Modern Feminism is Necessary
Debate Rounds (5)
Dietorangesoda and I have talked before about the necessity of feminism in the west, and have happily agreed to have a debate about it! So here we are now.
For the sake of this debate, we have agreed that we will only refer to feminism in America and Canada. I'm more than happy to agree that feminism (or a form of women's/human rights movements) are needed in many parts of the world, especially developing countries. But for this debate, we are talking about the necessity of feminism in USA and Canada.
I don't believe feminism is necessary anymore, as women are treated equally (arguably better than men in many cases), and there is no systematic sexism/discrimination against them. Obviously Dietorangesoda disagrees with this.
Let me point out that the definition of feminism has little to no impact on this debate, as it's the actions and reasons behind those actions that represent a movement/community.
So without further ado, let's get on with this. I'll allow Dietorangesoda to present her opening arguments, I'll argue against them in R2 and bring up my own arguments, and we'll continue this all the way to the end.
Thanks, Dietorangesoda, for accepting this in advance and hopefully we'll have a great debate! :)
Women also have to deal with slut shaming while it is acceptable for a man to go out and sleep around a woman is expected to remain chaste if a woman does sleep around or work in the sex industry such as porn or prostitution she is deemed a slut,whore,skank so on and so forth as if somehow their sexual choices are a bad thing a lot of this comes from religious teachings but it has now become ingrained into our cultural norms. Even the concept of virginity was used to co modify women whereas a man virginity is seen as nothing a woman has extreme importance to her and even just the wording "lost her virginity" is used to shame her when you have sex you don't lose anything all you do is have sex but somehow for women they lose their "innocence".
Now for my point this is still alive and well here in the west while attitudes towards women sexuality and sexual freedom are becoming more relaxed men are having a hard time giving up their old attitudes there is still a double standard when it comes to men and women and a lot of it comes from either religious teachings or cultural norms. There is also a prevailing belief here in the west that woman who are in positions of power are somehow intimidating pushy bitchy or bossy and of course there are women who are bad leaders but much of this is the fact that they are women. So in conclusion i do believe feminism is needed here in the west because while attitudes are shifting they are not where they could be and without feminism they could easily go back to the old ways.
Thanks, soda. So like I said, I'll argue against your points and then bring up my own.
Let me start out by saying humans are sexual creatures. We are attracted to people of the opposite (or occasionally same) sex. A man looking at you in a sexual way, or a woman looking at a man in a sexual way (yes, women can think of men in a sexual way too) is a.) not a bad thing, and b.) not sexist, nor something we need to fight against.
With all that being said, I noticed your points aren't really about men or women looking at each other simply in a sexual way, so thanks for that. However, you go on to say that by using attractive PEOPLE in ads, it promotes the dehumanization of women. So I have a couple things to say about this. First of all, there are many ads that use an attractive man (sometimes just in his underwear) to sell a product. Here is a pretty good example of that:
Although there are more ads that contain scantily-clad women over men, it's silly to deny that there are also ads that "sexualize" men in order to sell their products. So this means, by your own logic, that all humans are just dehumanizing each other, as we use male and female bodies to sell products.
I have a couple things to say about this: 1.) How does this affect you? I'm looking at the ad beside this text right now, and I think to myself "huh, I wonder if that Air Freshener is any good." What I don't think is "huh, this ad is over-sexualizing the male body and is dehumanizing this man by using his body as nothing more than an object and something to look at." And even if I did think that... it's not affecting me. It's obviously his choice to participate in this ad, and I'm sure he's quite happy with it - he's able to show off his body, get some attention, get some money, and become somewhat popular. The company hiring this guy isn't "dehumanizing" him by paying him money to model beside an air freshener to catch the eyes of women. They aren't saying "you're less than a human because you're attractive and use your attractiveness to get attention and sell products." Anyway, the same situation, but with a woman, doesn't affect you. It's her choice to look pretty to sell something. And if it does affect you, I'd like to know how.
2.) The word "objectification" needs to go. An object is not something you have sex with. I wouldn't have sex with a lamp. I wouldn't have sex with a guitar. I wouldn't have sex with a chapstick (unless I was drunk). By saying you're "objectifying" them is actually discouraging people from joining fields like modeling, acting, etc. And the first objective of feminism was to empower women and let them know they can do whatever they want with their lives? As long as it isn't "looking attractive," you can do what you want. On top of that, this isn't going to change how I view women. People won't see a Carl's Jr. ad(amazing burgers by the way), and think "wow, those hot women are holding Burgers! I value women as less than men now! I now only see women as something to have sex with!" ...This wouldn't (and doesn't) happen.
My other point is regarding nipples. Check out the graph below. Areas in green represent places that completely allow women to go topless. Orange is relaxed laws, and it's illegal for women to be topless in red areas .
So, this shows that in 100% of Canada, and more than 90% of America, it is not illegal for women to be topless. Although there is that small 10% in America, there is a pretty good argument behind the reason female breasts are frowned upon being shown in public: sexual stimulation. Studies have shown that the female nipple lights up and reacts with the same area of the brain as the clitoris does . So this means that the female breasts are technically a sexual organ. So we have two options; treat the breasts the same as any other sexual organ and cover them up, or fight to uncover the clitoris as well, as it shares a common function with the nipples. If you believe the nipples should be free, so should the clit.
So let's sum this up real quick. Men and women are both sexualized in TV, as humans are sexual creatures. It's up to the person offering their body to make a decision regarding how they make their money, it's not up to you. "Objectification" just doesn't work, as nobody (not many people, anyway) wants to have sex with an object. And the female nipples are equivalent to the clitoris, so covering them up isn't "unfair," but it is "sexualizing," as they are sexual organs. ...Which isn't a bad thing. Where I live, I've seen maybe two topless women at public beaches in my whole life.
This is another situation that actually also affects men. Men are called players (and other terms I can't use here) for sleeping with many women. It's generally frowned upon for anyone to sleep with a lot of different people. With that being said, I agree that people should be able to sleep with as many people as they want, however feminism isn't going to do anything about mean people. There will always be a name that people will come up with for someone that they disagree with. If I call Mike a "dick," am I suggesting penises are bad? If someone calls you a slut for sleeping with a lot of people, you ignore them, as they're a mean person and will find something else to call you anyway, and go on with your day. Feminism isn't going to magically stop all the mean people from existing. If they don't chastise one of your behaviors, they'll chastise another.
"A man's virginity is seen as nothing, a woman's virginity has extreme importance to her." And you find a way to twist this into "women are oppressed"? It's scientifically proven that (I don't want to get into detail) if not stimulated correctly, it does hurt the first time a girl has sex . To ensure they have a good time and aren't hurt (physically or emotionally), it's recommended that girls take pride in the person they lose it to. It's not only more emotionally meaningful to women than men , it's more uncomfortable/painful.
So, to sum this bit up, we see that men and women are both "slut shamed," by being called mean words for having sex. We also see that these are just words, and to take offence to these words is silly. Society as a whole doesn't believe it's bad to have sex with many people, and the media sure doesn't promote against it. It's just a few people that are mean to begin with who will call you out on anything anyway.
I'm actually not quite sure where you get this idea that people think women who are in positions of power are looked at as pushy or bitchy. Almost every TV show or movie or book I read, a woman who is in power pretty much kicks the hell out of all the guys. Hell, most women in most media are portrayed as better than men. What I mean by this, especially in action movies, sure there are more men than women, however the women jump in, guns blazing, showing up the men, saying some cheesy "let the girls play now" line to make the men look weak, etc. Bosses being called bitchy or annoying or anything happens to both men and women. There just isn't a gender-exclusive word for men. With that being said, there are plenty of negative gender-exclusive words for men. And again, I have to reiterate my point that women in the media, whether in positions of authority or not, are often looked at as badass and able to show up the men. In fact, it's often men who are portrayed as clumsy, stupid, weak, etc.
To quickly add one more thing to this, that whole "ban bossy" campaign that was going around a while ago was absolute rubbish. If being called a mean word deters you from entering a career path you want, maybe you weren't really fit out for that career to begin with. Someone who gives up after being called a bad word (happens to everybody) probably wouldn't have been that beneficial anyway.
Alright, I don't want to take up too much space, so I'm jumping in to why I think feminism is a bad thing. I'm going to skip the fact that the wage gap is a myth and show that feminism spreads lies and is dangerous to women.
This whole idea of "slut shaming" and "victim blaming" suggests that women should wear what they want, do what they want, and act how they want, and in the end not expect any negative repercussions. Now I agree that it would be fabulous to live in a crime-free world, but that is unrealistic and currently is not the case, so it is smart and safe for men and women to take precautions while walking around alone, or in general. To suggest that women should be able to do what they want and not suffer consequences is asking for special treatment, as well as superiority. There aren't "theft walks" with people saying we should be able to wear what we want and not fear getting mugged. Same goes for other forms of crimes (that surprisingly primarily effect men). Feminists are only asking for *more* rights when it benefits women. This is not a positive/equal thing.
Feminism Spreads Lies
Like I said earlier with the wage gap, there are "statistics" that feminists present as fact, that aren't actually fact. Primarily the "1 in 5 women are raped" nonsense. Not only are almost all of these "statistics" taken from surveys , and not factually based with evidence at all, they scare the hell out of girls. Apparently 1 in 3 women are sexually assaulted. This puts fear into young girls and women in order to "show how oppressed they are." Although I agree there is a problem in developing countries, this doesn't reflect North America at all.
Anyway, no more space, so thanks.
http://www.scientificamerican.com... this link will explain it all,
As for the slut shaming thing while men are often perceived as players they are never subjected to the ridicule a woman will face for having lots of sex eventually they go on and often marry and forget it while many women especially if they live in a small town find it hard to find a man if they are a perceived "slut" women still by far are looked down upon for having lots of sex something women in the sex industry know too well in many cases and i have witnessed this personally a porn star will give an opinion on something and be immediately shot down with the old attitude of your just a slut so who cares what you think? It is a wrong attitude as "sluts" don't actually exist and as women become more relaxed sexually men will have to get over this attitude.
My next argument will actually be one for men and that is the very widespread idea of male masculinity that men are supposed to be tough never show emotion or do anything perceived feminine. Even to the point to where men's sexual assault is taking lightly because "he must have enjoyed it" or he was raped by a man so "he must be gay" The feminism movement is set to combat these attitudes and strict gender roles and little boys are already seeing the advantages of it it is becoming more acceptable to play with dolls dress up as female characters like pink and show emotion. All of these is because of feminism and while i agree that there are some man hating feminazi's real feminists want equal rights for both and women and not just women and this is my conclusion for this round.
I'm glad we can agree that "objectification" isn't the best word to describe this, but I can understand that it's hard to find a word. My solution would be to not put negative labels on natural human behavior. I'm attracted to women, like most men, and that doesn't mean I think of them as nothing more than something to have sex with. And even then, even if my sole purpose of getting to know a girl was to have sex with her, it still doesn't mean I'm treating her as less than human. There's this strange stigma going around recently, thanks to feminism, that it's bad to hook up with people. All thanks to the word objectification. By hanging out with someone simply to have sex, even if consensual, you are "objectifying" each other, which is a horrible thing, except both the people participating are just unaware of it.
Alright, let's get to business.
Over-sexualization of people
Nobody is made to do anything in the media. A position opens up, and someone says they would like to do that. If a woman doesn't want to wear a bikini next to a burger, she doesn't have to. If a man doesn't want to stand shirtless next to an air freshener, he doesn't have to. Nobody is forcing people to do this. If they want a career in modeling or acting, they can apply to companies that they feel suits them. The choice that other people make on what to do with their own body isn't up to you to decide if it's right or wrong. This is one of the reasons I consider feminism to be a bad thing. More often than not, feminists claim to be for equal rights, opportunities, etc, but when someone does something they don't like, even if it doesn't affect them one bit, they try to put a stop to it. What you're doing, saying how horrible it is for a woman to look attractive next to a burger, is the exact opposite of what the original feminism's goals were. You're (in a sense) telling women what they should and should not do, because you do or don't like it. The women in these commercials have every opportunity not to call in and audition for the part, and they have every opportunity to leave if they feel uncomfortable. There isn't a problem here.
I can't argue against every point your article brings up, but the main theme I noticed was basically "the less clothing a person wears, the more sexually they are looked at." Now, this isn't a bad thing, nor is it breaking news. If a woman sees a naked man, she will (more often than not) look at him in a sexual way. If she sees a man in a suit, or shirt and jeans, she will (more often than not) look at him in a non-sexual way. Same applies for men. Watching movies or ads or music videos with naked men and women isn't going to change anyone's perspective of men and women. The sexual crime rate has decreased , so obviously men are viewing women in a more respectable way, and more is being done to ensure women are safe. Ads that show women in bikinis aren't going to raise the sexual assault rate, nor will it change anyone's perspective of women. I can speak from personal experience... I'm a man. I see ads with attractive, scantily-clad women all the time. I don't view women as "objects" or give their ideas no value or significance. To think that men will all of a sudden not care about women, or think of them solely as "sexual beings" because they saw a semi-clothed woman in an ad is ridiculous.
I also have one huge criticism of this article. The title alone is making women out to be victims, and men out to be aggressors. The title alone (as well as the rest of the article) portrays men as sex-crazed animals, and women as victims. If this is feminism, then feminism is horrible. Not only do women look at men in a more sexual way the less clothes they have on, they tend to (as well as men) buy products on impulse if an attractive model is used in the ad . So what exactly is feminism trying to do, other than make women look like weak victims of horrible big bad sex-craved men? Well, stop people from doing what they want with their own lives.
I agree that someone who has a lot of sex should be looked at no different than someone who doesn't have a lot of sex, other than the chance of STI's etc. However, this isn't a feminism issue. This isn't even a human right's issue. This is a "people will be jerks" issue. I've been ridiculed for having many sexual partners, asked how many diseases I have, how my AIDS is, how much I pay in child support, if I'm happy not having any worth and looked at as a sex object (lol), and the list goes on. Considering a hell of a lot of this is strictly anecdotal, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to say "this happens to women way more than men." Although the term "slut," "whore," etc. is thrown around, this doesn't mean the male equivalent isn't happening just as much. In fact, with the SlutWalk and other events to stop female "shaming," this goes to show that bad stuff happening to women is taken more seriously than bad stuff happening to men. There isn't a "player walk" or organizations trying to put a halt on the word "gigolo" or "manwhore" or "player" etc. More often than not, women are the primary ones who receive support for negative stuff that happens to both men and women. Same goes for abuse. There are a thousand women's shelters for every man's. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm saying feminists need to realize this - the only people who treat women poorly are bad people to begin with, and will most likely treat everyone poorly.
And a side note; anyone in the porn industry is usually dismissed instantly. The reason it happens "more" to women than men is because nobody gives a damn about the men in porn. They're there for the attractive women. I can guarantee you if an equally well-known male pornstar and female pornstar were talking with their audience, they'd get ridiculed equally.
So like I said earlier, the definition of feminism has little to no effect on this argument, however I would like to bring up that it is "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." So the original idea (and current idea) isn't to help men; it's to help women achieve equality to men - something they already have. Keep in mind that what you *want* to happen, or what your *idea* is, isn't going to dictate the movement as a whole. It's nice to say "feminism wants equal treatment for men too," but it's even nicer when it actually happens. Feminists aren't outside prisons chanting "end prison rape," they aren't outside women's shelters chanting "what about men," etc. Allowing boys to dress like girls and play with dolls is arguably detrimental to the growth of those boys, as they have a larger chance of growing up confused about their sexuality, and an even larger chance of getting bullied or picked on. Turning men into women and women into men (eliminating gender norms is your goal, I assume) is detrimental. Men are attracted to women, and women are attracted to men. If everyone acted like the same gender, it would be annoying and deter people from reproducing. Of course this isn't going to stick though, so I'm not concerned. And just out of curiosity, do you have a link or source to a feminist website about a feminist actually doing something about negative things that effect men? Not just writing a blog, I mean protesting or something along those lines. Because what I see are feminists addressing the very few issues that primarily effect women.
Men are more likely to be murdered, assaulted, robbed, homeless, commit suicide, get injured at work, and many more. Men and women are equally victims of rape (if you take prison rape into account), almost equally victims of domestic violence , yet feminists focus solely on the issues that primarily effect women, or the female victims of bad things that affect men and women. When less bad stuff happens to women than men, yet feminists claim women are at a disadvantage, it says something.
Oh and just for added pleasure, Bustle, a known feminist website, claims men cannot be the victims of sexism . A feminist website claims sexual discrimination against men does not exist. This is not equality, this is actually detrimental to the whole of society. It pisses off men, and it turns every woman on Earth into an innocent, weak victim. I'm on women's sides, I'm not on feminist's sides.
I also see you didn't argue against my points about Victim Blaming and that Feminism spreads lies. I urge you to argue against those, as those are kind of important points.
Thanks! Talk to you soon.
As for men they have indeed been helped by feminism today young boys are able to much more freely play with toys considered more feminine dress in a more feminine manner and don't have such pressure on them to play sports and be athletic. Which doesn't mean we will have a gender neutral society it just means gender roles won't be so set in stone another thing would be men expressing emotion for many years a man was taught he shouldn't cry and he shouldn't be upset in front of people even though sadness and crying are human traits that shouldn't be squelched it has caused men many problems including depression,drug or alcohol abuse,extreme anger,and even in some cases PTSD and other psychological trauma. I refute your claims that playing with dolls and such confuses children about their sexuality because sexuality in inborn into you and if a child turns out gay then it is because they were born gay not because they had a doll growing up.
Now as for feminists helping men there have been many causes the feminism movement has picked up for men including the LGBT movement men's rape and sexual assault combating gender roles freely expressing male emotion and so and so forth prison rape isn't nearly as common as people think in fact much of the homosexual sex that goes on in prisons is consensual and often times men's rape and sexual assault is not taken seriously usually by other men if the man is raped by another male he is seen as weak for not being able to fight the male off and if he is raped by a woman he must have enjoyed it right? because a man could never not want sex from a woman. This is further exploited by the myth that if you become aroused during a rape you must have enjoyed it when in fact arousal and even orgasm happens more often during rapes then people once thought however is usually not reported out a victims shame. The feminist movement has helped to educate and highlight these facts and we are seeing attitudes shift now women's sexual assault is being taken more serious then ever and men's are even being legitimate none of this would have happened without feminism.
"I don't know a feminist or even just a woman out there that doesn't agree that women need to minimize risk of sexual assault..."
Here's 8,000+  in Toronto alone. What the 'Slut Walk' teaches women is that they should not have to take precautions to avoid harmful situations, and instead rely on all men on Earth collectively deciding to stop doing bad things to women. The feminists who promote the Slut Walk have sort of good intentions, but portray it in a harmful way, and the primary victims of the messages feminists present are other women. It's a nice idea - not living in a world where we have to be careful of other people - but that is far from reality, and if it ever becomes a reality, it won't be any time in the near future. Bad people will always exist.
The average time spent in prison for men who commit rape is 65 months, whereas the average time spent in prison for men who commit murder is 71 months . This shows that rape is taken extremely seriously, and results in prison sentences that are on average just 6 months shorter than that when you kill somebody. The feminists that take part in the slut walk seem to think rape is trivialized and not taken seriously. Well, if you spend almost the same amount of time in prison as someone who has ended the life of someone else, which is arguably the worst type of crime, then yes, it's taken very damn seriously. But wait - rapists actually spend more time in prison than people who have committed manslaughter . So they actually spend more time in prison than someone who has killed somebody. To say, after seeing these facts, that rape is not taken seriously, is ridiculous.
But back to minimalizing risks of sexual assault. Here is a page that has over 11,000 shares on Facebook, which talks about how dumb it is to take precautions to avoid dangerous situations . This article practically demonizes people who suggest reasonable, logical ways for women to avoid being raped. And keep in mind, it has over 11,000 shares on Facebook, meaning there are 11,000+ people who believe women shouldn't have to take precautions to avoid danger, and instead should shift all the focus on "teaching men not to rape." Here  is a feminist/woman telling men not to rape women in 50 different ways. At the beginning of her enlightening post, she says she would send this around as an email, and that safety experts should teach this, instead of teaching women to be safe and take care of themselves. And the replies are all other feminists/women agreeing that this should be passed around as an email. Because we all know simply saying "don't do this" will stop someone from doing it.
My point is that taking all responsibility off women, and assuming that simply by "telling men not to rape," we will end rape, is ridiculous, and detrimental to the safety of women. The majority of feminists are on board with this idea. And like I said before, it's not so much the words of the group, but how they present themselves.
I believe my point about the length of rape sentences should nullify your point that rape cases aren't taken seriously. The unfortunate part about rape is that it's incredibly hard to prove. And unfortunately again, we can't change the law to be "guilty until proven innocent," as that's just illogical and can/will lead to an incredible amount of innocent people in jail/prison.
It is a fact that some people (not just women) will regret sleeping with someone, so they claim they were raped. It's just in human nature to try and avoid making yourself look bad. I'm not saying there are a lot of false rape cases, but it does happen, and to ignore this is ridiculous. And the women actually aren't "demeaned" for their style of clothing if they claim they were raped or sexually assaulted - what really happens is common criminal practice. When someone claims to be a victim of something, the police or people around ask questions to see if it could have been prevented.
I was mugged when I was in grade 10, and the very first thing the police asked was "what were you wearing"? Do I claim they are blaming me? Do I say this is misandry? No, I tell them what I was wearing so they can get more information, and so they can give me advice on how to avoid bad situations. Making it a bad thing when women are given ways to avoid dangerous situations is dangerous to women - something feminists want to avoid. Fancy that.
Finally, whether or not believing in the wage gap was an "honest mistake," it is still untrue, and it still spread like wildfire in the feminist community. I'm still told a reason feminism is needed is because men are paid 23 cents more than women for the same job. If it isn't a lie, it's wrong, and spreading incorrect ideas is obviously detrimental. Feminists still cling to the idea that the wage gap is true. It's good that you believe it's false, but a lot of feminists believe it's true, and go out of their way (equal pay day) to fight for equal pay, even though they already have it.
I'm starting to think you aren't reading what I'm saying. I already addressed this point, and you already said it. So refer to my "masculinity" paragraph in the previous round. However I see you brought up a new point. "...Young boys ... Don't have such pressure on them to play sports and be athletic." So you honestly think not trying to keep (people in general) athletic and fit is a good thing? You, a feminist, are claiming that it's good that boys aren't pressured to stay athletic. This is another reason feminism is detrimental. It's too focused on "absolute equality and treatment" to care for the health and well-being of the very people it is trying to help. Being athletic isn't a "gender role," it's common sense and good for your health. If feminists were so concerned about men's "depression, drug or alcohol abuse, extreme anger, and PTSD," they would be finding ways to combat this. It is now acceptable for men to show their emotions, and I honestly can't remember a time in my life where someone made fun of me for crying or being upset about something. So even if feminism helped at a time with this, much like women's right to vote, work, etc. feminism is no longer necessary to help with this "problem." And if it was, the feminists saying "I bathe in male tears" sure as hell doesn't help. The picture to the right received 650+ likes, and 160+ retweets . So there are hundreds of women that enjoy another woman who wears a shirt basically making fun of men who cry. And if you've been around the internet at all, you'd see there are also mugs that have this saying that self-proclaimed feminists drink out of.
Oh, and here's another example of the incredible double-standard that feminists have.
Feminists claim not to judge someone by how they dress. Yet they went absolute apesh*t on this guy for how he dressed . This guy landed a friggin satellite on an asteroid, and feminists/women are too concerned about his shirt to care that he's made a major leap in the scientific industry. And you still think feminism is beneficial? It's literally halting scientific exploration because they're judging the way someone is dressed... something they claim to be against.
Anyway, good point about the kid not growing up gay, I didn't mean he would just "turn gay," I meant he would be confused, as most boys don't play with dolls etc. But that's fair. However, he will still be picked on because he is playing with "girly" toys, and dressing "girly." What's more important, political correctness, or the well-being of your son? My four year old (assuming I had one) wouldn't care if he couldn't play with dolls or not, but what he would care about is being picked on and bullied for playing with something I'm inviting him to play with. I'd rather my son is happy and does the same thing as other boys, than unhappy.
I also see you didn't argue against the "1 in 3" thing I brought up.
Ignoring the "combating gender roles" thing, what exactly has feminism done to help men's rape and sexual assault? Can you provide a link to a feminist page or a page showing what feminism has actually done to help male victims of rape, or to stop rape against men? "Attitudes shifting" and actual precautions or measures being put on place to stop these things from happening or helping victims are completely different things. It's great that good men and women now view rape seriously. But there's still an issue with the bad men and women. How exactly is feminism going to stop people from being bad? Like I said before (and if I haven't, I'll say it now), feminism has done a lot of good in the past. My point is that feminism is no longer needed. Bad stuff happening can be combated by the law and good, decent people, not by a group of women bleeding all over themselves . But all joking aside, feminists are fighting for women's rights, not for men to be safer on the streets and prisons and wherever else. Like I asked before, if you could provide something that shows feminism is currently (or is needed in order to) helping men (in more ways than making it normal for boys to play with dolls), I'll happily argue against those.
Most people understand feminism has a negative connotation, so why not go the route of egalitarianism?
This site doesn't recognize "misandry" to be a word. This is sexism against men.
I am indeed aware of that whole shirt incident and i too thought it was ridiculous but like every other group your going to get some radicals in your mix and the feminists that were upset about it were more misandrists then anything none of the feminists i know cared about it and same goes for your links and Facebook petition all those women are radicals because women do have to minimize risk sadly they are caught up on a perfect world where men never rape and while i agree that boys should be taught to respect women and that they should stop if a girl says no there will always be men who rape.
I'm going to keep this brief i am not aware of any feminists groups that go around trying to end any types of men's problems because as i've stated earlier the examples you gave were not very good ones and not really issues that need protesting for. However the things i listed have been looked and fought for by feminism so i would say feminists are helping men even if they don't go our and scream about it i mean where would we go protest anyway? I am aware that men have problems and are not perfect however feminism much like the BLM movement LGBT movement and others are about the minority and the downtrodden and for centuries men have been in power and not kept down. However this doesn't mean feminism is about man hate it just means of course were going to focus on women's issues primarily so men can't get angry about this if they want a movement for their own join the meninist movement or create a new one.
Well it's unfortunate that this debate is coming to an end, but I had fun. Finally a decent debate with a feminist. So thanks :)
But let's get back to business.
I hate this term, and I hate how people want it abolished even more. Men and women are biologically different, and tend to do things that most of their gender tend to do. Nobody is "forcing" men or women to do something that most men or women, respectively, do. The reason we slightly encourage it is because that's what makes everybody happy. Almost every single woman I know would rather stay home and raise her child than continue working and stay away from her child, while it's the exact opposite with almost every man I know. Now I know this is anecdotal, so here's a graph from a feminist blog  that tries to spin this into something else, but the numbers don't lie. Women would rather stay at home or work part time even if money weren't an issue, whereas men would rather work full time. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. It just shows that women PREFER one thing, while men PREFER another. I understand that this is a little bit off-topic, but it's still a non-issue that feminists like to bring up and claim they're being mistreated, while it's simply women's choices to do something over men. Feminism is attempting to stop women from doing something they want to do, because they're terrified of the term "gender role." Nobody can do what the majority of their gender does because... well, no good reason.
Alright, back to sports. You don't want to stop pushing boys to be athletic. That's great, neither do I. I'd like to take this a step further and say that boys and girls are equally represented in physical education classes, and neither one is currently being pushed harder than another. Although men tend to be biologically more athletic than women, this isn't even looked at anymore. So if anything, there are no gender roles when it comes to school and physical education. In addition, I see that you accept the fact that boys are picked on when they aren't athletic enough. So I have a solution. Instead of throwing feminism at it, and expecting every single person on Earth to "find the error in their ways," how about as well as teaching people to be nice (something that doesn't require feminism), we ensure boys (and girls) are athletic enough to either a) not be picked on, or b) stand up for themselves if they are. To say "with feminism, everyone is happy" is unfortunately an incredibly unrealistic and impossible-to-achieve goal. Again, one more reason I believe feminism to be detrimental. Much like my argument about the slutwalk being detrimental to the safety of women by taking all responsibility off women, feminism (as you'd like to see it) is detrimental to boys, by taking all responsibility off them to stay in shape and be able to defend themselves. Feminists assume that by saying "hey, read about feminism," all bad people in the world will magically disappear. This is unfortunately not true, and should not be taught.
"Not All Feminists"
Have you heard of the hashtag #NotAllMen? The hashtag is feminists' way of making fun of men who simply point out that not every man acts the way some women and feminists believe they do, which is a valid point. But feminists have decided to chastise men for simply pointing out that the woman/feminist is wrong when she makes a generalization about men. And now you're doing the same. Let me take an excerpt from a feminist article saying how ridiculous saying "not all men" is, and replace that phrase with "not all feminists." 
It's defensive bullsh*t that doesn't really do anything but prove the bearer of Not All Feminists is more concerned with saving face for themselves than, you know, actually acknowledging the concern that another person is expressing.
I understand that not every feminist hates men, or not every feminist doesn't understand the statistics of average earnings or sexual assaults or typical education by gender etc. I understand that not all feminists are the same, and not all are bad. However... the face of feminism is what is most commonly seen. So when your (possibly your) good friend Julie Bindel, who is pretty popular in the feminist community, with 13,000 followers on Twitter , claims men should be put in concentration camps , it says something. And it doesn't matter that not all feminists agree with her, what matters is there are a large number of feminists (and normal people) do agree with her, and non-feminists take note of that. You can say "not all feminists," and I'd happily agree with you, but keep in mind, when men did the same thing, about their gender even, not even their ideology, they were ridiculed and chastised by the very people you share an ideology with for doing so.
"All those women are radicals" It's very easy to just say "see all those examples you provided of feminists doing detrimental things to the whole of society? Yeah they don't count." Unfortunately though, we are talking about the necessity of feminism, and when those women are a huge part of feminism, I can't do anything but bring them up to explain how unnecessary feminism is, or at the very least, how poorly tens of thousands of feminists represent the movement.
With all that being said, why is it so hard to not call yourself an egalitarian? When you agree with me that there are a lot of feminists who are just bad people, for lack of better words, wouldn't it make more sense to associate yourself with a group that is not known for having radicals, and is known for helping women and men equally? Just a thought.
"There will always be men who rape." This is true. And you, one feminist, disagreeing with practically the foundation of the entire current feminist movement (the slut walk), unfortunately has very little impact on the entire feminist movement and the necessity of it.
Feminists only help women
I'm glad you can see that there aren't any feminist groups that try to help men. So this contradicts what you said earlier to a degree, although you did say helped and not helping, so that's fair enough. However I have a big problem with your next statement. "...the examples you gave were not very good ones and not really issues that need protesting for." The examples I gave are as follows, word for word: "Men are more likely to be murdered, assaulted, robbed, homeless, commit suicide, get injured at work, and many more." If you think rape is an issue that needs addressing, and getting killed isn't, then you fall into the category of why feminism is detrimental to society. Because you're doing two things. You're a) saying a problem that primarily affects women is more important to address than an issue that affects both men and women, and b) you're saying rape is the most serious type of crime. Now I'm not doubting the severity of rape, but my main point is that you (and almost every other feminist) claims they're for equality, yet only protests against the issue that primarily affects women. Not the issues that equally affect both men and women.
But like you said, feminism is feminism for a reason, and does only combat issues that primarily affect women. However like I've said before, feminism and feminists are doing this in the wrong way.
So because this is my last round, I'd like to bring up female privilege. I'm not doing this because I want to show that women have it better than men, I'd like to simply show that there is no need for feminism, as women aren't treated worse than men, aren't oppressed, aren't held back, etc. I don't have a hell of a lot of room left, so I'll bring up some major points and provide links and pictures so support the ones I haven't covered.
From an early age, men will be told to never hit a woman, yet if a woman were to hit a man, she would not receive even close to the social penalties that a man would if he were to hit her.
Women are not required by law to join the military draft if the country were to go to war.
Women will receive more help when they are in need, or even when they are not, than men.
If a disaster were to strike, women would be among the first to be saved, giving the impression that a woman's life is more valuable than a man's.
The social pressure is on a man to pay for the majority of things a couple does together.
Any accusation a woman makes on a man will be taken seriously right off the bat and will, at the very least, be investigated.
The qualifications for women to join the military is less than that of men - something arguably detrimental to women's safety.
If a woman doesn't get a job, it's not because she isn't good enough, it's because of sexism.
If a man doesn't get a job, it's because he isn't good enough.
A woman will most likely not be charged with or accused of sexual harassment if she were to act inappropriately toward a man, whereas a man could easily lose his job and reputation if he were simply accused of doing the same toward a woman.
Here's a few more - , 
And you're trying to say that feminism, a movement suggesting that women aren't treated as well as men, and is trying to "grant women equality," is necessary? I'm sorry, but looking at the above lists, and taking into account the lack of evidence supporting any feminist claims, it's pretty hard to say women aren't treated equally to men. It's pretty hard to say a movement is needed to provide equal treatment for women. It's pretty hard to say women are at a disadvantage. It's pretty hard to say feminism is necessary.
Next all movements have radicals no matter who you join i am a huge advocate for the LGBT movement but i can admit we have radicals that go too far and feminism is no exception and also about egalitarian thing it's not up to me to change the movements name so i can't really decide that but perhaps in the future thats what it will be called
And for my conclusion i'm going to keep it brief because i believe i have made all my points for feminism i do still believe it's necessary and while it's not perfect and i admit that women will probably always need it i do however think the feminist movement should shift their focus onto other problems then some of the ridiculous ones that they do like the shirt guy such as women's rights in 3rd world countries the Muslim sexual assaults in Europe and a variety of men's issues. But i will not abandon it simply because some radicals got into it instead i think we should fix it and bring it back to what it was before i really could on with more points but i think i'll let the other rounds speak for themselves thank you for debating me and good luck.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Nac 8 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 8 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Quite simply, Con used more sources to back up their points in succinct fashion (source points). Argumentation goes to Con. It feels as though Pro simply didn't answer what was brought up by Con, that being how both sexes are "objectified" (and refuted the point, btw from Pro), as well as the point regarding if its about equality, what degree of support is lent to men's public assistance. Con also did a great job of showing a contradictory movement: empowerment versus oppression, and when the two are made mention of. I feel as though con illustrated it best in stating that bad people are going to be bad people, sexism isn't really a driver in that. (arg points)
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.