The Instigator
Objectivity
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
deusmors
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Resolved: On Balance, Feminism is Necessary to Remedy Contemporary Gender Issues

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 531 times Debate No: 66581
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Objectivity

Con

Resolved: On Balance, Feminism is Necessary to Remedy Contemporary Gender Issues

The first round will just be setting up definitions and rules

-First round is just for acceptance
- I cannot bring up any new points in the final round
- Opponent has right to clarify their own definitions
- Failure to refute certain points will allow them to be flowed through rounds

Definitions:

Feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. (Google Dictionary)

Necessary: required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential. (Google Dictionary)

Remedy: to cure, relieve, or heal. (Merriam Webster)

Contemporary: belonging to or occurring in the present. (Google Dictionary)

Gender Issues can be anything that my opponent deems relevant and important related to gender discrimination or inequality in modern times

On Balance: A way of judging who won a debate based on who did the best overall in fulfilling their burden of proof based on the resolution (means that just because I refute 1-2 of his points or he refutes 1-2 of mine it ought not determine who won, we should determine who won by who upheld their BoP the best)

I wish my opponent good luck and hope to have an interesting and thought provoking debate.
deusmors

Pro

I agree to the conditions of this march as well as the definitions that above. Opponent, good luck on this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Objectivity

Con

To clarify, this debate ought to be primarily if not completely about western nations.

I will be using a Lincoln Douglas format for my arguments, meaning I will use a Value upheld by a value criterion and contentions, I will state a value that I believe my argument upholds, a value criterion that upholds/measures my value, and contentions that prove why negating the resolution upholds my value/value criterion.

"Although feminism speaks the language of liberation, self-fulfillment, options, and the removal of barriers, these phrases invariably mean their opposites and disguise an agenda at variance with the ideals of a free society." -Michael Levin
It is because I agree with Michael Levin that I negate today's resolution which is Resolved: On balance, Feminism is Necessary to Remedy Contemporary Gender Issues. My value for today's debate will be Justice, which Plato defines as "To each what they are due", my value criterion will be Lockean Social Contract, which is defined by Locke himself in his Second Treatsie of Government as a society where: "Individuals would agree to form a state that would provide a "neutral judge", acting to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it." To put my argument in to perspective, I believe that people ought to be given what they are due and I use Locke's Social Contract as a way to determine what we are due, which is a neutral judge that acts to protect the lives liberty and property of those who live within the state the judge presides over. So essentially I am arguing that; On Balance, Contemporary Feminism is unnecessary to protect the lives, liberty and property of women or anyone else.

Contention One: On Balance, Equal Gender Rights has Already been Established, Women are Given their "Due"

The definition of Feminism given was "The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men". My opponent accepted this definition so we will use it for today's debate. In today's society women are not denied their rights/entitlements, they are given "their due" in every sense of the word. Women are given equal rights to men in every aspect and in some cases are even granted special privileges. A few examples are that while men have an obligation to sign up for the draft, women are still given equal opportunities to join the military but they never have been forced to enlist in the military or be called up for the draft during wartime. Men are also homeless at overwhelmingly higher rates than women, the homeless population is composed of 67.5% men despite women making up 51% of the U.S population. Women also only trail behind males in income by 3-7 cents according to studies commisioned by the Department of Labor after their 77 cents on the dollar statistic was used unfairly to advance public policy agendas, Observe:

"Three years ago, the U.S. Department of Labor released the results of a study by CONSAD Research Corp. that it had commissioned because, according to the preface by Charles E. James Sr., a deputy assistant secretary, "the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap."

Once adjusted for the fact that women are more likely to work part-time (where the pay for everyone tends to be lower), leave the labor force for children or elder care, and gravitate toward "family friendly" occupations where compensation is more likely to be in the form of health insurance or other fringe benefits, the gap shrinks to between 93 cents and 95 cents on the dollar, the report said."

As you can see, on balance women are already equal to men, abolishing the necessity for feminism.

Contention Two: 'Equalism' or Rights based Egalitarianism Encompasses Feminism

In an era where men and women combined (as evidenced by C1) both face adversity and gender based issues, upholding an ideology that only advances the interests of women is narrow and borderline discriminatory/sexist. The fact of the matter is that prominent University of Southern California professor Jane Junn concurs that in the current state of affairs identity politics are exploited and used to advance hidden interests forged by special interest groups and politicians. The issue of the exploitation of identity politics can be remedied by eliminating identity politics from our political landscape, even well-known feminist Joan D. Mandle, Associate Professor of Sociology at Colgate University concurs:

"Identity politics thus is zero-sum: what helps one group is thought inevitably to harm another; what benefits them must hurt me. It is a politics of despair. In the name of advancing the interests of one's own group, it rejects attempts to educate, pressure, or change the society as a whole, thus accepting the status quo and revealing its essentially conservative nature. Identity politics advocates a retreat into the protection of the self based on the celebration of group identity. It is a politics of defeat and demoralization, of pessimism and selfishness. By seizing as much as possible for one's self and group, it exposes its complete disregard for the whole from which it has separated - for the rest of the society. Identity politics thus rejects the search for a just and comprehensive solution to social problems."

As you can see, feminism promotes a sort of identity politics that divides us and compels us to advance our own racial/gender group's special interests whether than achieving equality for all. For this reason people that truly seek equality ought to cast out feminism and take up an ideology of rights based egalitarianism or gender 'equalism', which encompasses feminism for people who truly seek equality since it doesn't just seek equality for women, it seeks equality for both genders. For these reasons, Feminism is not necessary to remedy contemporary gender issues since other ideologies encompass it. In the political sphere feminism would not give us our due since it would only seek to give women their due whether than giving all people what they are due, The Lockean Social Contract states we are due a neutral actor to protect our rights, not one that favors people based on immutable characteristics.

In conclusion, Contemporary Feminism is unnecessary to achieve Justice since on balance, justice has already been achieved in contemporary american society. Furthermore, even if on balance justice was not achieved in contemporary american society feminism would still be unnecessary to remedy these injustices since Rights-based egalitarianism would encompass it and do a better job of remedying the gender based issues of today's society.

Sources:

http://www.politifact.com...
http://www.census.gov...
http://www.nationalhomeless.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
https://politicalscience.stanford.edu...-
deusmors

Pro

deusmors forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Objectivity

Con

Objectivity forfeited this round.
deusmors

Pro

deusmors forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Objectivity

Con

Objectivity forfeited this round.
deusmors

Pro

deusmors forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Objectivity

Con

Objectivity forfeited this round.
deusmors

Pro

deusmors forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by One_Anonymous_Voice 2 years ago
One_Anonymous_Voice
I feel the need to point out, you did not clarify Western Sources in Round one, which set up "definitions" and "rules".

As this was not stated there, in no way does Pro have to abide by this argument. They have full usage of all forms of society.
Posted by Objectivity 2 years ago
Objectivity
I forgot one source, here it is, sorry about that.

https://userpages.umbc.edu...
No votes have been placed for this debate.