The Instigator
Pfalcon1318
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Burncastle
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Feminism is not sexist.

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,926 times Debate No: 53440
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (2)

 

Pfalcon1318

Con

Intended to do this with a specific user, however, they have not responded yet, and i do not think they will, so i am opening up this debate.

A few Rules before we begin:

1. We will be using the definition of feminism from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... states that "[Feminism is] The advocacy [or support thereof] of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes"

2. We will be using the definition of Sexism from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... states that "[Sexism is] Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."

-I hope these terms are generally understood, however, i shall include links to the preferred webpage to use for the definition of these terms.

-Prejudice: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;
-Stereotyping- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;
-Discrimination: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;

-All of these are used in the verb form.

*"typical" here is to be considered within the informal connotation, which suggests that Sexism is expected, or popularly associated with women, though not necessarily usually directed at women,*

3. All propositions must be supported, and sources must be utilized. "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."- C. Hitchens

4. Logical Fallacies may be pointed out, but the truth or untruth of the conclusion must be independently assessed. (See the Fallacist's Fallacy here > http://www.logicalfallacies.info...)

5. I have presented the webpage that i used to produce these definitions. As such, they are not to be considered a debatable topic.

Round 1 is to be used for Acceptance, and a brief statement of your position in relation to the resolution.

Round 2 is to be used for Opening Arguments ; Rebuttals by PRO will be dismissed by myself and the audience,

Round 3 is to be used for Rebuttals. Defense by PRO will be dismissed by myself and the audience.

Round 4 is to be used for Defense, and a Cross Examination Question.

Round 5 is for Closing Arguments.

NO NEW ARGUMENTS MAY BE PRESENTED IN ROUND 5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I shall present my brief statement in syllogistic form:

1. Any movement which actively supports bias towards, or against, a single group within the Legal, Social, and Political arenas. is discriminatory.

2. Any movement that does this on the basis of gender is sexist.

3. Feminism does this.

C. Therefore, Feminism is sexist.

I shall unpack this as this debate moves forward. This is simply a brief statement of what i intend to try to prove.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you wish to accept, comment with "I accept" and a paraphrase of the above resolution, THIS DEBATE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCEPT.
Burncastle

Pro

I accept this interesting challenge.

I need some clarification for round 5: Are we allowed to answer the cross examination question? If not, that means you won't be able to answer mine.

My position is (obviously) : Feminism is not sexist.

Since the BoP is on both of us, I will:

1) Try to demonstrate why my opponent's syllogism is flawed.

2) Try to demonstrate why, based on my opponent's definitions, feminism is not sexist.

I look forward to your arguments.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Pfalcon1318

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting. Good luck to you PRO.

Here is a revised version of my syllogism, with the word "this" removed and replaced with the phrase to which it refers:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Any movement which actively supports bias towards, or against, a single group within the Legal, Social, and Political arenas. is discriminatory.

2. Any movement that [actively supports bias towards, or against, a single group within the Legal, Social, and Political arenas] on the basis of gender is sexist.

3. Feminism does [actively supports bias towards, or against, a single group within the Legal, Social, and Political arenas on the basis of gender.]


C. Therefore, Feminism is sexist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I say "actively supports bias...", I am explicitly referring to the support of laws and treatments that place on group at a disadvantage when compared to another. In this debate, men are my primary reference group.

In the definitions provided in Round 1, a very critical word is "grounds", which can be considered the justification for belief in something. In this instance, that would be the belief in the advocacy of women's rights. The goal in mind is the equality of the sexes, and Feminists (those who agree with and support the tenants of Feminism) see advocacy of women's rights as the means to the ends.

For this debate, I shall be looking at such things as Selective service, and those things that come with it, Domestic Violence, and the way feminist theory views it, and Sexual Violence. I understand that this is Feminist Theory, and may not be characteristic of the beliefs of all feminists, but these are the tenants used to justify Feminist Advocacy.

Selective Service and the Draft
While we cannot blame Feminists for the existence of the Draft and Selective Service, in any of its worldly interations, we can argue that feminism has allowed the Draft and Selective Service to specifically effect men. At least in the United States, men are, by law, required to sign up for Selective Service in order to gain access to voting and federal aid [1]. Not signing up for Selective Service is a felony, and can actually result in a male losing his right to vote. This seems to me to be an issue that Feminism should address, on grounds of the equality of the sexes, however, feminists at large choose not to protest male-only Selctive Service and Conscription. Two options exist: Either A) support compulsory public service for women, or B) Support the abolishment of Selective Service. Since it's inception in the late 19th century, Feminsm as a social movement has chosen to do neither. This is to choose to support an inequity between the sexes, and given that this is support of a law that affects men only, this is to also choose to support a bias against men.

Why do I bring up the Draft and Selective Service? I bring it up because Feminism is supposedly a movement to support gender equality, but it chooses to only support those things that benefit women (voting), over those things that would harm them (compulsory public service). While i would not suggest women should be conscripted when the need arises, I am arguing that there should be a similar system by which women must buy their right to vote.


Domestic Violence, Rape Law and the Duluth Model

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is based upon the Duluth Model, which suggests that domestic violence (DV) is a tool used by men to exert control over their spouse. This act changed intimate partner violence into a sexually directional offense, making it more likely that a man will be arrested for retaliating to his spouse’s abuse than his spouse being arrested for abusing him. While the VAWA does ensure that female victims of DV are protected, it has the negative consequence of preventing the protection of male victims. In this instance, a women’s right to equal and fair treatment under the law is not being applied. In keeping with the above definition of Feminism, and what “equality” would entail in this instance, a male abuser and female abuser would be held to the same standard. This would be a major piece of what feminism should take into account. While this may advocate for women’s interests, avoiding domestic violence, it does not provide equality for the sexes. Rather, in this instance, it shifts the balance of power in such a way that, even if he retaliates, a man is more likely to be arrested that a woman, in keeping with the Duluth Model. Ideally, advocating for women’s rights and interests would entail pushing for recognition under the law as a fully capable citizen, meaning a female abuser is recognized as an abuser, as much as a male victim is recognized as a victim. A program that holds women in “victim” status dehumanizes them because it makes the assumption that not only is abuse sexually direction, but also that women are wholly incapable of abuse, and solely capable of self-defense. As it stands, women are recognized as capable of the “positive” human characteristics (leadership, strength, intellect, compassion, etc.) but not recognized as capable of the “negative” human characteristics (aggression, ferocity, etc.) under the law. Whereas a man can be charged with sexual harassment for speaking inappropriately, a woman cannot be charged with rape, even after drugging and forcing a man to engage in sexual intercourse with her. While the dictionary definition of rape entails non-consensual intercourse, the legal definition entails penetration, making it impossible for a woman to rape a man through vaginal intercourse, regardless of his ability to consent to intercourse. Bringing alcohol, or other mind altering substances, adjusts the ability of an individual to consent. However, it is current law that if a drunk man has sex with a drunk woman, he can be charged with rape, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the encounter. If she initiates intercourse with him, it can be considered rape. Both individuals are drunk, both incapable of consent, and yet he can be charged with rape. There have been no pushes to change this. In fact, VAWA is the main reason the current situation exists. VAWA is the epitome of feminist legislation. “Women” is part of the title, so that suggest that these things are Women’s issues. Once again, there is the issue of equal recognition under law, the “equality of the sexes” is being adjusted by “organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests”. Even beyond this, it would be an intelligent inference to believe that being recognized as a full human, capable of good AND evil, is a part of feminism.


Such things should be recognized as sexist. In each of these examples, women are being granted rights and protections that are not afforded to men, and sometimes even taking away rights and protections that should be afforded them. This creates bias against men, and for women, based solely upon thier gender, which leads me to believe that, per the definitions provided, Feminism is sexist.

I look forward to PRO's responses.

[2]nhttp://www.theduluthmodel.org......


[3] ttp://www.whitehouse.gov......


[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com......


[5] http://www.justice.gov......


[6] http://online.wsj.com......

Burncastle

Pro

According to the rules, I can't make my rebuttal now, so I will skip directly to my second point: Based on my opponent's definition, feminism is not sexist. Now that I start to think about it, I don't really have a BoP, since my opponent is the one claiming that something (feminism) has a particular characteristic (sexist). Nonetheless, I will do my best to provide good reasons to reject the assertion that feminism is sexist.

Reminder:

Definition of feminism as stated by my opponent: '[Feminism is] The advocacy [or support thereof] of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes"

Definition of sexism as stated by my opponent: "[Sexism is] Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."


The definition of sexism contains three important words: Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination. I will address them one by one.


Prejudice
:

Definition: 'Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience'
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Does feminism advocate prejudice on the basis of sex? According to the definition of feminism, it does not; feminism advocates equal rights between men and women. Experience (as well as reason) as thought us that a society in which everyone possesses equal rights is better of than one where that isn't the case. Therefore, one can not say that feminism advocates prejudice on the basis of sex.

Stereotype:

Definition: 'A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing'
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Does feminism use stereotypes on the basis of sex? According to the definition of feminism, it does not; advocating equality between men and women is actually a good way to ELIMINATE stereotypes, which historically have been mostly directed at women (a few examples: http://www.businessinsider.com...). Therefore, one can not say that feminism is using stereotypes on the basis of sex.

Discrimination:

Definition: 'The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex'
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Does feminism advocate the use of discrimination on the basis of sex? Again, according to the definition of feminism, it does not; advocating equal rights is a good way to make sure that we live in a JUST system. Feminism actually seeks to eliminate the idea that men and women are 'different categories of people'. (I have already covered prejudice). Therefore, one can not say that feminism advocates the use of discrimination on the basis of sex.

(My other arguments address what my opponent says in Round 2, so I will keep them for the rebuttal)

Since feminism advocates neither prejudice nor stereotype nor discrimination, we can safely conclude that, according to the definitions of feminism and sexism, feminism is not sexist.


Debate Round No. 2
Pfalcon1318

Con

I would like to thank PRO for their response. I greatly appreciate your commitment to this debate.

My opponent's argument stem from a simple understanding of the definition; each contention presented by PRO holds to the definition provided, rather than how it is applied in the real world. However, one very important thing that PRO excludes from each of these contentions is the phrase "of women's rights". The reason this is an important phrase is because it leads to some interesting assumptions posited by feminists and pro-feminists.

I shall look at PRO's contentions through a lens where I apply the entire definition of Feminism to various acts.

PRO argues that feminism does not support stereotypes. In Round 2, I mention the VAWA, which is a law that was put in place to protect women from violence. The result of this act, however, is much more than simply protecting abused women. While I agree that all abused persons should have legal protection under the law, I do not agree with the model used to construct the VAWA. As aforementioned, the Duluth Model posits the idea that domestic violence is used to control the abused. The Duluth Model website, which supports the VAWA, is written in such a way that men are the batterers and women the battered. Even if we do assume that women are the most frequently abused, does this justify the "Primary Aggressor" laws that are in place? I would argue no. Men are (supposedly) the ones who will use violence to control their partner [1]. This does not justify the assumptions often made that women are acting in self-defense when they hit their partners. Although women are physically weaker than men, this does not mean that they can not abuse. This is stereotyping. It is a widely held, and fixed, belief about the type of person who will commit certain acts. Also, given that this is advocacy on behalf of women's rights (particularly protection under the law), it fulfills our definition of feminism. On top of this, as this law focuses primarily on female victims and male perpetrators, to the exclusion of male victims and female perpetrators, it is also discriminatory.

PRO also tries to argue that most stereotypes are directed at women. The website provided specifically mentions professional women, and the stereotypes directed towards them. This does not justify the statement that stereotypes target women specifically. PRO also argues that feminism is the key to eliminating stereotypes. I am not convinced. Even basic stereotypes against women carry a corollary stereotype against men.

Even on the website provided by PRO, Feloni states that "[professional women] are expected to have kids and quit their jobs". Unless I am mistaken, children take two parents usually. If this is the case, and said professional women quits, it falls to the man to pick up the slack that her exit from the job market caused. As such, the stereotype, or rather role, that falls on men is that they will work to ensure this decision is financed. Traditionally, it has been women's role to be caretakers, and men's role to be a provider. Such a thing is what we consider gender roles. While it is argued that women had the shorter end of the stick, a large part of the negatives for men are neglected. I will not go into this, however, it is noteworthy here to reiterate such things as rape laws. Rape requires penetration. Again, male victims of female perpetrators are neglected. If rape were defined as simply "non-consensual sexual intercourse" men and women would be "equal". However, there has not been this change, and I am unaware of any attempts by feminists to change this. While the lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is puzzling to say the least. Shouldn't women be as legally culpable as men? Feminism, as a movement focused on "equality" should try to ensure this is the case, however, it does not, and instead feminists like Mary Koss present statistics on the instances of male-on-female rape, arguing that "..it is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted intercourse with a woman", without providing any reason as to why. Incidentally, Mary Koss is the feminist who presented us with the "1 in 4" rape statistic.

Now, unless I am mistaken, all of these things can be considered (1) prejudice, (2) discrimination, and (3) stereotyping. In the action of advocating for women's rights, Feminism promotes sexism against men and women. Not only are men perpetually placed in the perpetrator position, women are vicariously victimized, even when they are not the victims.

PRO's arguments fail to account for the actions of Feminism. Rather, PRO argues through the definition, using the "equality of the sexes" as a pivotal piece of argumentation. While this is admirable, it does not survive critical examination, mainly because the first few words (advocacy [or support thereof] of women's rights) are not taken into account. PRO does not do this, but rather discusses the act of advocacy in and of itself. Feminism advocates (specifically) for the rights of women. There are some sects that advocate for more, or even different, but the prime mover within feminist theory and advocacy is, at a minimum, the support of advocacy on behalf of women's rights.

I look forward to PRO's rebuttals.

[1] http://www.abuseandrelationships.org...
[2] http://criminal.findlaw.com...
Burncastle

Pro

I thank my opponent for his rebuttal. My rebuttal will address both Round 2 and Round 3.

My opponent started his rebuttal by accusing me of basing my argument on the definition of feminism... I plead guilty as charged, but I fail to see how this is a problem. My opponent then clarifies by saying that I excluded how feminism is applied in the real world. Let met be clear about something: if the topic of the debate was 'Sexism is sometimes used by people who consider themselves feminists', then I would have sided with Pro and there would be no debate. But the topic addresses the IDEA of feminism.

Let me make an analogy to express this: Let's say the topic was 'Atheism is a violent ideology' and that I argued that atheism has nothing to do violence. Then my opponent's response would have been something like 'Well look at the Soviet Union who killed millions of people in the name of atheism'... The fact that someone used atheism as an excuse to do violent things does not mean that atheism is a violent ideology, in the same sense that people using feminism in a sexist way does not make feminism sexist.

Now let's see what my opponent means when he says that feminism is sexist.

In both Round 2 and Round 3 my opponent points to the VAWA to illustrate how feminism is sexist. Even if I was to concede that the VAWA is sexist, it is absolutely irrelevant to the topic of the debate; feminism is not 'the support of VAWA', pointing to a so-called sexist law (I would have to do more research to find out if it is actually sexist) does not make feminism sexist any way.

In Round 2, my opponent accuses feminism of 'allowing the Draft and Selective Service to only affect men'. That is a pretty weak argument; saying that feminism is sexist because it did not do anything to prevent a certain law would make basically any ideology who did not say anything about it sexist as well. Atheism is not against that law either, is atheism sexist?

'Why do I bring up the Draft and Selective Service? I bring it up because Feminism is supposedly a movement to support gender equality, but it chooses to only support those things that benefit women (voting), over those things that would harm them (compulsory public service). While i would not suggest women should be conscripted when the need arises, I am arguing that there should be a similar system by which women must buy their right to vote.' I am really having trouble understanding what my opponent means, is he saying that women should invent a useless law just to make sure that they have something to do before they can vote?

'PRO also argues that feminism is the key to eliminating stereotypes. I am not convinced. Even basic stereotypes against women carry a corollary stereotype against men.' I agree with the last part, but how is that an argument in favor of my opponent? Wouldn't getting rid of stereotypes against women also rid us of some stereotypes against men?

In a nut shell, Con's argument is that since there are some aspects in society that favor women, feminism must be sexist. That is a non-sequitur and an unfair association.

I hope that my opponent can provide me with adequate evidence that supports the assertion that feminism is sexist.
Debate Round No. 3
Pfalcon1318

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for their rebuttals.

Issue with the Definition?
To begin, I shall address my issue with PRO's use of the definition of Feminism; I made no accusations, I simply pointed out a fact. As mentioned in my Rebuttals, I made the point that PRO has neglected the first clause of the definition. This clause is crucial to my arguments as to why Feminism is sexist. "Advocacy [or support thereof] of women's rights" (emphasis added). PRO does not take this into account. The reason why this is crucial to my arguments, and truly this whole debate, is that it leads to the support of laws that are made to support women's rights. Such things as protection under the law and voting are some rights that can be, and have been, advocated for. As such, they fall into the realm of "feminism", and if the grounds for feminism is equal rights, then it should not be the case that A) primary aggressor laws disporportionately affect men, and B) that women are not subject to compulsory public service, as men are, in order to gain the right to vote. My opponent effectively drops this argument, instead relying upon the second clause "on the grounds of the equality of the sexes". Why is this problematic? It takes away the fact that it is the advocacy of women's rights that Feminists advocate for, per the definition. It is not the fact that PRO uses the definition that is an issue, it is the fact that PRO fails to utilize the entire definition. PRO argues that advocating for policy X is not sexist, but neglects the grounds upon which those laws were put in place. I mentioned these in my arguments, and PRO does not address them. I agree that we are addressing the IDEA of feminism, however, rather than argue that the focus of Feminism on women's rights specifically is sexist, i chose to argue that the laws that are supported in order to give women equal rights in America is sexist. This would be similar to stating that "Christianity is homophobic." While there are some Christians who are not so, the dominant nature of Christianity, as a religion, as an IDEA, is against homosexual activity. The Christian Bible calls such things "abominations" [2]. If we are to take Christianity at face value, and look solely at what the religion, or belief if you prefer, puts out, through the documents that are in support of it, or supported by it.

PRO's Analogy
Pro's analogy seems very weak to me. To compare Atheism, an ideology based on disbelief or lack of belief, to Feminism, an ideology based on advocacy (or support thereof) of rights, does not create a strong analogy. This would be similar to comparing the Civil Rights Movement (henceforth CRM) to Atheism. The basis of the CRM was to give African-Americans various rights that they previously did not have, but that "whites" at the time did. Atheism, being an ideology based on lack of belief, or disbelief, does not compare in a strong way. What do atheists advocate for that is definitive of atheism? What advocacy do atheists support that is definitive of atheism? Perhaps the only thing that could be argued here, in relation to advocacy, would be a removal of religion from major institutions. This might be considered advocacy on behalf of rights, insofar as freedom of (and from) religion is concerned. However, this is not a crucial part of the atheist position. Some atheists may be opposed to this idea, and might prefer religion to be permitted everywhere, as this is freedom of religion. None of this is crucial to the position. Again, PRO is, whether on purpose or accidentally, neglecting the first clause of the definition, which specifically states that feminists, in any strain imaginable, at the very least support the advocacy of women's rights. PRO's analogy does not display a connection between feminism and atheism. PRO then provides us with a straw-man of my argument. Support of laws based upon advocacy of women's rights and violence based on atheism are not comparable, specifically because violence is not an intergral part of the atheist position. We could not argue that Christianity, as a religion, supports same-sex marriage because some Christians support it. That is not an intergral part of Christian Theology, however, we could argue that Christianity is homophobic, or at least discriminatory against homosexual persons. For this analogy to be strong, it would have to compare such things as Abolitionism and the CRM to Feminism, as such things have advocacy and action as key components of the ideology.

PRO's Rebuttals
PRO tries rebuts my arguments by attempting to argue that since Feminism does not support the VAWA, it cannot be sexist. If the VAWA specifically targets men as the perpatrators of domestic violence and makes women the victims, it becomes biased. As such, given that it is biased against men, and toward women, it is sexist. PRO states that they would have to do more research to determine this, however, I have provided sources for this assertion. PRO says that "[The VAWA] is absolutely irrelavent to the topic of this debate..." Feminism is indeed not the "support of the VAWA", however, feminism is the support of women's rights, and the VAWA is supposed to be a law, or policy, that intends to ensure that women's rights are protected, or rather, ensured. PRO also drops my points regarding sexual violence.

In relation to the Draft and Selective service, again, my opponent brings up Atheism. "...is atheism sexist?" Once again, my opponent conflates belief and action. Atheism is an ideology based on though, Feminism is an ideology based on action or support thereof. I did not argue that feminism was sexist for allowing the law to come into place, as the law was already in place, what I am arguing is that the "right to vote" is unfairly granted to women, essentially free of charge, whereas a man can have this right revoked due to failure to sign up for Selective Service. The argument is not for prevention of the law, the argument is against misapplication of rights. If atheists were to advocate for special spaces, wherein they could discuss science and philosophy with free-of-charge food given to them by the government, but Christians were not given free-of-charge food by the government, this would be discrimination. Another example: If I am in a store and purchase a $1 product, then pay $1.10 for it, I would assume we had a 10% sales tax. If the person behind me buys the exact same product, but only pays $1.01, there is something going on. If I ask the cashier why the other individual only had to pay 1% in sales tax, and I am told that the 10% sales tax only applies to men, and the other person was a woman, that would be discrimination, as the sole reason this individual had to pay the 1% sales tax is that they are a woman, and I am a man. The same applies to the Draft, Selctive Service, and even sexual violence laws.


PRO's remaining arguments are either qoute-mined, or carry no support, and shall not be addressed.

I have no CX Question for my opponent.


[1] http://www.scholastic.com...;
[2] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...;
Burncastle

Pro

I thank my opponent for his second round of rebuttal.

I would like to start by addressing my opponent's complaint that I neglected the 'women's right' part of the definition of feminism. While I grant that I did not downright say the words 'women's right' everytime I talked about equality, I thought that it was obviously implied. I do not see how someone can talk about equality in society without obviously referring to equal rights; the only things that society can actually change are human rights. So, to me, that was obvious, but I apologize to my opponent for the misunderstanding.

Most of my opponent's arguments seem to be focused on convincing me that that the laws he presented (VAWA and Selective Service) are sexist, but my arguments had nothing to do with that. So, for the remainder of this debate, let's work under the assumption that I grant that these law are indeed sexist.

Now, my arguments were focusing on the association that my opponent makes between these laws and feminism. My opponent claims that, since these laws treat women differently than men, they must be feminist in nature and therefore feminism must be sexist. As I said earlier, that is an unsupported association. According to the definition of feminism, a law could be considered feminist if it supports equal rights between men and women, not if it supports women in general. Does my opponent thinks that the VAWA and the Selective Service support the latter? If so, then they are not feminist. Therefore, pointing to these laws as a justification for claiming that feminism is sexist is unjustified.

'I agree that we are addressing the IDEA of feminism, however, rather than argue that the focus of Feminism on women's rights specifically is sexist, i chose to argue that the laws that are supported in order to give women equal rights in America is sexist.' The problem is that the laws my opponent has presented are not promoting EQUAL rights and therefore cannot be associated with feminism.

My opponent then completely misunderstands my analogy, focusing on what atheism and feminism are rather than actually addressing my point which was basically that you cannot judge an ideology by its abuse and misuse (because then you are judging people, not the ideology), which is what my opponent seems to be doing with feminism. It has nothing to do with what atheism is.

'PRO tries rebuts my arguments by attempting to argue that since Feminism does not support the VAWA, it cannot be sexist' No... what I'm saying is that since feminism is not the support of the VAWA, one cannot point to this law to accuse feminism of being sexist. My opponent then tries to explain why he associates the VAWA with feminism, claiming that they both support women's rights. But my opponent is doing exactly what he accused me of doing; he is leaving out part of the definition of feminism, focusing on the 'women's rights' aspect and leaving out the 'equality of the sexes' aspect.

Then my opponent goes on to explain how Selective Service is sexist which is, as I have said, irrelevant.
'The argument is not for prevention of the law, the argument is against misapplication of rights' I would ask my opponent to clarify what he means by 'misapplication of rights' so that I can answer this point. The analogy with taxes seems rather pointless.

The conclusion I draw from this round is pretty similar to the one I drew for the last round; once again, my opponent is confusing the idea of feminism with some aspects of society that favor women.

I do not have any CX question either.
Debate Round No. 4
Pfalcon1318

Con

I would like to thank PRO for presenting their counter-rebuttals.

To begin, my opponent misunderstands the issue that I have with their use of the definition. There is an assumed difference between human rights and women's rights within said definition. It is assumed in the definition that women have rights that are not equal to men's, and given this, it is necessary to advocate for them. My opponent presumes that "women's rights" equal "human rights", without an explanation of why we should conclude this. If it is assumed that "women's rights" are "human rights", there is no reason to advocate for women's rights specifically, and thus it necessarily becomes sexist that feminism focuses on women. This argument from my opponent does not refute what I have said; it actually reinforces it.

My opponent also, once again, fails to address Sexual and Domestic Violence laws, and wholly misunderstands my position. I have already explained my reasons for connecting these laws to feminism:

"The reason why this is crucial to my arguments, and truly this whole debate, is that it leads to the support of laws that are made to support women's rights. Such things as protection under the law and voting are some rights that can be, and have been, advocated for. As such, they fall into the realm of 'feminism'..."

This is from Round 4. PRO's attempt to argue that a law is only feminist if it supports the equal rights of men and women is flawed, as the only mention of equal rights of the sexes is in reference to justification for the advocacy of women's rights. (See Feminism definition per Round 1)

PRO's argument fails to address this. PRO then argues, per Tu Quoque, that I am guilty of the exact same act, of neglecting portions of a definition. However, that is exactly my point. By advocating for women's rights, feminism creates a situation wherein "the equality of the sexes" is not the result; rather, a bias towards women, and against men, is the result. Again, PRO's argument supports my position.

PRO seems to be interested in my argument against her analogy, despite my reasoning as to why it is to be viewed as weak. Again, I shall refer my opponent and the audience to my arguments regarding this:
'
What do atheists advocate for that is definitive of atheism? What advocacy do atheists support that is definitive of atheism? Perhaps the only thing that could be argued here, in relation to advocacy, would be a removal of religion from major institutions. This might be considered advocacy on behalf of rights, insofar as freedom of (and from) religion is concerned. However, this is not a crucial part of the atheist position.

Again, I say that PRO's analogy is weak, as there attributes that Feminism has (mainly activism) that Atheism does not have as part of the ideology. As such, we start in a position where any Argument from Analogy cannot stand. My analogy begins with two ideologies that promote the rights of two groups, that then produce two different results.

Then, my opponent critiques my Tax Analogy as "pointless". Simple Rebuttal to a Simple Assertion: No, it isn't. Complex Rebuttal: My analogy is closely related to the current situation with voting rights. Men must sign up for Selective Service (at least in the US) in order to earn the right to vote, effectively paying a higher tax (as to refuse carries harsh consequences), while women simply turn 18 (effectively paying little to no tax). I would argue there is indeed a point, as this actually elucidates the terminology used.

I attempted to keep my arguments in this round as close to the arguments that I have already presented as possible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I shall now make my Closing Statements.

My position was that Feminism is Sexist. In the pursuit of Women's Rights, there are instances of inequality, with a bias towards women, and against men. These biases as evident when one obesrves Sexual Violence, the VAWA and Domestic Violence laws, and Selective Service and Voting. I presented arguments that I believe justify making a connection between Feminism and these laws, which I have mentioned above. Each of these areas have had a plethora of activism in relation to how they affect women. Meaning that these laws have special considerations for women (VAWA, Sexual Violence), or at least do not address women (Selective Service). This leads to a scenario wherein women are advantaged, and men are, by comparison, advantaged. I have provided an analogy that I believe displays this.

In my refutations of PRO's arguments, I argued for the weakness of the "Atheism-Feminism" Analogy, pointing out the flaws that are present in the decision to compare the two. I then provided my own analogy, which I view as stronger than the one provided by PRO.

In relation to the arguments provided by PRO, I pointed out the flawed reasoning present in PRO's inclination to argue through the secondary clause of the definition provided. I mentioned that to argue that utilizing the clause "equality of the sexes" to attempt to refute my arguments is not a strong form of argumentation, given that the equality of the sexes is simply the grounds which justifies the advocacy of women's rights, it is not that for which feminists advoacate.

Given the arguments provided, I believe I have provided strong reasons to believe that Feminism is indeed sexist. My job was to argue against the reolution, to the effect of "Feminism is sexist". PRO was to argue in favor of the resolution, to the effect of "Feminism is not sexist".

To the voters, if I have given sound reasons for the sexist nature of Feminism, refuting the resolution, Please vote CON. If PRO has provided arguments to negate mine and affirm the resolution, please vote PRO.

My thanks to my opponent for engaging in this debate with me.
Burncastle

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his last round.

My opponent starts by saying that the definition of feminism assumes that 'women have rights that are not equal to men's, and given this, it is necessary to advocate for them'. I agree with my opponent AND with the assumption. He then points out the fact that presume that 'women's right' are the same as 'human rights'... once again I plead guilty as charged and I hope I'm not the only one who does; in my opinion women ARE human and therefore women's right ARE human rights. I'm surprised that this is even an issue and that is why I didn't consider it important to provide an explanation.

Then my opponent goes on to say that since feminism focuses on women's right, it necessarily follows that it is sexist. Well, according to the definition of sexism provided by CON, it does not follow. Focusing one's efforts on making sure that women have equal rights is neither prejudicial nor stereotyping. One may be tempted to say that it is slightly discriminating, but it isn't either; feminism does not strive to eradicate or diminish men's right, it strives to make women equal to men in terms of rights.

My opponent then reiterates his explanation for connecting the laws he presented with feminism:

"The reason why this is crucial to my arguments, and truly this whole debate, is that it leads to the support of laws that are made to support women's rights. Such things as protection under the law and voting are some rights that can be, and have been, advocated for. As such, they fall into the realm of 'feminism'..."

Yes, fighting for the right to vote is feminist because men had the right to vote when women didn't. But this has nothing to do with the laws he presented.

'PRO's attempt to argue that a law is only feminist if it supports the equal rights of men and women is flawed, as the only mention of equal rights of the sexes is in reference to justification for the advocacy of women's rights.' Yes, I argue that a law is only feminist if it falls into the definition of feminism, which I think is a pretty good way to assess it: if a law doesn't advocate women's right on the ground of the equality of sexes, then it isn't feminist.

He then restates his explanation regarding the supposed weakness of my analogy, making the exact same mistake once more: he is comparing what atheism is with what feminism is, which was not all what I was trying to do.

The analogy with taxes IS pointless for a reason that I have already addressed: pointing to sexist events or aspects of society (a non-existent one in this case) and associating them with feminism only because they favor women is purely a non-sequitur.

In conclusion, my opponent's argument is basically that since there are laws that favor women over men, feminism must be sexist. He associates feminism with any law that favor women, disregarding the definition of feminism. As I have previously said, most of my opponent's arguments would have been great in a debate where the topic was 'Sexism is often used by people who claim to be feminist', but it isn't. As my opponent and I have both said, we are discussing the IDEA of feminism, and one cannot judge the pros and cons of an ideology by pointing to how it is used by people (for reasons I have previously explained).

I would like to thank my opponent for this entertaining debate.


Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
:( Elo restrictions... sorry... can't vote.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
PM me when your're done. I wanna read and vote on this.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 3 years ago
Pfalcon1318
Basically, what I was trying to get you to do was say:

"I accept. I will be arguing that Feminism is not Sexist."

It is just to make sure both parties are aware of what is to be argued and who is arguing what. I understand that there may have been some translation issues, which is why i said it is fine. You stated what you are arguing in your R1, so we're cool.
Posted by Burncastle 3 years ago
Burncastle
Oh sorry. You're not the first person I've seen asking this, could you give me an example of what you wanted?
Posted by Pfalcon1318 3 years ago
Pfalcon1318
i said ABOVE resolution, but it's fine.
Posted by Burncastle 3 years ago
Burncastle
I'm not sure why you want this but okay...

I accept because this debate is impossible to accept.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 3 years ago
Pfalcon1318
All feminists are included in my definition.
Posted by ksteelers 3 years ago
ksteelers
Well, it depends on which Feminists you are talking about. I do agree that most feminists are not sexists because all they want is for women to be recognized as an equal like men; however, there are some feminists (thank you Tumblr...) that think they are trying to spread equality when they're acting like they're more superior than men.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 3 years ago
Pfalcon1318
umm how?
Posted by InquireTruth 3 years ago
InquireTruth
FYI, your third rule fails your third rule.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Pfalcon1318BurncastleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Please remind me to read and vote.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Pfalcon1318BurncastleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: sorry, I accidently clicked the vote box. I will vote later