Is Feminism necessary?
Debate Rounds (4)
R2: main argument
R4: counter rebuttals and closing statments
Feminism: : the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Though this is smaller it is still unacceptable as any change of pay is discrimination of some kind. The efforts to fix this gap is nearly nonexistent. Feminism is needed to make sure that this change will happen and soon hopefully.
I must first approach this topic by arguing for why I think that the definition that was used for this debate is an inaccurate definition of Feminism. In a informal debate I had on Youtube involving semantics regarding the definition of feminism we concluded that the definition was the dictionary definition of feminism as described in detail by Google, Oxford Dictionary, Dictionary.Reference.com, and many others. This conclusion about the definition was met because the following argument could not be refuted.
1. The dictionary definition of feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
2. In general people who call them selves feminists advocate for women's rights.
3. In general the arguments for the rights these people advocate for rely upon the foundation that there is of a lack of rights or well being in comparison to their male counterparts. (Whether or not this is a founded assumption is irrelevant)
4. Therefore people who call themselves feminists tend to act in relation to the dictionaries description of the movement itself.
We also concluded, while arguing semantics, that the definitions that can be used to describe are restricted by their word parts as shown in this excerpt here:
"...My second claim is that though we can argue semantics there are certain boundaries that a word needs to be kept in. Newer words may not have the same limitations but due to the foundation that the language rests on. This can be seen with the word God. When people argue semantics over this word it is with good reason because it left behind its roots like deus and an array of many other words and word parts that have similar meanings thus making it a much more fluid peace of language. All language does not have this privilege. The more word parts on a word the more restricted its meaning is because more often than not those word parts remove ambiguity.
Here are some examples "tion" this word part restricts the debatable meanings of the word by forcing the word to be withing the realm of an abstract noun no matter what it is expressing. This is a language rule that doesn't get broken when making definitions out of necessity from my understanding this rule is practically in stone. I have not been presented with any evidence suggesting definitions contrary to its origin. Please inform me if there are. The words semantics can be argued within these boundaries and this is taken into consideration when officially giving meanings.
Here is the important example. "ism". ism is used to make words pertaining to action or practice, and adherence to certain doctrine.
The boundaries are: indicating an action, process, or result, indicating a state or condition, indicating a doctrine, system, or body of principles and practices.
If it has ism it cannot be a belief how ever it can describe a system or process relating to belief (Paganism)."
There where acceptations like Theism and Atheism as far as the dictionary definitions went, but it was coincided that those definitions where oversimplifications given the push back to the definition given to Atheism in the context of belief. Not saying that this is true because we concluded it but if you wish to use a different definition I believe you should make a case for why it is objectively more descriptive and fits in the context of the word parts better than the purposed alternative.
My first Claim is that feminism is not necessary because of the false claims and data it needs to appeal to in order to see itself as relevant. The primary example is rape culture when held up to scrutiny it quickly falls apart, another example is the wage gap. This one is even easier to misinterpret given the amount of variables involved. At this point all claims that the pay gap is larger than zero have insufficient evidence. The broad claim of the 23 cent wage gap was debunked a while ago however this claim doesn't just apply to the 23 cent gap but all gaps because all studies make the same or similar mistakes regarding variables omitting various important ones on the path to the claim they are trying to make. In most cases these studies claim themselves that all the variables haven't been considered but rather the ones they considered important. They also often claim that it is likely that a portion of the pay gap is due to discrimination. These claims are normally in spite of the data they collected as the data itself doesn't show that. All the data shows is that the wage gap shrinks the more variables you introduce.
My largest point is that feminism's foundation is the assumption that women are worse off then men. This assumption is proven wrong at almost every corner in the first world and sometimes even in the women's favor.
My second largest point is that there is no problem feminism can fix that a egalitarian mind set and action cannot.
Bradley, John R. (2005). Saudi Arabia Exposed : Inside a Kingdom in Crisis. Palgrave. p. 184.
Now to move onto rebuttals
I will be working on from your first claim and onwards.
Even though I think I stated this in the messages before the debate but to clear it up for those who are viewing, THERE IS NO RAPE CULTRE. I may believe feminism is needed in the world but I don"t stand by false information. The 23% is a number gathered from the men and women"s total income in America, not counting different jobs, how many of each gender working, how long they work, ECT. The number I gave was a more accurate range since it varies from job to job. If anything the amount is smaller this should still be unacceptable. And on your last point that any egalitarian can fix this is true, but these problems have been present and in the open since the early 1900"s at least and problems still exist. Feminism needs to exist so these problems wont be forgotten and constant inequality existing. I"m excited to see you find the flaws in my arguments and defend my self.
The number you gave was "More accurate" but still not accurate as there are more variables than those studies because there are ALOT of variable.
We start with the 18% gap and apply the various variables so we can see first hand how the wag gap disappears.
18% wage gap, Variables considered: Bachelors degree
8% wage gap, Variables considered: Bachelors degree, Majors, Percent of gender per major actually going into that field (At this point wage gap in STEM fields completely disappears.)
5.3% wage gap, Variables considered: Bachelors degree, Majors, Percent of gender per major actually going into that field, Hours worked
Even smaller wage gap, Variables considered: Bachelors degree, Majors, Percent of gender per major actually going into that field, Hours worked, Specific functions within professions
The last one there was no calculation I could find for but the variable was pointed at as a important one with showing that women had a tendency to lean towards jobs that didn't require an expertise in mathematics or engineering within these percentages. Looking at the graphs I would say it would drop that percentage to about 3% but the mathematics to verify this is beyond me so you could just consider the number under 5%.
After all this people want to look at the smallest number and say that this is the true one and this represents the amount women make. This still isn't true as there is no estimate saying how much of this percentage is actually due to discrimination because even at this point there are still more variables left unconsidered like pay negotiations which men do more often then women. At this point it is irrational to say that the pay gap is something we need feminism for because there is a lack of data expressing that the pay gap exists at all and there is only data expressing that it gets continually smaller the more you introduce important unconsidered variables.
These problems don't need feminists to tell us that they exist because they don't exist. Most feminist aren't studying statistics or economics so more often than not they will see oppression where there isn't or try to fabricate it. as shown with the wage gap and sexual assault statistics that are fallacious. Feminism may actually be doing more harm than good if you way the ethics that surround the issues. For a moment lets assume the wage gap is real even though I showed it is irrational to believe so. What is more ethical to support a movement that doesn't listen to conflicting data because it was right once and made it so every women got a few extra pennies in their bank accounts because of how small the gap actually was, or to not support that same movement because of all the incorrect information it endorses such as false sexual assault statistics, rape culture, micro-aggression, trigger warnings, anti capitalistic propaganda, and the other mountain of misinformation being spread and millions of students are being forced to listen to.
"The last one there was no calculation I could find for but the variable was pointed at as a important one with showing that women had a tendency to lean towards jobs that didn't require an expertise in mathematics or engineering within these percentages. Looking at the graphs I would say it would drop that percentage to about 3% but the mathematics to verify this is beyond me so you could just consider the number under 5%"
I know as that isn't much but as I have stated anyone should know that any gap for doing equal work is unacceptable and I know you would agree on that point.
This was a very enjoyable debate we had and I like to think we both brought many valid points to the table. for those voting I hope that you judge honestly and fairly. Thank you for this debate!
I agree the debate was enjoyable and thanks for giving me a chance given that I'm still starting my first couple of debates.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.