The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

The Feminist Movement has achieved all its goals, and is no longer needed, in the Western World.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,593 times Debate No: 79952
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




Feminism: A range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women.

I'll be arguing that the feminist movement has accomplished everything it needs to do, at least in the Western World.

You will win the debate if you manage to prove feminism still has work to do, and I will if I prove feminism has achieved those goals already.

If you want to start the debate, you may present your arguments in your round and forfeit the last round. If not, just accept. Last speech in the debate will be for rebuttals only. Good luck.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


First, I will demonstrate that women are no longer disadvantaged in the modern world by any metric, and then explain the reason behind the differences that do exist between men and women, and that do not exist due to inequality.

So, let's talk about the standards using political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights, as were defined under the definition we used at the beginning.

Political Rights: Rights which protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations and private individuals, and which ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression.
Women have long since been capable of running for office. They have been since the Convention on the Political Rights of Women by the United Nations General Assembly in 1953. 20 countries have women holding office as heads of state. Furthermore, women are afforded the same rights to freedom of speech as anyone else.

Economic, social and cultural rights: Socio-economic human rights, such as the right to education, right to housing, right to adequate standard of living, right to health and the right to science and culture.
Again, here, everything mentioned is available to women. All children are given education, all people can own property, and all people are allowed scientific and cultural access.

Personal rights: Rights that a person has over their own body. Among personal rights are associated rights to protect and safeguard the body, most obviously protected by the torts of assault and battery.
Again, rape, assault, and battery are outlawed universally.

All of that boils down to this: Women and men are both encompassed under the sphere of human rights, which affords women all the rights that should be given to people. Thus, equality has been obtained.

Now, I'd like to counter a few common arguments against my premise pre-emptively. My opponent is under no obligation to argue these points, and if he does not wish to, he need only declare to that effect. If he does, he must address the issues I've raised.

1. Wage Gap
The Wage Gap is an existing thing, I am not disputing its existence. However, I argue that it exists not due to injustice, but rather as a function of a free society. Women study and thus work in fields that simply don't pay as much.

"Men are more likely to be lawyers, doctors and business executives, while women are more likely to be teachers, nurses and office clerks. This gender occupational segregation might be a primary factor behind the [gender] wage gap."

So, over the STEM fields and high-paying occupations, men are more interested in them, and women are interested in others. This is simply because we allow people to choose what they wish to do, and do not force them into anything. Men and women have separate interests, and that isn't a problem.

Furthermore, even when men and women work in the same fields, women lose out in terms of salary as many women choose to take time off work to raise a family. This, again, is because we allow them to choose what they wish to do, and raising a family is a choice they make that doesn't discriminate against them, it simply recognizes the circumstances.

2. Male Privilege

The simplest way to argue against this is statistics.
-80% of suicide victims are male
-93% of workplace fatalities are male
-76% of homicide victims are male

Privileged groups do not tend to kill themselves. Then, I also ask what precisely the 'privilege' of males entitles them to. If my opponent does choose to argue this point, I challenge them to answer that question.

Good luck.


The fact is, there is still no law enforcing equal pay for equal work. What's more, the gender wage gap becomes exponentially worse when a woman is also a person of color. According to the American Association of University Women, white women earn 78 cents to men's dollar, but black women only earn 64 cents to men's dollar. Hispanic and Latina women earn even less at 54 cents! This is just one of countless examples of women's rights that should be enforced in the UK and America.

If we were to talk about other countries such as:

" "Afghanistan: The average Afghan girl will live to only 45 " one year less than an Afghan male. After three decades of war and religion-based repression, an overwhelming number of women are illiterate. More than half of all brides are under 16, and one woman dies in childbirth every half hour. Domestic violence is so common that 87 per cent of women admit to experiencing it. But more than one million widows are on the streets, often forced into prostitution. Afghanistan is the only country in which the female suicide rate is higher than that of males."

" "Iraq: The U.S.-led invasion to "liberate" Iraq from Saddam Hussein has imprisoned women in an inferno of sectarian violence that targets women and girls. The literacy rate, once the highest in the Arab world, is now among the lowest as families fear risking kidnapping and rape by sending girls to school. Women who once went out to work stay home. Meanwhile, more than 1 million women have been displaced from their homes, and millions more are unable to earn enough to eat."

" "Nepal: Early marriage and childbirth exhaust the country's malnourished women, and one in 24 will die in pregnancy or childbirth. Daughters who aren't married off may be sold to traffickers before they reach their teens. Widows face extreme abuse and discrimination if they're labelled bokshi, meaning witches. A low-level civil war between government and Maoist rebels has forced rural women into guerrilla groups."

If we were to talk about these countries then I'm sure that it is obvious, even to people against feminism, that women are not receiving equal rights. If you believe that it should stay this way in these countries then you may continue to debate this with me but judging from your argument in the second round I doubt that you interpreted this debate this way. Your resolution was not specific to any 1 country so I am not obliged to argue about 1. Feminism is a world wide movment that is happening everywhere. Yes, feminism may not be needed as much in more developed countries but as stated in R1 of this debate

You will win the debate if you manage to prove feminism still has work to do, and I will if I prove feminism has achieved those goals already.

Whilst, I admit that feminism has come a long way from where it once was as I have stated previously it still does have goals to achieve and if we fail to achknowledge these issues then we cannot meet these goals. Feminism may have started off as a small country specific movement it is now worldwide (the definition in R1 has no objections to this). We need to achknowledge that feminism still has goals to meet. It may have fufilled its original objections but in modern society new goals have risen, new problems have risen to face feminism. Feminism cannot stop now. It would make all the goals that they have worked towards pointless.

Rebuttals will be in the next round and the final round.

Debate Round No. 2



1. Wage Gap

Firstly, there definitely is a law demanding equal pay.
The equal pay act in the US,
and the Sex Discrimination Act in the UK

In our case, the race of the person doesn't matter, since that is not what we are debating. I argue that it doesn't matter how much that women earn on average as compared to men, since a count of the overall population does not mean equality. Instead, equality is enforced since both men and women receive equal pay for equal work.

2. All of those countries.

"In the Western World" -This is what I explicitly stated in the motion. While I did state that you win if feminism still has work to do, this was stated under the constraints of the given motion. All the countries you stated are not part of the first world, or western world by any stretch of the imagination, therefore they are not relevant to this debate.

Since none of my points have been rebutted(Wage Gap argument was argued against with statistics I have explained in my first speech), they all still stand.


1. Wage Gap

I know that there is a law demanding equal pay because that is basic knowledge. It's not about the laws it's about whether those laws are doing anything. The wage gap is huge as I have previously demonstrated. Women are clearly being discriminated against. People conducting interviews for jobs are usually people who are good at talking and are very persuasive. Meaning that they could choose a man over a women and persuade the women that the man was better.

Look at this shocking news article about how Microsoft were recently sued for gender discrimination. Do you really think that feminism has met all of its objectives when companies as big as Microsoft have been found to be sexist. If it took this long to find this secret hidden within Microsoft how long would it take for us to discover sexism without small companies.

2. All of those countries

Yes, I know that 'In the Western World' was part of the resolution although the 'Western World' was an undefined term and as a result I was left to interpret the definition of this word in my own way. Until a definition is provided by my opponnet (and accepted by me) then I am forced to interpret this term myself.

== R2 Rebuttals ==

Political Rights: We are not arguing whether women officially have rights or not. We are arguing about whether women are receiving those rights. I wouldn't be debating this topic if I thought that women didn't officially have these rights because if they didn't then none of the objectives of feminism would have been achieved.

Personal Rights: My opponent's argument is false. Rape is legal in some Middle Eastern and Asian countries view this source for examples:

Wage Gap

My opponent admits that the wage gap exists. My opponent has provided a sexist argument that doesn't acutally make any sense. He states:

"Women study and thus work in fields that simply don't pay as much."

This doesn't make sense. He claims that women study which is true and goes on to claim that because women study it means that they don't get paid as much and work in less paid fields.

My opponnet then provides this quote that backs up my argument that sexism still occurs and feminism still has a role in modern society

""Men are more likely to be lawyers, doctors and business executives, while women are more likely to be teachers, nurses and office clerks. This gender occupational segregation might be a primary factor behind the [gender] wage gap.""

Men shouldn't be any more likely than women to be doctors, lawyers or business executives - that is a typical stereotype that is true at the moment, and this cannot be disputed by my opponent since they were the ones that said it! My opponent claims that women simply aren't as interested in them as much as men are however with no sources there is no evidence to suggest that women like or dislike the subject. The only evidence that we have is the evidence provided by my opponent which is that men are more likely to become lawyers, businessmen and doctors.

Again, women taking off time to look after their children is another stereotype that needs to be abolished. The governement in the UK used to make children read books called : Peter and Jane for primary school (around 20 years ago) and then they disallowed the books to be published and used in school because the Mother and the daughter always stayed home to do the cooking whilst the Dad and the Son went out fishing together. This is a stereotype that needs fixing.

Male Privilege

My opponent has provided a lot of statistics without sources to prove their credibility. We do not know where they came from. If they came from a reliable source. If they are made up.

I will argue against them anyway, just in case they are true. I was not saying that it is so bad for women that they kill themselves (in the USA and UK), I am talking about arguments about payment and work discrimination. Even though this is gender inequality - you do not see women killing themselves because they didn't get the job. They usually try and sue which is what is happening more frequently at the moment since it is their right. However, the objective of feminism is so that women are equal to men. Women should not have to sue their work for being sexist. The thought of chosing a man over a woman because women are inferior shouldn't even cross their works mind. That is the objective of feminism and I have proven that feminism has not met its goals.

Things to Consider

My opponnet has provided many specific arguments - including statistics:

-80% of suicide victims are male
-93% of workplace fatalities are male
-76% of homicide victims are male

All of these were not backed up by a source(s). Therefore the credibility of my opponents argument is questionable. I hope that voters will consider this when voting on the sources and arguments criteria for this debate.


Debate Round No. 3


1. You have not proven that women are being discriminated against. The wage gap existing is not inherent proof. Interviewers being persuasive is a very strange, unsubstantiated and unexplained argument. You haven't proven they abuse their power as interviewers, merely claim they might be able to, and haven't backed that up.

In the case of Microsoft, that is an accusation, not concrete proof of discrimination. The high profile cases, like Ellen Pao's, came to a conclusion that no wrongdoing was done.

2. I question my opponent's decision to interpret the western world as consisting of a series of middle Eastern and Asian countries. I feel my opponent is currently using unethical standards, defining terms in ways that are illogical. I'll further look at this in his later argument.

3. Here my opponent has not clearly understood my arguments. Allow me to reiterate. Yes, women study. They study different fields then men do. For example, gender studies. Look at this:
They take different jobs.

Now, my opponent says men should not be more likely than women to be doctors, lawyers or business executives. Then he claims the only evidence we have is mine. The evidence I have is from the US treasury. I recommend that when myopponent complains of lack of evidence, he step forward to provide some evidence for his side.

Now, for the books... Is he claiming that women taking time off work to have children is a stereotype? Women getting pregnant is a fact of life, so in the best case scenario they must take nine months off work. I ask my opponent to go into further detail in how he thinks the stereotype should be 'fixed'. His current explanation does no such thing.

4. Firstly, let me say that my opponent is practicing some disingenuous tactics. Appealing to voters rather than arguing for any sake, or double checking my statistics. I admit I didn't provide sources, which is my bad, but he could've checked. I'll provide sources.

Now, most of the argument I laid down was an argument against ale privilege, a pre-emotive argument that was situation ally applicable. I'll assume my opponent has stepped up to the plate and claimed it then. Well, my opponent does not understand how the world works. Yes, discrimination happens, and it is impossible to stop. It will always exist. All we can do, and all that should be done, is to find a method to stop it. It is like arguing that a just society should have zero crime attempts. Instead, the logical method is to have methods of prosecuting and preventing crime. However, such things will happen. Saying it is wrong and providing an avenue to report them is all that needs to be done.

Things to consider: my opponent is being disingenuous, arguing that the western world involves the middle east, and nitpicking over sources. It is not a problem to ask for sources. I find it unethical to speak directly to the voters, claim they could be made up, and not ask for clarification.


1. Firstly, I have proven that through my arguments including the wage gap. Secondly, the BoP is on you to prove that feminism is no longer needed in Western society so I do not need to prove anything. My role in this debate is to disprove.

2. My opponent states that they question it and then say that they will look at this in my later arguments however this is the final round so they cannot respond to my definition of the Western World or provide an alternative. Without a definition for the term you made the mistake of allowing me to interpret the term. That is the reason why definitions are provided at the beginning of a debate - so that the challenger and voters are not confused by the resolution in any way.

3. I understand that women study in these areas more often I wasn't arguing against that. I was saying that there shouldn't be a major difference between what women study and what men study. It means that women are being taught to have different preferences to boys. This again, shows discrimination. If boys and girls were brought up exactly the same as each other then it would be unlikely that there would be major differences in job statistics - which you have proven for me with a source!

Regarding stereotypes, my opponent was not specific regarding pregnancy - they just stated during the previous rounds that women take time off work unlike men. They did not state why so I assumed that they weren't being specific to pregnancy. If they were then I have no objections to that part of their argument because women taking time off work for pregnancy is understandable. It would have been easier if this was explained by my opponent in detail.

4. This wasn't really an argument - all I was saying that your arguments cannot be declared valid when statistics are involved and at that point in time it didn't make sense and I thank my opponent for providing sources in this round.

Underneath my opponents argument 4 they have made a separate argument that isn't numbered so I will now respond to this. My opponent basically ends this debate with a concession of sorts. They state the following in bold:

"Yes, discrimination happens, and it is impossible to stop. It will always exist. All we can do, and all that should be done, is to find a method to stop it."

This basically states that we need to find a method to stop discrimination and if my opponent still remembers the resolution of this debate then they will realise that the solution to gender discrimination at the moment is feminism and although my opponent did not directly concede, what they have stated makes it easy to view this as a concession.

My opponent finds it unethical to speak directly to voters. I find problems with this:

a) This is my opponent's personal opinion

b) There is no rule against it.

c) The fact that statistics were provided without sources showed how unreliable that argument actually was. Since I am engaged in this debate I am actually checking for sources and looking through them. Voters do not always look at sources to that extent and therefore it is difficult for them to notice that. It is essential to point out a mistake as big as that.

d) It required clarification and I'm sure if anyone else was in this debate (and was a decent debater) they would have asked the same thing.

No sources are required here since this is for rebuttals only.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Balacafa 2 years ago
Possibly ... PM me first though.
Posted by Poiyurt 2 years ago
What I don't understand is how the term western world can be understood as applying to Afghanistan.

Would you, in that case, be up for a rematch with a new definition? Can't do it right away, but in a week or two?
Posted by Balacafa 2 years ago
No, it means that it is not of great significance and is up to the challenger and voters to interpret. If you think a word is key to the debate and must be understood by the challenger and voters then you should define it because that means that in the acceptance round they are accepting the definition(s).
Posted by Poiyurt 2 years ago
Does it being in the motion have no relevance?
Posted by Balacafa 2 years ago
The key word had no relevance to the debate since it was undefined. If you thought that it was a key word you should have paid more attention to it and defined it.
Posted by Poiyurt 2 years ago
Well, as I said- Western World. The voter didn't go into clear detail, so I wouldn't know if it was something else, but it seems he interpreted the debate without the keyword and was thus swayed by the examples.

Seriously, none of those countries can be considered developed, western, or first world.
Posted by Balacafa 2 years ago
a) Sorry, I didn't realize since you both have the same pic.

b) Explain.
Posted by Poiyurt 2 years ago
a) That's a different person.
b) Seems like no one understood the motion
Posted by Balacafa 2 years ago
you cant argue i the comments. voters cannot consider this
Posted by Jozza117 2 years ago
"3. I understand that women study in these areas more often I wasn't arguing against that. I was saying that there shouldn't be a major difference between what women study and what men study. It means that women are being taught to have different preferences to boys. This again, shows discrimination. If boys and girls were brought up exactly the same as each other then it would be unlikely that there would be major differences in job statistics - which you have proven for me with a source!"

Umm, Gender Dimorphism, look it up. Also, the BoP is on YOU to prove they are being TAUGHT different preferences then men.
All that is needed is the fact that women are choosing different things. Which means they are interested in different things. And you're saying they shouldn't be, That it should always be basically equal. Are the genders not allowed to have differences? Is it sexist for women to be typically more feminine and men to be more typically masculine? Literally nothing is stopping a woman for aiming higher, evidenced by the fact that STILL A GOOD PORTION OF THESE FIELDS ARE WOMEN. There is no extra test for females, no automatic deduction of points, if a woman tries, much like if a man tries, they will succeed, you can't look at the differences and then call sexism because it's different.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Topher1989 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 did not convince me but strengthen my resolve that the feminist movement still has much to accomplish. Pro's argument using the wage gap lacked evidence, depth, and explanation.