The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Is modern feminism too scattered to be an effective movement?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 504 times Debate No: 73630
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I believe that modern feminism has too many different divisions and splits to be considered an effective movement anymore. For example, you have full on radical feminists that hate men shamelessly. You then have somewhat less radical feminists who go on and on about patriarchy. (That's where people like Anita Sarkeesian or Chanty Binx fall.) Then you have feminists with more egalitarian ideals, such as Cristina Hoff Sommers or Camille Paglia. The ones that go on about patriarchy oppose the feminists with egalitarian ideals for not believing patriarchy exists, and the egalitarian feminists call their thinking extreme you see where I'm going with this? This kind of scatter makes feminism more of a clusterfuck than anything else, and nothing can be done very effectively when the movement is turning against itself. Unfortunately, I believe that feminism either needs stricter criteria to be amongst them, or needs to shut down. I think the latter option may be the most effective, their reputation has been completely soiled because of all this, and I don't think there's any coming back from it at this point. If you feel I am wrong, I welcome any debate and feedback. You have 72 hours to do so.

(This is my first debate, glad to be here.)


My opponent as chosen to ignore the overwhelming majority of feminists, people that just don"t think someone should be treated differently because there sex organs are internal and not external. My opponent bases there argument on there not being any progress for feminism, a fact I find ironic considering that only current democrat nomination for the 2016 president, Clinton, is a woman and a feminist.

My opponent as shown examples of a disorganized small minority under the guise that they represent the whole of feminism, and then use their example to justify "need" organizational changes to a moment that already did the suggested changes 60 years ago.
Debate Round No. 1


Yes, there has been progress, and I won't deny that. However, some of this also has to do with feminism's reputation. It should be common knowledge that feminism has a bad reputation. (This is likely due to the extremists within the movement.) Only about one quarter of women, and 16% of men identify as feminists. Regardless of why this is, this means that with a lower population than ever, these in-house conflicts are amplified. A quote from Abraham Lincoln comes to my mind, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." This is especially true when that house is smaller, as more people can hear it. Yet it seems this overwhelming majority of yours is mostly silent. I frequently look at debates about feminism online, at least three times per week, if not more. Yet I don't seem to hear this overwhelming majority you speak of all that often. I would ignore this if this wasn't the Internet I was focusing on, the World Wide Web. All I usually hear is a, "That's not what feminism is," or a, "They aren't true feminists." Either still acknowledging them as feminists, or using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Sure, I some of the kinds of people you describe. (At least I think so. You were a bit overly broad with your view of what the majority is.) But if I'm thinking of the right people, I barely ever see them denounce the actions of radical feminists. Either they are all being silent, or they are not the majority of feminists.

But even besides that, I've noticed one thing. Feminism seems to just be in the wrong place. In first world countries, there are already laws for gender equality. That was feminism's goal, to achieve legal equality. This makes feminism redundant in first world countries. Third world countries such as Vietnam have no such laws. Men can discriminate against women just fine there, no repercussions. Sounds like a place feminism should be if I ever heard it. Yet here we are, feminists complaining about first world problems while women can be legally discriminated against in third world countries. This is a point of contention between feminists such as Hoff Sommers and feminists such as Sarkeesian, whether first world women are discriminated against. This kind of drastic disagreement on what to do next is what I mean. With such drastically different views on what to do next, and the seeming silence of this majority, if it even is that, is bound to lead to more and more arguments, until it's just a collective mess, even if it's just showing signs. (Kinda big to just ignore, but still signs, I guess.)


In over 200 years Americans have also been all over the place in our fight to for equality. Under my opponents logic it has all been pointless. We have too many view points and can’t agree on what it means to be an American. Progress is slow this way but it does happen.

My opponent also fails to understand that most people that are feminist do not claim they are feminist. Do only 16% of people think a woman should stay barefoot, pregnant, and under her husband’s complete control? No, way more people do. While feminist can’t always agree on what a woman’s place in the world is but we all agree it is not just the kitchen.

In the 1st world woman’s rights are not equal to that of a man’s. While under the law she may be in the hearts and minds of the general population she is not. For example under the law a woman doing the same job should get paid the same she does not. According to the Woman’s law center a woman misses out in typically $10,000 per year. (1) I find it honestly arrogant to think you can change millions of years of human social structure in 60 years. When the current state of American economics we greatly need even more feminism. When is the last time any of us seen a science toy for girls?

Your points using the 3rd world are not logically sound. It is like saying to a black man stop talking about racism we have a black president in America. There is still racism in the 1st world and there are still some people that think a woman is nothing more than a sex toy that cooks and cleans.


Debate Round No. 2


You are slightly unclear on what you mean by your statement that most feminists do not claim to be feminists. If you mean that all people who have egalitarian beliefs are feminists, you will find that egalitarianism and feminism have ever so slightly different definitions. (1)(2) This is not to mention that people have the right to call themselves what they like, not what you or any movement wants them to call themselves. If you mean, however, that some people who consider themselves feminists are not speaking up, then how does that help anyone? Silence is not a benefit, and if there are many silent feminists, then that's more people that aren't accounted for to throw into the mix. The numbers do not lie, there aren't many feminists in the USA. Whether or not many are in hiding, only the active ones do any good for their cause. The ones not speaking up just add to this. You also say that people generally are not favorable to women, and cite the wage gap. This post I'm linking has proof against the wage gap, and sources cited for it. (3) You also say that a lack of "science toys" for girls indicates sexism. However, when it comes to toys, it has been shown that these differences in the toys children of different genders gravitate to is observable from birth. On this one, I remember when I was about five or six. I always loved to play with action figures, Star Wars in particular. I remember bringing them to school one day, and asking everyone to play with them with me. Plenty of other boys felt like joining in, but there was an unmistakable lack of girls. This was also true when we boys would dig in the sand. We always extended an invitation to the girls, but next to none were interested. The most girls we ever had was three on one day, compared to at least a dozen boys that day. Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, but not only do I have plenty of examples, not only is this before most parents begin to talk to their children about their stance on the issue of gender equality, but I can also tell you that in toy stores with different toys by gender, 90% of the time it's the kid or kids leading the parents there.

My point with the third world was not that sexism does not exist in any form in the first world, or to shut people up about it, my point is that the issues women face there are a hell of a lot worse, and because of that, a hell of a lot more worth feminists' time. Yet here we are, with people like Anita Sarkeesian talking about how "video games are sexist," while women in third world countries are legally discriminated against, can be legally harassed, can't even leave home without a male escort, etc. Point is, there are a lot worse issues out there, with a lot more scale than first world countries, that probably should be prioritized, yet they are not. It does not mean sexism does not exist in first world countries, it just means priorities should be made.

Your claim that many people believe women should be sex toys...where did you get this from? A simple Google search will turn up few to no results, depending on search criteria. However, if you look for criteria pertaining to female superiority, you'll find several articles saying "women are better than men at multitasking," or something of the sort. If what you said was true, then I would expect that this would show in a Google search, seeing as the Internet is a pretty vast void of ideas that are not particularly censored at all.

That is all I have to say on this issue. I believe my point has been thoroughly made, and once you make your point, it will be up to the people on this website. Thank you for accepting my debate, and I hope we may debate something else someday, as this was a good experience for me.



gomergcc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by somethingoriginal 1 year ago
Although I believe in equal rights and the core idea of feminism, it has developed into this brand with no real substance. Nothing is organized and people are able to bend and shape words and ideals and call it feminism even though it has nothing to do with the original feminism movement.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 1 year ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff last round so I gave Pro a point for conduct. I actually think that Con's arguments were better, but because he failed to rebut the last argument, I had to keep it as a tie. Sources were provided by both. Final score: 1 for Pro because con ff last round.