The Instigator
Shadow211212
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Saska
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Feminism

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 5 votes the winner is...
Saska
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 767 times Debate No: 56190
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Shadow211212

Con

NOTE: I would like for my opponent, Pro, to give textual evidence as to why feminism is a logical and correct argument,

Setup:

Round 1:
Con's Setup
Pro's Acceptance + Beginning Arguments

Round 2:
Con's Beginning Arguments
Pro's Rebuttal

Round 3:
Con's Rebuttal
Pro's Final Words

Round 4:
Con's Final Words
Pro says, "This debate is over."'

NOTE: Pro, please leave your section for round 4 as I just stated it, "This debate is over.", nothing more.
Saska

Pro

I accept this debate.

My goal is to provide evidence that feminism is a logical and correct argument. Feminism can be defined as "a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women." [1]

In a society where both men and women are required to reproduce life and keep our species existing, it should only be logical to think that both genders should be granted equal rights. Of course there are biological differences that result in certain inequalities, but having different biological make up should not be grounds for unequal rights.

Throughout human history, males have maintained a level of dominance over females more often than not. This is largely due to the biological make up. Men have a higher rate of basal metabolism than women, meaning they have a greater capacity to expend energy. Men are also 50% stronger than women in terms of brute strength and the lung capacity for women is 30% less than that of men [2]. All of these biological traits helped lead to men being more dominant in societies where physical strength and ability was the key to survival; when hunting for food and fighting in hand to hand combat were necessary for survival.

But the female biology, while very different, should not be viewed as subordinate. Though a female body generally posses less brute force than a male, it serves other functions that males cannot; functions necessary for the continuation of our species. Thus it should be logical that both sexes deserve to have equal rights in a society, even if they serve different roles at times. Also, as our societies continue to experience technological advancements in various fields, certain factors that used to cause a greater division between the sexes, such as child birth, are becoming less significant. As we understand more about pregnancy and child birth, the risks involved with child birth have decreased and doctors understand far more about what the female body goes through during the process, so they are far more capable of aiding in the recovery following birth than in the past [3].

This all boils down to the fact that equal rights for the sexes is the logical way. This does not mean that we should not acknowledge or celebrate the differences between the sexes, but in terms of political, economic, social and cultural rights, both sexes should be on equal footing, since both sexes are required for us to continue existing on this planet.

Finally, I just want to clarify that we are dealing with Feminism here, which is as I defined in my opening statement, and not radical feminism. Many see feminism as a group of man-hating women who want to take the power away from men and have the women as the dominant group. "Radical feminism aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society" [4]. Too often people think of this when they think of feminism, but such is not the case in the same sense that Muslim extremists who commit international acts of terror do not represent the entirety of the Islamic faith. The bottom line is that females should have every right to vote, they should be paid based on their professional skills and they should be given equal opportunity to work a job, so long as they are qualified to do so. I believe that equality in gender rights is the logical and correct path.

I await my opponent's opening arguments. Thank you.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.drjamesdobson.org...
[3]http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Shadow211212

Con

First off, thank you very much for accepting my argument.

Now, to feminism, women often claim that they are given unequal rights, when in the past this is proven, yes. But, throughout time women have received every right that a man has. Women can now join the army. Women can now become president. Women can now vote. The list goes on for a very long time. So, in 1st world countries such as the USA, there should be no such thing as a feminist. The same can not be said for 3rd world countries, where women rights have not been established and women often have to be near a man to go anywhere in the city. However we still find feminists in 1st world countries. In fact, I dare to say that men are the ones who are the subordinate, because in a war, which gender is forced to go because of the deaths of volunteers? Men. Which gender still complains that they are given unequal rights? Women. I agree that radical feminism is a different debate altogether, but normal feminism itself is an extremely incorrect argument.
Saska

Pro

I would like to start my rebuttal by thanking my opponent for his opening arguments. I would also like to clarify that feminism is not an argument, it is a movement and a collection of ideologies.

Now, my opponent makes the claim that feminism has already succeeded in making women equals, thus it no longer has a place in first world countries. I have a few things to say on this:

1) My opponent offers no data or sources that show equality. He claims women can be president now, yet we have not seen a female president yet. He claims women can join the army now, but yet they only represent 14.6% of the US military [1].

2) Just because a movement has succeeded (which feminism has not yet fully accomplished, as I will show further on in this argument), that does not mean the movement should be shut down. Once goals are reached, it is still important to work to maintain the achievements that the movement fought for.

3) Once feminism does fully succeed in the US and other first world nations, the success of the movement can be used to help the third world countries that are much farther behind, as my opponent admits. Feminists should not (and do not) only aim to help women in their own countries; feminism is a global movement that aims to help equalize rights for all women. So if success is found in some areas, feminists can take that success elsewhere and look to help other women in need [2].

My opponent also makes the claim that he believes men are now subordinate. He again provides no data or sources for his claim; only that men are forced to fight in wars. This is an odd argument, given that earlier my opponent used the example of females finally being allowed to fight in the army as proof that equality exists, but then claims that men are the ones forced to fight in wars. If it is equal as you state and women are allowed in the army, that renders your second argument void because women are now allowed to fight as well. In reality, it is true that more men still fight and die for their country, but is that because they are subordinate or because for a long time, women were not permitted to do so?

Now I want to provide some numbers that show why feminism has not yet fully succeeded in the United States. Women in the United States still make $0.77 to every $1.00 a man makes [3]. There can be many reasons for this gap, but it has been this way for some time and does not seem to be changing much. Many high paying professions may shy away from hiring women due to the potential for pregnancy and maternity leave. Many women may choose to work only part time jobs because their spouse already has a high paying job, and someone needs more time to look after the children. Whatever the reasons, the fact of the matter is, pretty much across the board, women don't make as much money as men do. Even childless women still only make 82% of what their male counterparts make, so pregnancy and maternity leave are not the only cause for this gap [4]. The fact is, in most occupations, a woman's salary is less than that of a man's in the same occupation [5].

My opponent's claim that feminism has already succeeded was not backed by any sources and I have just shown how gender equality still does not fully exist, even in the first world countries. I have also shown that even if feminists did succeed in achieving equality in the US and other first world countries, they still would have a role to play in maintaining the equality that they achieved as well as aiding in the feminist movements on a global scale. The feminist movement is necessary now and moving forward, to ensure that women are treated equally and can obtain and maintain equal rights in all countries across the globe.

[1] http://www.statisticbrain.com...
[2] http://www.umich.edu...
[3] http://www.forbes.com...
[4] http://www.aauw.org...
[5] http://www.bls.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Shadow211212

Con

Shadow211212 forfeited this round.
Saska

Pro

As per the rules of the debate as set by my opponent, this will be my final argument. Since my opponent has failed to formulate a response, I see little need to elaborate much on my previous post. I will merely offer a brief summary of my arguments and this debate as a whole.

My opponent claims that feminism is an incorrect argument. While I don't consider feminism an argument, I accepted the debate under these terms so I will argue as such. My opponent has offered nothing but an unsupported opinion regarding what he believes is feminism; a term of which he seems to lack a full understanding. There were no parameters set for this debate in terms of a place in which we were arguing, yet my opponent seems to have focused his argument purely on feminism in the United States. In fact, he basically concedes the debate by stating "in 1st world countries such as the USA, there should be no such thing as a feminist. The same can not be said for 3rd world countries, where women rights have not been established and women often have to be near a man to go anywhere in the city." Had we focused this debate on USA or first world countries alone, that statement would not be considered a concession, but the fact that we did not specify those terms shows that my opponent agrees that feminism is at least necessary in some places.

Now let's ignore the fact that Con conceded the debate already and pretend we were just addressing first world countries. Con offers no sources to show that equality now fully exists, nor does he provide and decent explanation as to why feminism should disappear once success has been found. The fact of the matter is, inequality between the sexes still exists, as I showed in my previous round, and even once equality is reached here, feminism will still be important to help maintain that equality and to help spread the ideology throughout the countries where help is needed.

Finally, if my arguments and sources are not enough to convince the reader, the fact that Con has only provided one poorly written paragraph backed by no sources, merely opinions, followed by a forfeited round, should be enough to win me this debate.

I would like to thank the readers for taking the time to read this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
Shadow211212

Con

Shadow211212 forfeited this round.
Saska

Pro

This debate is over.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
It's an odd way to set up the debate for sure, but I'm happy to speak on behalf of gender equality so I'll go with my opponents premise.
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
I have never heard feminism being described as an "argument" before.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Nice round, Saska.
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
@Zarroette

Why do you dislike feminism? Feminism is the reason many countries have fairly equal gender rights now. I can see a dislike for radical feminism, but unless a women enjoys being a subordinate, I would think all women should like feminism, or at least appreciate what is has done for your gender,
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
I'm a girl and I have a strong disliking for feminism. It's basically evolved into unequal rights for women. Sure, feminism could probably help out 3rd World countries, but 1st World countries have quite a fair gender equality system, wherein only minor gender issues are prevalent.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
Shadow211212SaskaTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
Shadow211212SaskaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
Shadow211212SaskaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Shadow211212SaskaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits and an unrebutted case give Pro the clear win here. As always, though, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Shadow211212SaskaTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture