The Instigator
joceyjoce1212
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CJKAllstar
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

THBT feminism has failed

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 2 votes the winner is...
CJKAllstar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,160 times Debate No: 43749
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

joceyjoce1212

Pro

Feminism failed because it only helped leading women who were at the top of the society, but did not help middle-class women.
Also, women's rights advocates did not help the root of the problem which is the problem stated above. they campaigned on mag covers, song lyrics and many more, but they still did not solve the root of the problem. Thus, feminism is a failure.
CJKAllstar

Con

Feminism - "The advocacy of women"s rights on the ground of the equality of the equality of the sexes." - Oxford Dictionary
Seeing as you did not define what you meant by failure, I can only presume you mean that feminists did not achieve their goals in building equal rights. You stated 'feminism has failed', so I can only assume you mean ALL feminism, so if I find one major example against your point, then your argument is invalid...So let us take this back to 20th century with the Suffragettes.

Suffragettes were female supporters of equal rights, particularly in the right to vote. In 1832, in Britain, the Great Reform act was passed and gave people the right to vote, but this left out women. In 1867, the National Union of Women's Suffrage was born, and in 1903 the Women's Social and Political Union had also arrived. At first, aiming for equal rights, they started of peacefully, protests were common, meeting, and the usual, but two years later, their radical movements started. They started burning down churches, chaining themselves to railings, five years later they were smashing windows and causing a stir in the lives of the public. They were sent to prison, continued hunger strikes and the famous Cat and Mouse Acts were passed against then. However come WW1 in 1914, suffragettes and women volunteered happily and women formed 1,600,000 of the force behind factories, healthcare and communications, and all this time the suffragettes were using this to help their campaign. In 1918, women over thirty gained the vote. 1928, all women gained the vote on the same terms as men. You stated:

'Feminism failed because it only helped leading women who were at the top of the society, but did not help middle-class women.
Also, women's rights advocates did not help the root of the problem which is the problem stated above. they campaigned on mag covers, song lyrics and many more, but they still did not solve the root of the problem. Thus, feminism is a failure.'

So feminism has not only helped the top of society, as everyone on the same terms as men received the vote, they had solved the exact root of the problem they were facing, and because of the lack of detail, you implied that there were no anomalies and this was true for all cases. Well not here, thus I have won this round. Still skeptic and need any more examples? Check out the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which has shaped many middle eastern countries, anything to do with second wave feminism, especially during the 1960's, and feminists today have shaped the equality you see today, which is very evident in the war on the objectification of women, which counts as a goal. They haven't completely won the whole war on everything, but the point of feminism is about forming equal rights, so every step towards it takes and succeeds is a victory. I am not a feminist, but don't turn a blind eye to what they've done.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.firstworldwar.com...
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
joceyjoce1212

Pro

Thank you for your point.
Researchers found that women with a degree born in 1958 earned nearly three times as much as women in unskilled jobs born in the same year - compared to a difference of less than half between men in the same groups. We see that it is unfair for women because they have to work twice as hard as men to achieve a professional status in the society. We believe that we should reap according to what we have sown and it should be the same for everyone, no matter who they are. Some may say that we are too idealistic, but we hope to improve the problem, no matter how little a step we take.
CJKAllstar

Con

"Thank you for your point.
Researchers found that women with a degree born in 1958 earned nearly three times as much as women in unskilled jobs born in the same year - compared to a difference of less than half between men in the same groups. We see that it is unfair for women because they have to work twice as hard as men to achieve a professional status in the society. We believe that we should reap according to what we have sown and it should be the same for everyone, no matter who they are. Some may say that we are too idealistic, but we hope to improve the problem, no matter how little a step we take."

If we put this to your original statement, you have said that feminism has failed because women with a degree born in 1958 earned nearly three times as much as women in unskilled jobs in the same year - compared to a difference of less than half between men in the same groups. This is interesting because you did say you hope to improve the problem, no matter how little a step we take. So I believe the floor would agree that if I find an example of how this has been improved upon, no matter how little it is, or how this is actually an improvement, no matter the scale at how the situation before was worse, then I have won this round. So I bring you a series of facts to prove you that feminism hasn't failed, according to what you said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk... - Please take time to read this article.

"The mid-point salary of graduates aged 22 to 64 was "29,900, compared with "17,800 for non-degree holders, the Office for National Statistics found."

You stated that women people born in 1958 earn three times more than women without a degree. Well over time, this figure is now 1.6. Here is an improvement, helped by the ideology that women are equal to men, which started with first-wave feminism, also known as the Suffragette Movement. This is an improvement, so feminism hasn't failed.

Also, the percentage of women in a non-agricultural field of work is 44% in Europe and 48% in the United States, according to the World Bank(citation below). As you can see, I don't need to extend my point on how this is an improvement to your second point. This is fairly similar in the western world at least, and back to what I said in round one, you didn't specify a region or specify much, so in the world, this is still an improvement. You may think it is small, but you stated yourself you hope to improve the issue, no matter how little the step. So again, it isn't a failure.

Finally, in case the floor still is skeptic, I should find an example of how what you said was still an improvement on before, and I will take you back to Sweden, in 1947, where only here were women allowed to have an equal salary. Unfortunately, you didn't specify, so in the whole scheme of things in the world, the fact that women had the chance to try to work was an improvement. Various countries only started opening universities which allowed women not too long before 1958, so the fact that women could get a degree is a success. For a list of successes for women's rights, view this article:
http://goo.gl... (The article link wouldn't work)

Everything here is a success, there isn't more at all I need to say, other than you weren't specific enough and said yourself that every little win is a success, and with successes of such a high magnitude, feminism has not failed. Read my sources as well.

http://goo.gl...
http://datatopics.worldbank.org...
http://datatopics.worldbank.org...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.ilo.org...
Debate Round No. 2
joceyjoce1212

Pro

Let me start off by asking a question: How many CEOs of companies or high-level offficals of governments are women? Precious little are. This is common sense that women in power are much more less than men in power, which in turn proves that the role of women is not as powerful as men in the society. The purpose of feminism was to put women on a par with men. However, feminism did not even get close to it's purpose, for there is still lots of gender inequality in this world today. Thus this motion must fall.
CJKAllstar

Con

"Let me start off by asking a question: How many CEOs of companies or high-level offficals of governments are women? Precious little are. This is common sense that women in power are much more less than men in power, which in turn proves that the role of women is not as powerful as men in the society. The purpose of feminism was to put women on a par with men. However, feminism did not even get close to it's purpose, for there is still lots of gender inequality in this world today. Thus this motion must fall."

First if all, the purpose of feminism is not to put women on par with men. This is not true. Feminism is simply about equality of opportunity and treatment. The right to be treated as equals, and the right to have the same opportunity. You are right that a minute amount of women are in positions of power, the figure is estimated at 20%, but don't jump to conclusions, this does not mean that there is inequality. 73% of the people in medical and healthcare related jobs are women. Does that mean there is male sexism within that field? A survey conducted shows 76% of public school teachers were female. So is there inequality there? Is that what it proves? Because it is ignorant to think true equality means everything is 50:50. The floor will agree that if 15.7% of people in the American Army are women, it doesn't mean sexism. After all, that would imply that exactly the same amount or a majority of women actually applied and were turned down. If there were more men applying, of course more men will be in the army. Of course men, who have a better suited anatomy for the work of the army will be admitted. You are focusing on the wrong side of things, feminists don't truly want equality of outcome, because there are still a high amount people who don't want positions of power, there are still ladies against the idea of feminism, there is a whole website (http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com...) about it, but what is truly equality is equal opportunity. And that is ever-present. A 2006 census showed that 60% of people in university were women. If that isn't equal opportunity, I don't know what counts. This article sums it up - http://news.bbc.co.uk....
An example of how the feminist ideology is helping and has helped create the fact that a woman can go to university on the same grounds as men. That is not a failure, that is a success for feminism.

http://www.businessweek.com...
http://www.feminismisequality.com...
http://nces.ed.gov...
http://www.independent.co.uk...
http://www.army.mil...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
joceyjoce1212

Pro

when we have to decide who has to stay home and look after the kids between the mother and the father, who will you choose? Mostly we choose the mother because we believe that the mother is inferior to the father, and she is not the dominant one. This concept proves that we do not consider women on the same level as men, and this is a very basic concept. But feminism still didn’t change it after fighting a battle for 4 decades!


CJKAllstar

Con

Thank you for your point.

"when we have to decide who has to stay home and look after the kids between the mother and the father, who will you choose? Mostly we choose the mother because we believe that the mother is inferior to the father, and she is not the dominant one. This concept proves that we do not consider women on the same level as men, and this is a very basic concept. But feminism still didn't change it after fighting a battle for 4 decades!"

Sorry, but this is all wrong. First of all, as I stated before, feminists aren't looking for equality of outcome. As I stated, equality is about opportunity and treatment. You have no basis to prove that mostly we would chose women. There are 317,000,000 people living in America[1]. And only 5,100,000 are stay-at-home mothers[2]. Where is the inequality? Yes, there are 176,000 stay-at-home dads[3], but that is for one important reason. Tradition. Traditionally, it was the common belief that a women should stay at home. It was viewed as a good belief, the right belief and had very little negative connotations, after all, the bible, which has been predominant in setting traditions on multiple occasions, talks about the duties of a wife. See here: http://www.openbible.info...

So if we establish that it was a common view, and only, as I take your word for it, up until fourty years ago, then this tradition would be very hard to break down. But hasn't it already? Remember, feminism is about equal opportunity, not equal outcome, because that doesn't include those who still agree with the tradition or those who want to be a housewife/househusband. So equal opportunity is what we're looking for. To break the tradition that a wife should stay at home, there has to be an equal chance for women to go out and get jobs themselves, and for that information, please refer to my previous post. There is an equal, or at least more equal opportunity for women to get jobs, so this belief that a women's role is in the kitchen has deteriorated. The outcome? Well it is for sure decreasing. In the 1940s, only 28% of ladies worked[4]. My figure for today has proved that something has changed and helped change this, to bring it back down, and that is partly due to feminism. A success.

[1] http://www.census.gov...
[2] http://www.infoplease.com...
[3] http://www.infoplease.com...
[4] The 1950s, by William H. Young
Debate Round No. 4
joceyjoce1212

Pro

joceyjoce1212 forfeited this round.
CJKAllstar

Con

Well, I believe I have won this argument, but thank you very much for your co-ordination.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
joceyjoce1212CJKAllstarTied
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 failed to meet the burden of proof they provided in the resolution. Con provided a strong argument backed by sources and facts. Con wins the debate and source point. Good luck to you both in future debates.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
joceyjoce1212CJKAllstarTied
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: pro seemed to flip flop on the determination of successful. Con showed that the movement accomplished named goals and that some goals were still in the process of accomplishment. He showed that feminism has not failed.