The Instigator
wallapay
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Should feminism exist?

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 7 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 575 times Debate No: 68672
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

wallapay

Pro

I believe feminism should exist.
Zarroette

Con

Rather than appeal to a definition of feminism, allow me to show you what feminism has done.

Counter Case


A1: The myth of gender equality


Espoused by feminists is the idea that men and women are equal. This could not be further from the truth.

At the biological level, prima facie, it is clear that women, who are anatomically very different to men (e.g. genitals), are not equal in this sense. But the differences run deeper. At the University of Pennsylvania, there was found to be striking differences in the neurological wiring of men’s and women’s brains. Specifically, neurological connection is found to be mostly forward and back with men, whilst women have connections left to right [1]. These differences manifest in ability, such as men being “better at learning and performing single tasks, such as cycling or navigating, whilst women tend to be better at multitasking and problem-solving in group situations".

These differing abilities also manifest in preferences. In his book Gender, Nature, and nurture, and as spoken in the documentary ‘Brainwash: The Gender Equality Paradox’, Richard Lippa talks of his survey that collaborated answers from over 200,000 people in 53 counties. They were all asked what they wanted to work with. He found that, “men [were] much more orientated in the thing orientated occupations. Women, relatively, are much orientated in the people professions… This is consistent across all the countries… Something biological is going on.” [2] [3].

Also found within this documentary is Trond Diseth of the Oslo Univeristy Hospital Research. Trond specifically works with “children with deformed genitals” and tries to work out which sex the children are. He does with the methodology of placing male, female and neutral toys in front of the child. He found that there are “clear differences between what the two gender gravitate towards… Children are born with a clear biological disposition” [3].

Now that it is very clear that there are differences between the genders, why is the pursuit of equality harmful (i.e. what is the impact?)? Programs and organisations that push women towards certain professions, such as the ‘Steminist’ organisation, are a waste of time and money because for the large majority of women, they are not interested in the ‘thing’ orientated professions. But it gets worse. There exists ‘gender quotas’ so that there is a push towards ‘gender equality’ in the workforce. These quotas mean that a certain number of women are required to be accepted into the STEM fields, or else the college will get into trouble [4], of which was backed by U.S President Barrack Obama [5]. BUT IT GETS EVEN WORSE. In 2012, there was serious talk (involving Barrack Obama) of ‘limiting male enrolment into science fields’ [6]. Such blatant misandry is the final stage of feminist rhetoric.

So, as a result of the gender equality paradigm espoused by feminists, we now have disinformation in the form of what women prefer, an unfair bias wherein women now have quotas in place at the expense of men, AND THEN you have the blatant misandry of proposing to exclude men from science. What insanity! They claim to be for gender equality, yet push until men are limited and women are not! The impacts here are: disinformation, and sexist/misandric thoughts and actions.


A2: Men are abusers of women: it’s an epidemic – relentless exaggeration

We have all heard it: 1 in 4 women will be abused/raped in their lifetime/ at college. Here, according to a ‘women’s centre’, there is a more conservative figure of “nearly 1 in 5 women – or nearly 22 million – have been raped in their lifetimes” [7]. Conversely, “1 in 71 men – or almost 1.6 million – have been sexually assaulted during their lives” [7]. That is right. 1 in 5 women are raped in their lifetime! The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for which this women’s centre cites, counts completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration. So, if you put your hand on a woman and she thinks you are raping her, that is “attempted forced penetration”. If you have sex whilst drunk, that is “alcohol drug facilitated completed penetration”. Both are considered rape (yet not against the man, because 1 in 5 does not match 1 in 71. So if the man was drunk too, it was only the women that was raped). This is what happens when you stretch the definitions of things to absurd levels, AND this is not an isolated occurrence.


According to Chatham Kent Women’s Centre, “emotional/psychological abuse”, which counts as domestic abuse, “encompasses various tactics to undermine an individual’s self-confidence, such as yelling, not letting you see your friends or family, insults, mockeries, threats, abusive language etc.” [8]. So, if I was dressed in a rather conservative dress, and you told me that I looked like a prude, that counts as an insult/mockery, therefore it is domestic abuse. If I accidentally spilled a bit of water out of the sink, and you said “nice work” in a sarcastic tone, that is abusive language, and that is domestic abuse. Absolute insanity.

The true evilness of this insanity is when domestic abuse is conflated with domestic violence. Take domesticpeace.ca, a U.K non-profit organisation. According to them, domestic violence is akin to “verbal/emotional/psychological abuse”, which is basically what is described in the previous example. But it goes deeper. “Spiritual abuse includes: ridiculing the other person’s religious or spiritual belief”. That is right. Speaking sarcastically about your partner’s religion is now domestic violence. But that is not even the worst of it. “Financial or economic abuse includes: withholding economic resources such as money or credit cards” [9]. I could not believe this when I read it. Let us say that I, as a pretty young women, wanted to borrow some money to go shoe shopping. You said no. That is now DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

BUT, this is where the serious impact of all of this comes into recognition. In the U.K, “Domestic violence is dealt with both under the criminal law and the civil law” [10]. It was merely disinformation when feminists began to spout the 1 in 4/5 statistics, but as you can see, denying a girl money now counts as domestic violence and will get you locked up in prison.


Before I conclude, no better exponent of this rearranging and stretching of definitions can be found than this piece on feminist.com, “Now that I am on my own and living free of my abuser, I can see how my life was altered when I was being battered. Little by little, he isolated me from my friends, he convinced me to quit working, he complained about how I kept the house, he kept track of the mileage on the car to make sure that I wasn't going anywhere. Eventually, when the beatings were regular and severe, I had no one to turn to and I felt completely alone” [11]. Complaining about how someone keeps the house is now a “beating”. Thus, the conflation between domestic violence and domestic abuse, that feminism has created and championed (hence the website name), has never been clearer.


Therefore, feminism should not exist.

References

[1] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...

[2] http://books.google.com.au...

[3] https://www.youtube.com...

[4] http://dailycaller.com...

[5] http://www.human.cornell.edu...

[6] http://www.amnation.com...

[7] http://www.rwu.edu...

[8] http://ckwc.ca...

[9] http://www.domesticpeace.ca...

[10] http://www.womensaid.org.uk...

[11] http://www.feminist.com...

Debate Round No. 1
wallapay

Pro

wallapay forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Con

=)

^ Apparently, that is ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Con is allowed to make a positive (i.e. arguments that make points for Con's side, rather than merely rebuttal) case for his/her side, if that was what you were getting at.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
What on Earth are you talking about, ButterCat?

"I believe feminism should exist." - Pro

"Should feminism exist?" - The resolution

Given that I was Con, and I argued that it shouldn't exist, how does that make me "Pro"?
Posted by ButterCatX 2 years ago
ButterCatX
I do not believe that you followed the debate because you were supposed to be against feminism while you took a pro stance. Though i do believe that you stated a much more well reasoned argument.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
There are plenty of objectively better things to do in life than Mafia. PLENTY.
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
I think we can all safely say that Zarroette wins...

even if she doesn't like mafia...
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
wallapayZarroetteTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by warren42 2 years ago
warren42
wallapayZarroetteTied
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: Forfeit, no arguments made by Pro.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
wallapayZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar where applied. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to present any rebuttals to Con's arguments. Since Con was left standing unchallenged, it's a clear win in arguments. Sources - Con. Pro did not utilize any sources throughout the debate whereas Con did. This is a clear win for Con.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
wallapayZarroetteTied
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: FF, no contest... Con presented a strong case against the motion, with much supporting evidence. Whereas pro only brought up what he believes.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
wallapayZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
wallapayZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff, had no arguments, and no sources.
Vote Placed by 1harderthanyouthink 2 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
wallapayZarroetteTied
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