they connote meanings. When I say "chair", you can interpret that symbol and think of a chair. This basic principle is what I outlined in my previous syllogism, a principle that was never even contested by my opponent. Here is an example to reiterate.

Currently 10% of Protestant "Christians" in America don't believe in God{4}. Let's imagine this number rose to 51%. Would we now say that Christians are people who don't believe in God? Of course not, because the meaning of someone who believes in Yah'Weh and Christ being Christian has seniority over this new "Definition". That meaning has long since been codified as what it is today. This applies to feminism as well. If Pro wanted to defeat my argument, his task would be to demonstrate why such unimpugnable authorities, such as Merriam Webster and Encyclopedia Britannica, are erroneous in their definition of feminism, a feat which he never even attempted. Pro has blundered fatally in using the wrong word to represent what he was trying to argue against. Perhaps a more appropriate premise for my opponent would have been, "Third-Wave Feminism is not equality".

{1}http://www.etymonline.com...

{2}http://www.etymonline.com...

{3}http://www.etymonline.com...

{4}http://www.simpletoremember.com...
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 1 year ago
FuzzyCatPotato
RFD:
Agree before: Con
Agree after: Con
Conduct: Con. Pro copy-pasted substantial portions of their argument.
Spelling and grammar: Tied
Convincing arguments: Con. Con's burden of proof was "feminists are targeting equality." They argued that, definitionally, a feminist must support [gender] equality. Pro failed to contest this definition on any substantial grounds -- instead providing examples in which feminists failed to promote equality. Con repeatedly argues that this debate is about definitions, and Pro fails to provide substantive rebuttals here as well. (Pro instead provides [1] examples of feminists purportedly being against men (angry at men & male rape), which Con refutes each in turn and [2] examples of women purportedly having more rights, which Con calls out as copy-pasted and irrelevant to the question of whether feminists pursue equality.) As such, Pro loses on definitional ground.
Sources: Tied
Posted by Iacov 1 year ago
Iacov
First off I would like to say Bravo to both debaters.
Unfortunately I have had my voting rights restricted and cannot vote without posting my vote in the comments section, apologies.
Agree with before: Pro
Agree with after: Pro
Conduct: Tied
Spelling and Grammer: Tied
Convincing Arguement: Con. Con ultimately I believe did much better at staying on the topic of the debate, had the debate been "the modern feminist movement doesn't represent equality" I likely would have awarded this to pro but seeing as it was feminism as a whole being debated and not its modern representation I feel con did much better at creating a clear arguement while staying on topic.
Sources: Tied
Posted by Youngastronomer 1 year ago
Youngastronomer
Again, apologies, it's just based on irritation and the hypocrisy that the feminism movement has.
Posted by Iacov 1 year ago
Iacov
Pro you should avoid using general statements such as "Feminism is full of angry women who hate men". Had I been your opponent I would have torn you apart just because of this.
Posted by Youngastronomer 1 year ago
Youngastronomer
I apologize for my little spelling mistake. "Justhe as"
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JimShady 1 year ago
JimShady
Youngastronomer6gty5jfTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: First off, I hate feminism and what it really is, not what the "definition" is, so of course I go with the Youngastronomer in agreement before and after. Unfortunately, that awards him no points. S/G is tied. As for conduct, I think, 6gty5jf tries to say that Pro plagiarizes, but he properly sourced. Also, that's ad hominem, a rule breech. He/she does it again later (involving a source), so Pro wins conduct. As for the convincing arguments, I feel Con explained his/her better and addressed the topic more in full. He gave definitions of supposed feminism, and although Pro tried countering, he gave no true counter definition. Also, I like Con's analogy of a non-believer and being Christian, that was good. Pro brings up a good point in that the definition is wrong, but is not specific enough. And in the end, Con points out the opponent has a bad source (ad hominem), so I award him/her reliable sources (also she/he had more). Good job to both sides, better to Contender.