The Instigator
conservativemike08
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
Cooperman88
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Liberal Progressives and Radical Feminist are attempting to emasculate men and destroy masculinity.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,448 times Debate No: 397
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (17)

 

conservativemike08

Pro

Since the Feminist revolution of the 60's men have been thrown around. In education classrooms are geared towards females. Men and boys are constantly degraded for the masculinty. Boys are taught that aggressiveness and competition are bad. Girls are taught that a man must not hit them, but it is ok for women to kick a man in the testes. In fact we live in a society that worships women. Women are shown on television as the wise benevolent leaders while men are shown as dullards. They are also the powerful CEOs or secret agents now. I have been told in a law class that women should be leaders as they are more pure and morally responsible. Why is this?

Men are told that guns are bad, that our traditional heroes that gained honor and glory through battle are to be replaced by a more tolerant type of hero who fights not. He is a diplomat who abhores honorable fighting.

All the strength of men is rebelled against as women are afraid of patriarichal values that have governed this world for ages and will continue to do so. It is the strength of men that safety is kept and borders secure.
Cooperman88

Con

Alright, First and foremost we will look at the claims you make in your first argument. Your very first statement says "Since the Feminist revolution of the 60's men have been thrown around." Let's look to see if this is true. In 2003, only 15.2 percent of parliaments worldwide were women. Only 12 women were head of state out of 192 countries. Women make up over 70% of the worlds 1.3 billion who live on less than a dollar a day. In Europe, women who do well for themselves and work their way up the ladder of success find their wages farther and farther from men. With the top 10% making an average of 35% less than men in their respective fields. Yes, men have definitely been "thrown around" lately. You say that in education classrooms are geared towards females, yet when we look at lower education, like that of kindergarten and elementary schools, teachers have been found to call on a male student more than they would call on a female student. In places of higher education, it isn't female oriented, rather we are seeing a trend of gender neutralization. It isn't that men are being demasculated, it is that gender is no longer important. The words you are using in your arguments is the very rhetoric that is being used against you. "Men and boys are constantly degraded for the masculinty." Really? When, where, how? I didn't know this existed. Rather, boys are given toy guns for Christmas, and GI Joes, and toys that are extremely masculine. "Boys are taught that aggressiveness and competition are bad." Once again. No. If anything, girls are being taught it is good. The whole feminist movement is about placing men on a lower level, it's about getting both genders on the same level. And yes, girls are taught that a man must not hit them. To say it is ok is absurd. I seriously hope that you aren't advocating abuse. And no, girls are not taught that it is ok to kick a guy in the testes. Rather, girls are by nature more peaceful. Therefore, by nature they would choose not to do that. But also, with the increase in sex education in public schools, girls are taught what could happen to the testes if hit with enough force. Last I checked, it still takes to multiply. Girls know this, and won't do it without good reason. And if there is good reason, then I feel they should be able to kick a man there. Another reason men are not supposed to hit women, is that men are naturally stronger than women. To say otherwise goes against multiple observations. Men can hit harder than women. You say that we live in a society that worships women. You give the example of television. Last I checked, there were no women on the UFC circuit. And ultimate fighting is extremely masculine. Men, and boys around the nation idolize these men. They certainly aren't portrayed as week or helpless. And women are definitely not worshipped through our media. One of the most degrading things in my opinion is how our media dresses up women, by dressing them down. When our media tries to sell a product by showing scantily clad women, they are reinforcing this notion of women being nothing more than an item of which they can use to attract men. They are appealing to our sex appeal by saying "this extremely beautiful woman is nothing more than a product used to attract you." It reaffirms our subliminal idea of women being good for nothing but sex. And I didn't know that women were the CEO's and Secret Agents now. What about Jason Bourne? In the hit comedy "The Office" the president is male. "Chuck" another comedy has two male secret agents, and only one female. The only show I can think of with the main secret agent being a female is Alias. Lost the hit drama has the main character male. All of the CSI's have a male authority figure. The other crime dramas such as Criminal Intent, Criminal Minds, Cold Case, etc. have males as the leading roles. Scrubs has many more male characters than female characters. And the female doctor is portrayed as emotional, and somewhat unstable. As for women in debate, male participants are much more likely to win a round compared to a female.

Now for my arguments. Liberal Progressives and Radical Feminists are attemting to EQUALIZE masculinity with femininity. The whole movement is based on bringing one down, it's about equalizing both. Studies also show that more men tend to be less masculine then they would like you to believe. Society right now actually says that a man must be tough. He should be the main breadwinner, but not necessarily the only breadwinner. He should be the one to fix the car, and do manly things around the house. He should be tough, and not reveal his feelings. A man who cries is weird, and soft. Our picture for the ideal patriot is a man. Our ideal politician is a man because he symbolizes power, strength, justice, fairness, the ability to make decisions quickly, confidence, and a myriad of other things. A woman doesn't even enter into the picture. Just look at how many women are in our government now. How many women Supreme Court Justices are there? How many men in our government? How men men Supreme Court Justices? All of these things prove specifically that what you are saying is simply not happening. And once again, they aren't trying to demasculate men, they are just trying for equality.
Debate Round No. 1
conservativemike08

Pro

Well first of all, when they appeal to our lust, that is offerring the female in question up for worship. I believe in "Chuck", the female agent is the brains of the outfit. Look at shows like "King of Queens", "Everybody Loves Raymond", "Men In Trees", "According to Jim", and last but not least "Sex In The City". You also have "Bionic Woman". All of the shows are biased against men. Secondly I am not advocating abuse. You said however it the situation warrants a woman should be able to kick a man in the testes. Ok, fair enough I agree. So with said, it the situation warrants, a man should hit a woman in the face. It's not a one way street. You also have men growing up in fatherless homes more and more, and regardless of whose fault it is, these boys are will more likely than not foster a resentment towards male role models and wish to become anything but that which they should be. You cannot sit there and tell me the education system isn't biased to women either. You are having less and less guys go to college. Classrooms are set up for group interaction and team building through the conversing of ideas. Boys aren't wired that way. Men learn by doing, not talking about it. There are all kinds of instnaces where boys are given a poor grade for the same caliber work that a girl turned in and recieved a just grade. Many people are thrilled at the idea of a woman president. I am not. A woman would not be as efficient during a time of war, nor would many of the arabic countries even recognize her. Women have a right for equal standing, but some domains are for women and others men. Women should be paid the same. That's not the issue. The issue is blatant discrimination against men. All a woman has to do is scream rape and an innocent man may go down. A woman can now over hear a dirty joke, claim sexual harassment, win millions, MILLIONS, and another man who was having an ordinary day will lose again with a permenent mark on his public record. In dicorce cases, the fault is always the mans, even if the woman was unfaithful. She will say "oh he abused me emotionally" or "he neglected me." Rubbish. She was unfaithful because she was a hussie. Why do children always go to the mother? Didn't use to be that way. Why do women take men for all their worth? Be cause now instead of working as equals with men, they are abusing their God given rights. Look at Gloria Steinman or Mary Daly. Do they want equal rights or just no men?
Cooperman88

Con

Alright, obviously I struck a cord when I gave you statistics. I realize that when you are presented with hard evidence it is hard to go against that, but you should at least try. I mean really. You completely don't talk about any of the statistics I bring up. How can you make claims without backing any of them up? You start by saying that by appealing to our lust is offering the female up for worship. Do you worship something you want? Of course not. If you want something, then you try and take it. You try and get it for yourself. An object of worship is something that is revered. Something that you respect and admire. When a female is "appealing to our lust" she is offering herself up for the object of lust. That is all. If you ask a normal female what she wants between love or lust, she won't answer lust. She doesn't want that. Not only does she not want that, but she isn't offering herself up for that. She is being degraded by doing that. She is sending the message that all she is good for is to be looked at. That's not worship. That's degradation. You then go on to talk about shows. You say that the woman in "Chuck" is the brains, which isn't necessarily true. The man is the head agent, he is the brauns, he is the one that makes all of the decisions. Isn't that what you are advocating anyways? The other shows you talk about are hardly prejudice towards males. King of Queens is about a marriage, where yes, the male has his flaws, but so does the wife. Everybody Loves Raymond has the wife being this hard, emotionless, person. And the mother of Raymond is this overbearing, self-centered moron. How can you say that this show is centered for females? That's plain stupidity. Bionic woman is a remake from a while back, so that is kind of out of the picture. And if the situation warrants, I could agree with your situation. But those situations are much less likely to happen. There are women who have been found to be the aggressor, but these women are few and far between. When we look at the statistics of men and women who are serial killers, men outnumber women vastly. That is because women are more protective. Also as far as foreign policy goes, you say that women wouldn't be able to do certain things. I disagree. Women are much more centered towards the community, and away from ones' self. Compared to men who will do almost anything to help themselves. When we look at other nations' foriegn policy, we see that many nations like mulim nations actually are more "feminist" in their ideologies. Their society is about how to help the community. Which is what women are known for. Now granted, women aren't treated equally over there, but that doesn't mean their ideologies are wrong. The reason men are growing up in fatherless homes is because the father walks out on the family. Why would he do that? Because he is looking out for himself. Have you seen the commercial for Verizon Wireless that says that he is looking out for number one by buying himself a nice phone. This is the exact mindset that most men have. They are more willing to help themselves, than to help others. And the reason more women are going to college, is because they haven't been able to go to college for centuries. they weren't even allowed to go to school. Maybe you should be talking to the guys here, because last time I checked, it was a choice to go to college. so if more females are going to college, than that is because more females are choosing to go to college. You say that classrooms are set up for group interaction and that men aren't geared to learn that way. I would really love to see where you got that information because learning types don't differ from gender to gender. They differ from PERSON to PERSON. So yes, some guys are geared to learn that way, just like some girls aren't geared to learn that way. And there are probably more instances of guys getting crappy grades because of the same caliber work they did. I am a perfect example of that. My government teacher was a feminazi. She only would give girls good grades. for a class project where me and a group of two girls were together. I failed even though I did half of the work, and the project got an A. so yes, i understand what it is like to have this prejudice happen. But guess what, so are many other females. I don't have information backing this up, but neither do you, so whatever. You say that a woman would not be as effecient during a time of war, but a woman president probably wouldn't have a time of war while she was president. Like I've already said many times, women are going to go about things diplomatically instead of guns blazing. And as our past track record proves, that might be best. Look at vietnam, korea, both Iraq wars, the list of American messups at war is astronomical. Maybe a woman president would be best. who knows. The issue is definitely women getting paid the same, or getting the same jobs. Like I already said, it isn't about women demasculizing men, it's about women being equal with men. You say that all a woman has to do is scream rape and an innocent man may go down. Serious? because last time I checked Koby got off when that happened. Last time I checked, there is actual physical evidence to rape, so it's not just her word vs. his word. When was the last case that a woman one millions for overhearing a dirty joke? Maybe never? I don't really know because once again you fail to provide any evidence. In the movies maybe divorce is always the fault of the man, but what about real life? Oh wait, obviously you don't care since you're a heartless pig of a man. To assume that women are trying to demasculize men, is retarded. Where did you grow up, the KKK version of Hickville Alabama? I mean let's start talking about how those darned African Americans are ruining white America. What about illegal immigration? probably hate all mexicans too don't you. well guess what. women and men have to coexist. And guess what. For the last oh i don't know HISTORY OF THE EARTH women have been under oppression from men. So what if they are getting some rights. In fact, so what if they are winning a couple victories. This is the first time they've had the chance. Good for them. Maybe it should have happened a long time ago. But if you ask a normal woman what she thinks of men, she'll tell you that they should be equal. Not women above the men. so start learning something and shut up. you don't know what you're talking about, and all you're doing is making yourself look foolish.
Debate Round No. 2
conservativemike08

Pro

I know that very few people will believe me about this, only because it seems so impossible. I am not against womens equal rights or anything like that. I am against the discrimination of men. You mentioned Korea and Vietnam as war blunders. Funny, because last time I checked we won every major battle and in terms of war we won both of those conflicts. Liberal media just cast them in a bad light. I however really haven't the time to finish this debate properly as I need sleep for graduation in the morning, but I will leave you with this article....

Why Aren't Boys Going to College?
This year's spectacular Rose Bowl game attracted a phenomenal 35.6 million viewers because it featured what we want: rugged men playing football and attractive women cheering them on. Americans of every class, men and women, remained glued to their television sets, and nearly 95,000 spectators watched from the stands.

The runaway success of this game proved again that stereotypical roles for men and women do not bother Americans one bit. Political correctness lost out as all-male teams battled and women cheered.

It's too bad that male sports are being eliminated on most college campuses. Except for Texas, USC, and a few other places, radical feminism rules in the athletic departments at the expense of popular male sports.

Feminists oppose anything that is all-male or all-female unless it's gay marriage. They won't be able to ban the Rose Bowl anytime soon, but the Feminist Majority Foundation posts this warning on its website: "By encouraging boys to become aggressive, violent athletes, and by encouraging girls to cheer for them, we perpetuate the cycle of male aggression and violence against women."

Using bureaucratic and legal clout, the feminists have been censoring out hundreds of traditional manly college sports teams. If your favorite college once had a wrestling, baseball or track team, check again: there's a good chance it has been eliminated.

Several years ago, Howard University Athletic Director Sondra Norrell-Thomas announced her elimination of both its wrestling and baseball teams on the same day. It should surprise no one that Howard University's male enrollment dropped to only 34% compared to 66% female.

On June 2, 1997, the feminist National Women's Law Center announced that it would file a complaint against Boston University, the fourth largest private school in the nation, over its sports programs. Within months, BU ended the football team that had been in existence for 91 years. It is no surprise that male enrollment at Boston University is now down to 40%. One transfer student expressed his dismay in the student newspaper upon learning that his new school has 16,000 undergraduates but no football team.

In the entire State of Washington, there is no longer a single major college wrestling team, despite wrestling's huge popularity in high schools. Wrestling is one of the least expensive sports, requiring little equipment and having a low risk of injury, but feminists are working to eliminate all masculine sports.

The few colleges that have held firm against feminist pressure continue to attract males. Penn State, for example, has kept its superb programs in football, wrestling, baseball and track, and enjoys a 55% to 45% male-to-female enrollment.

The mean-spirited feminists recently demanded the resignation of 79-year-old football coaching great Joe Paterno because he spoke in sympathy of an opposing team's player accused of sexual assault. There was nothing offensive in Paterno's comments and 89% in an online AOL poll sided with him, but just a few feminists with a fax machine will smear anyone in their war against football.

The Rose Bowl proved that public demand is for all-male sports, not female contests. Boys do not want to go to a college that eliminates the macho sports, and that is true even if the boy does not expect to compete himself. The lack of college sports teams and camaraderie makes many high school boys wonder, why bother going to college? Despite the bloated price of college tuition, college doesn't even offer the sports opportunities that they enjoyed in their poorer high schools.

The effects of the feminists' attack on men's sports are now coming home to roost. By the time this year's college freshmen are seniors, the ratio will be 60% women to 40% men, and women are now crying that there are not enough college-educated men to marry.

China's brutal one-child policy has artificially created millions of young men for whom no wives are available. Right here at home, the feminists have created hundreds of thousands of college-educated women for whom no college-educated husbands are available, and the trend is getting worse.

Part of the change in the ratio of male and female college students is due to the ruthless interpretation of Title IX by the radical feminist bureaucrats in the Carter and Clinton administrations. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush and Secretary of Education Rod Paige chickened out on their opportunity to remedy the mischief. Bush appointed a couple of feminists to the commission investigating Title IX outrages, and then Paige refused to implement the majority's recommendations because the report was not unanimous.

Congress should step into the gap and stop funding colleges that terminate men's sports to meet arbitrary feminist quotas. Congress should imitate its action in passing the Solomon Amendment that tells colleges they will lose federal funding if they discriminate against military recruiters. Congress should tell colleges they will lose federal funding if they discriminate against men's sports. The American people clearly want male football, baseball, track and wrestling, and colleges that cut these sports should be cut out of the federal budget.
Cooperman88

Con

How can you say we won those wars? One of them is a standstill, and the other we pulled out of. Winning...ok. But that's not what we're arguing here. We're arguing that liberal progressives and radical feminists are attempting to demasculate men and destroy masculinity. Which they aren't. What you must realize, is that liberal progressives are attempting to equalize women's rights. When we look at what they are saying about men's sports, is that we should have either an all female team, or a team that has both genders. It isn't that they are saying they should have a team and men shouldn't. That is what destroying masculinity would be doing. But that isn't the case. they just want to be equal. If women actually got that, then there wouldn't be any discussion of this ever again. But they don't have equality, so they are trying to get it.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cjet79 9 years ago
cjet79
Piece of advice for both of you...please use more paragraphs. It is very hard to read over 40 lines of non stop text. Its hard on the eyes and makes it almost impossible to take small breaks between reading. Other then that good debate.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Alejandro 7 years ago
Alejandro
conservativemike08Cooperman88Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by The_Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
conservativemike08Cooperman88Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
conservativemike08Cooperman88Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by silentrigger1285 9 years ago
silentrigger1285
conservativemike08Cooperman88Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ross 9 years ago
Ross
conservativemike08Cooperman88Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mrpresident 9 years ago
mrpresident
conservativemike08Cooperman88Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by victork 9 years ago
victork
conservativemike08Cooperman88Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Schnozberry 9 years ago
Schnozberry
conservativemike08Cooperman88Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
conservativemike08Cooperman88Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by sethph 9 years ago
sethph
conservativemike08Cooperman88Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03