The Instigator
NadjiGuemar
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wiploc
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

New Western Feminism is pointless and oppresive.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 5 votes the winner is...
wiploc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,323 times Debate No: 32238
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

NadjiGuemar

Pro

My position is the position implied by the title.


I'd like a rational discussion.


You must stick to Western Feminism, I have no problem with it where the rights of women are still obscured.


Good luck.
wiploc

Con

Okay, bring it.
Debate Round No. 1
NadjiGuemar

Pro

First, thanks for accepting. This is a topic that is seldom discussed, and very much needs to be.

I should highlight, in case my opponent or the audience forgets, that your duty is to show how the Western Feminism of today is infutile has serves a real purpose in advocating gender equality- meaning financial, legal (or otherwise) equality for both men and women. My task, on the other hand, is to show evidence to the contrary, that it only focuses on the supremacy of women, and oppresses the right of Freedom Of Speech.


On Pointlessness


Since its prime, when Feminism actually focused on the real needs of women when their rights where obstructed from them, it has become an organisation of blathering bigots, taking to the most futile cases as Protesting Fashion Shows and reporting those who make penis jokes (No, I'm not joking, both cases can be found here:. http://www.independent.co.uk... + http://www.guardian.co.uk...)


Is Modern, Western Feminism Oppressive?


You don't have to look too far to see examples of what I mean. Feminism has taken to the abstuction of the Freedom Of speech of others in its modern era (view You tube links at the top-right of my argument). Just last week, in the University Of Toronto, a group of Feminists pulled a fire alarm in hope of silencing a group of critics. The group that the Feminists tried to silence where a Gender Equality group called Equality Canada. The ground for their protests where that Equality Canada held hidden misogynistic views and that those views where evident on their website. Well, ladies and gentlemen, if you are for truth I encourage you to look at the website yourselves - http://equalitycanada.com...


The list of objections of Equality Canada, the group being abused and protested by the Feminists in the videos I'll provide at the top right hand side, reads like this (again, check the website for proof of this):


1. To advance education with discussion of equality-especially gender equality, reason and science.

2. To provide a platform for collaboration between groups that discuss gender equality.

3. To participate in consciousness raising activities, to do with equality, that are routinely ignored.

4. To utilise media so that we may discuss the taboo subjects of gender equality.


If my opponent can point out any misogynistic nature in that, than she/he can offer a case. Until then, all the Feminists are doing is, once again, restricting Freedom Of Speech, and thus are oppressive.



Once again, to my opponent, good luck.
wiploc

Con

Thanks to Pro for posting this interesting topic. Thanks to any readers, and thanks to DDO for hosting.

Conduct: Pro tried to shift the burden of proof, so it is appropriate to vote conduct to Con. If Pro wanted a shared burden of proof, he should have made that clear in his OP.

Spelling and Grammar: This is obvious.

Resolution: Pro has undertaken to prove that feminism (yes, Western and modern, though I won't keep repeating that) is

1. "pointless,"

2. "focuses only on the supremacy of women," and
3. "oppresses the right of freedom of speech."

Pro must establish all three points to win this debate.

Oppresses Freedom of Speech: Pro gives but a single example of this. Apparently, in one case, one feminist pulled a fire alarm to silence another group of feminists. This example does not establish a trend or tendency.


Some Concerns of Feminism:

Equal Pay: Riley County Kansas has two employees who weigh trucks entering and leaving the county dump. The newer employee thought she was paid less because she was female, until the guy quit, and was replaced by another guy, who also got paid more than her. This wasn't a job that required much skill. The inequity wasn't because she might quit to have babies. We were just paying her less because she was a woman. [1]

Equal Treatment: A friend of mine had a good credit rating. Then she got married and divorced, after which, her husband had her credit rating, and she had none. The credit company assumed that the good credit history belonged to the man. [2]

Equal Treatment: A woman went to the bank for a loan. The banker told her she needed her husband's approval. She said, "It's my income. I don't see why I need my husband's permission." The banker said, "We don't care what you think." So she left the bank, went into politics, changed the law, went back to the bank, sat in the same chair, and got her loan. [3]

Glass Ceiling: Men are not just paid differentially, they are promoted differentially.

Attitudes: Women aren't listened to the way men are, they aren't taken as seriously. Arrogant aggressive men can be appealing, but women have to be diffident and tactful. [6]

Sexual Abuse: Women are considered rapable, abusable. And if they are raped, they are typically blamed for it. The rapists are sometimes considered victims. [4]

GLBT: "Over the course of the 1970s, a large variety of influential women accepted lesbianism and bisexuality as part of feminism." [7] This is still true. Marriage equality is a feminist cause.

Rape, genital mutilation, incest, prostitution, homophobia: The above Wikipedia article points out that these are also concerns of feminism.

Male Privilege generally: Women have to be skinny to be attractive; men don't. Women are not only less likely to get promoted, but when they do get promoted, people often assume they were promoted because of their gender, not because of talent. Promiscuous men are considered studs, a positive; promiscuous women are considered sluts, a negative. Male protagonists are the norm; it's hard to find positive role models, in literature and film, for female children. Men aren't sexually harassed on the street like women are. Women are interrupted in conversation more than men. [8] Women are charged more for cars. [9]

Okay, I could go on, but I've made the point. Feminism is not pointless, and it does not focus exclusively (or at all, as far as I know) on the supremacy of women. The resolution is refuted.

We've Made Progress, But the Forces of Oppression are Ever Ready to Take Back Ground They've Lost:

- A professor claims that rape is okay if the man is gentle and the woman is unconscious. [5]

- Even some young women believe that gender-based pay differences are justified by the fact that women can get pregnant. [10]

- Politicians are still publicly misogynistic. Witness Todd (Legitimate Rape) Akin's claim that if a woman gets pregnant then she wasn't really raped. In the last presidential election, the Republicans advertised their war on women as if it were a good thing. [11]

- Republicans are rolling back reproductive rights as we speak, criminalizing abortion, even threatening contraception.

Concession:

Pro mentions a feminist group, Equality Candida, which Pro says stands for

: 1. To advance education with discussion of equality-especially gender equality, reason and science.
:
: 2. To provide a platform for collaboration between groups that discuss gender equality.
:
: 3. To participate in consciousness raising activities, to do with equality, that are routinely ignored.
:
: 4. To utilise media so that we may discuss the taboo subjects of gender equality.

This is a full concession: Feminism is not pointless, and not just about female supremacy.

Vote Con.



[1] Personal conversation with Riley County Attorney.
[2] Personal conversation with my friend.
[3] Public speech. The speaker and subject of the story was the woman who argued Roe v Wade before the Supreme Court.
[4] The Steubenville rape is an example: http://www.cnn.com...
[5] reported by Ed Brayton at "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" http://freethoughtblogs.com...
[6] Michael Caine wrote about this. I've lost the citation. I also recognize the problem by introspection, and so state it on my own authority.
[7] Wikipedia: Feminism.
[8] Most of these examples of male privilege are from "Alas: A Blog." http://www.amptoons.com...
[9] Alas: A Blog. "That this happens – and doesn’t appear to be a matter of “rare cases” – has been documented by sending male and female negotiators, trained to use identical negotiating techniques, to car lots to negotiate for cars. The initial offers made to men are simply better." http://www.amptoons.com...
[10] Class discussion, in a literature class at K-State.
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...



Debate Round No. 2
NadjiGuemar

Pro

NadjiGuemar forfeited this round.
wiploc

Con

Resolution: Pro has undertaken to prove that feminism is

1. "pointless,"

2. "focuses only on the supremacy of women," and
3. "oppresses the right of freedom of speech."

Pro must establish all three points to win this debate, but Pro failed to establish any of them.

Not only that, but Pro effectively conceded the debate by establishing that the Equality Canada feminist group is concerned with advancing "education, gender equality, reason and science," "collaboration between groups that discuss gender equality," "consciousness raising activities, to do with equality," and "the taboo subjects of gender equality." (Emphasis added.)

We now enter the final round, in which new arguments are not to be entertained. Pro should not introduce new arguments; if he does introduce new arguments, voters should ignore them.

Therefore, all seven points should go to Con:
  • S&G for obvious reasons.
  • Conduct because Pro tried to shift the burden of proof, and because Pro forfeited a round.
  • Persuasion because (1) Pro failed to establish any of the three points that he undertook to establish, (2) because---even though it was not necessary since Pro had the burden of proof---Con established that two of those points were false, and (3) because Pro himself established (with his Equity Canada agument) that two of his points were false.
  • Sources for obvious reasons.

Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Gingerbreadman wrote:
: If feminism was truly for gender equality,

I think most feminists are for gender equality.

:it would focus on the problems both men and women,

It does.

: rather than the problems just women have

It's not like women are the only ones who want abortions. It's not like any two-income married family wouldn't like the woman to get paid what she's worth.

: and the fact that some men are chauvinistic

Some are.

: and classifying all men as such

Nobody that I know of does this.
Posted by Gingerbreadman 4 years ago
Gingerbreadman
If feminism was truly for gender equality, it would focus on the problems both men and women, rather than the problems just women have and the fact that some men are chauvinistic and classifying all men as such
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
I see I made a mistake. In my round-two post, I wrote

: The newer employee thought she was paid less because she was *female*, until the guy quit, and
: was replaced by another guy, who also got paid more than her.

where i meant to write

: The newer employee thought she was paid less because she was *newer*, until the guy quit, and
: was replaced by another guy, who also got paid more than her.
Posted by NadjiGuemar 4 years ago
NadjiGuemar
In the 21st century, yes.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
I assume that western feminism is what I experience here is the USA, but I'm less confident of the "new" part. Does that just mean what I experience in the 21st century?
Posted by proglib 4 years ago
proglib
Absolutely, I'll debate you on this if no one else does.

My jokes tend to confuse people. :) Sometimes 'cause they're not too funny. (maybe most of the time.:P)
Posted by NadjiGuemar 4 years ago
NadjiGuemar
Wait, I'm confused. Will you, if no one else does, challange me on this? Or did you mean you were kidding about that, too? Thank you for voting, by the way.
Posted by NadjiGuemar 4 years ago
NadjiGuemar
Wait, I'm confused. Will you, if no one else does, challange me on this? Or did you mean you were kidding about that, too? Thank you for voting, by the way.
Posted by proglib 4 years ago
proglib
Nadji

If no one else takes this, I might take it for fun. [A somewhat educated 57 year old white guy should be able to argue for feminism or he's an idiot, IMHO...:D kidding of course, here.]

(By the way, I voted your other debate on religion before checking your profile, so excuse the pronoun confusion.:)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
NadjiGuemarwiplocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
NadjiGuemarwiplocTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, and a piss poor job by pro when he was still active. I'm against western Feminism as it is, but it isn't "pointless", it has a purpose.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
NadjiGuemarwiplocTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: FF. Arguments: Pro provided one example. Con provided overall trends. Con winds. Sources: Con had more sources, even discounting personal experiences.
Vote Placed by AlbinoBunny 4 years ago
AlbinoBunny
NadjiGuemarwiplocTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro forfeited a round. Spelling and grammar: Seemed about equally as competent, I personally found no mistakes (except for the title) and both spoke well. Convincing arguments: Pro seemed to choose a small sub-section of feminism and claim that "new Western Feminism" is "pointless" and "Oppressive", I feel he didn't substantiate his points very well on the sub-section, let alone the whole group. I feel that Pro didn't meet his burden. Reliable sources: Pro provided three sources; the last of which seemed to go to the homepage of the website. Con provided many accurate sources.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
NadjiGuemarwiplocTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pointless or Oppressive could probably be argued separately, but both at once was a bit much. Also FF.