The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Modern Day Feminism Has No Legitimacy.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
marxian_ginger has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 486 times Debate No: 99241
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I challenge you to a debate on the topic of feminism. I believe I can offer statistics to combat your assertion that feminism is not sexist and still about equality. The rules are as follows:
R1 - Acceptance Only.
R2 - Opening Arguments.
R3 - Question Round, Where we Each Ask The Other as Many Questions as We Want
R4 - Answer Round, Where We Answer Each Other's Questions
R5 - Closing Arguments.

I look forward to the challenge!


I accept your challenge! (If I'm misunderstanding your rules I apologize)
Debate Round No. 1


Much thanks to marxian_ginger for agreeing to this debate. Best of luck to him/her.

Let me start by clarifying that I am not a "men's rights activist". I do not believe men or women are oppressed in today's society, contrary to the claims of feminists and anti-feminists. I am just a rational person who looks at the ridiculous claims of modern feminism as grossly over exaggerated. How does hyperbole help women? As of today, there are no laws in the US that unfairly benefit men over women, there is no culture of sexual harassment that supports the harm of women, and, of course, women do not earn less money than men for the same work. Therefore, any debate over feminism will have to revolve around the societal benefits men have over women, and vice versa.

I keep hearing this figure that one in five women in college have been raped, even though this claim has been decisively debunked for years. The flawed survey that produced this statistic is the "Campus Sexual Assault Study" commissioned by the DOJ in 2005. The troubles with this study are threefold: it focused on two (that's right, two) four year universities; it had an extraordinarily low turnout rate (about 42%); and it's definition of sexual assault was overly broad- including things like unwanted kissing on a first date. And yet my professors still teach it like it's true! This lie is hurting our capacity to find real statistics. I'd like to know whether or not my opponent believes that a lack of evidence for something means that you can fabricate your own evidence, as this seems to be the case with modern feminism.

How about the claim that our nation is run by men? Yes, I will admit that a large number of our politicians, scientists, and business executives are male. I'd like to put forward the radical notion that this does not mean women are oppressed by society. Male politicians were the ones who gave women the right to vote, the right to have a job, the right to attend college, and the right to an abortion. Are you saying that we, as a nation, are more sexist than a bunch of old white guys in the 60s and 70s? Male scientists and doctors provide health services that everyone enjoys, especially women. Are you going to argue that because every gynecologist and obstetrician at your hospital is a man, that means medical employment is sexist? Business executives employ millions of women in this country (many times, simply because they are a woman). Unless my opponent can offer concrete evidence of sexism occurring in these fields, I fail to see how this is any different from saying: "they're all men, so they must be sexist!"; isn't this assuming something without evidence? And even if my opponent could offer said evidence, that wouldn't mean that the system was rigged to disadvantage women! All it would show is one old man in that field happens to be sexist. And really, this doesn't matter, because there are currently more women enrolled in college than men. By the time most of these feminists graduate, these men will be retired or dead, and their jobs will be open for the taking.

The claimed objectification of women in the media. I think this one is my favorite. The people who complain about the sexualization of female characters in movies are the same people who go to see an action flick with overly aggressive male characters and say nothing. Isn't feminism about equality? Why don't they protest the objectification of all people in movies? Because it doesn't fit the narrative of oppression. Feminists moan about how Barbie dolls teach girls that skinny means beautiful, but do they care that He-man and GI Joes tell boys that violence makes you "manly"? Not in the least, not even when we know that men are four times more likely to commit suicide than women. Could it be because our culture tells boys that emotions make you weak? How much more psychologically damaging can you get? Where's "gender equality" on that one?

At the end of the day, we need to recognize the society in which we live. A society that tells little boys "ladies first" isn't a patriarchy. A society where a woman wins the custody of her children in 84% of divorce cases can't be sexist, nor a society where women can vote without entering the draft. In this country, women are vastly more likely to avoid incarceration than men, and even then, they usually get lower sentences. I'd like to know whether or not my opponent thinks the fact that the vast majority of American prisoners are men is sexist. Men greatly outnumber women in combat and workplace deaths, mental illness per capita, and murders. Is this a part of the "male privilege" I keep hearing about? How about the fact that domestic violence victims are nearly 40% male, and yet they are denied service at most taxpayer funded shelters? Women and girls in the Middle East and Africa are being murdered, raped, and tortured in the name of Islam, and feminists have the arrogance to protest bras and catcalling? Seriously?

Thank you.


Best of luck to you as well.

I will start my argument by stating that I myself, just as my opponent is not a 'men's rights activist', am not a feminist, or, at least, I am not a first-world feminist. I believe that in a first world environment, the only things that come anywhere close to "oppression" are illegal, and while of course they still happen they are prosecutable and therefore are not exactly fixable with a movement other than perhaps that by police. As many people will argue, the majority (if not all) of first-world feminist claims have been completely disproven.

However, it is here where my opponent has made a mistake. They are referring only to first-world feminism. It is not modern feminism as a whole that is illegitimate, but first-world feminism. First-world feminism is the most prominent from of feminism, and also arguably the most pointless. Unlike true feminists, first-world feminists only care about women getting murdered when they have to use it for damage control. We don't usually hear about this larger picture of feminism, generally because instead of sitting at a computer writing articles, or marching in parades protesting against issues that aren't there, these feminists are doing something about the problems that are actually present in the world.

True feminism as it exists in the modern world appears in places such as Egypt, where feminists protest alongside thousands of other revolutionists despite the risk of death that they have been reminded of time and time again, or in the Peshmerga, where men and women are fighting together against ISIL forces in the Middle East, or in any other of the Kurdish movements there, and in dozens of other examples I have not listed here. It is, putting it lightly, wildly misrepresented by first-world feminists.

This type of feminism is not but one simple group as it may have seemed initially, but instead comes in many forms, such as Marxist feminism and anarcho-feminism, where with both the idea is not to blame men, but to blame and act against the system which exploits and hurts both men and women, or for example libertarian feminism (not including individualist feminism), where women and men are given the same extensive rights. You may've noticed a pattern here. Unlike first-world feminism, these forms of feminism are centered around men and women being allies or at the very least, on friendly terms, unlike the feminism we see in America and other first-world countries, where this is only a claim used for damage control and nothing more. The various forms of feminism outside of first-world have been instated as movements in America before, of course, but they eventually devolve into first-world, fail entirely due to the inherent lack of problems to deal with, or eventually merge with the movement other than feminism that they are associated with; for example anarchism or Marxism.

Modern feminism is not illegitimate; It is only this first-world breed of "feminism" that has no legitimacy.
Debate Round No. 2


1) I'd like to know whether my opponent lives in the Middle East, or if the vast majority of feminists he/she comes across are of the 'first world' variety and hs/her references to Islamic feminism were a clever red herring to distract from the real point of this debate. Since I made specific allusions to the legitimate patriarchy in the Muslim world, and denounced what you refer to as 'first world' feminism (as you yourself say, the variety that is by far the more prominent) why make a point you knew I would agree with if you weren't intentionally trying to distract?

2) Con uses the term 'modern' to refer to every sect of feminism from across the globe. I'd like to know if he uses the term 'modern art' in a similar fashion. Does 'modern art' refer to current presidential portraits and also Amazonian cave paintings and also to the crayon scribblings of my nephew, or do we all assume that the term 'modern art' refers to that specific breed of convoluted shapes favored by western intelligentsia? If Con prefers this latter definition, why do the rules suddenly change with feminism?

3) What else in the Muslim world besides feminism do you consider to be 'modern' ? Do they have a 'modern' culture, or 'modern' rules of law? If they have nothing else that we in the west would consider 'modern', on what grounds can you say that their feminism is modern? Isn't it safe to say that their campaigns to not be tortured and raped are a few centuries of progression behind the feminism we see in the US, Canada, Great Britain, and Europe?

4) If, by your own admission, the vast majority of feminists are illegitimate, how can you group them together with a minority of feminists we both acknowledge to be fully legitimate? Isn't this a little unfair? Notice how the title of this debate is not "All Feminists Have No Legitimacy", but rather "Modern Day Feminism Has No Legitimacy."

I will offer the sources for my arguments in the final round.
Thank you for your attention.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.