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

The Feminist movement screwed women

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: 7/27/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 707 times Debate No: 94146
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




The feminist movement screwed women. Prove me wrong.


Since the opponent failed to define terms, I will do so here. These definitions are "common sense" definitions and should not be a topic of great debate.

Feminist Movement - "refers to a series of political campaigns for reforms on issues such asreproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, women's suffrage, sexual harassment, and sexual violence, all of which fall under the label of feminism and the feminist movement." [Taken from Wikipedia]

screwed - made much worse; significantly damaged

women - humans with the XX chromosome, or someone who identifies as such


The opponent asked to be proven "wrong", which I am happy to do. However, the opponent cannot be proved wrong until he presents a case. As the affirmative, it is his obligation to present a case and fulfill the burden of proof. As con, I merely have to show that the opponent has not adequately proven his position beyond a reasonable doubt.

I look forward to seeing evidence that suggests the Feminist Movement in some way made life significantly worse for women.
Debate Round No. 1


Having lots of choices can be good, but it’s also complicated. And complexities lead to stress. And let’s face it, women today are more stressed out than ever. A study from Boston College said that women are graduating with less self esteem than when they entered, despite the fact that graduation rates among women are outpacing those of men. According to The Wall Street Journal, 26 percent of American women are on some kind of mental health medication for anxiety and depression related problems. Glamour recently polled women in 2015, and respondents couldn’t even explain what being happy meant.

The power tradeoff-

Women made a well intended, fairly simple, but admittedly consequential swap when they were fighting for equality. They gave up their feminine side so they could attain what they saw as masculine goals: the corner office, the big promotion, "freedom". And they started acting less like ladies and more like lady bros. Don’t get me wrong, these are fantastic objectives, but they didn’t have to ‘man up’ to get them. Feminists started using the word ‘girly’ as if it were a bad thing. In a more humanized era, men loved girly, and so did women. Now, it’s a full blown insult. Women mistakenly coveted what men had, rather than holding onto the uniquely feminine power they had. They abandoned it and did it their way. Not exactly empowering. Femininity has always been a huge source of female power, so why were they discouraged from embracing it?

Women have become actresses-

Most of them want to get married and have kids but very few women actually unabashedly admit it before they attain it. Most females don’t like it when men don’t return their calls for a second date. They care about what guys think, how they look and whether or not they’re getting their needs met. So why are women pretending like they don’t, instead opting to act inauthentically above the fray? Denying the ability to be authentic is not the greatest of feelings, let’s be honest. Women are so scared to admit they don’t have it all, or they don’t have it all together, that nobody is being honest. They’re stressed out but they’re not suffering in silence. On the contrary, wthey're pretending their lives are perfect by posting the perfect pictures to their Instagram and Facebook accounts. But they aren’t all perfect. Admitting that it’s not attainable and that it’s ok to accept that is a big step that relieves stress. They are cheating themselves of that calming concession by pretending to be too cool to care.

Feminism killed courtship-

Trying to get back chivalry is like trying to lead a horse to water,water that is really, really far away in the rearview. Remember the whole, “I don’t need a man” movement? Talk to most women in their twenties and they’ll tell you they’ve never been on a romantic date. You know, the old kind where guys used to pick women up, or meet them somewhere to have drink, a proper dinner, perhaps a night cap. Now, a hookup culture fueled by feminists that pressures women to forgo monogamy for one night stands and apps like Tinder and Happn, are grating on women. Whatever your politics, women want to be romanced and respected. They all want to find a good guy who adores them and is faithful, regardless of what feminism says. They all want love from a partner who is committed. But they’re not going to get it if they keep telling men they don’t need them, that they can do it all, all alone. If they want a return to romance, they’ve got to start empowering men instead of emasculating them. Emasculation of men has killed romance and courtship almost completely.


Pew’s findings have caught the attention of one US writer who maintains that feminism, deeply entrenched in every segment of the culture, has created an environment in which young men find it more beneficial to simply opt out of coupledom entirely.

An article by Suzanne Venker points out, "the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997, from 28 percent to 37 percent."


"For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent."

Modern women desire deeply to get married, but now men do not. Why?

She continues,"I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.

"Women aren’t women anymore."

"In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy."

And men gave up.

Thus, feminism screwed women. Now they are more stressed out, angry, and struggling to find mates.
Prove me wrong Con.


The opponent's speech, while eloquent, was almost entirely speculative. It's more the kind of rhetoric you'd expect a seasoned politician to deliver, and less the type of speech geared toward evidence based discourse.

To start, the instigator's argument is nearly entirely speculative, lacking substantiation in either the form of evidence or logic. What we'll do here is look at some key passages from the opponent's argument, then categorize the evidence he did present, followed by a look at what the Feminist Movement has done for women, ending with a "net benefit" analysis.

Key Passages

The point of this section is to highlight the type of rhetoric which is entirely speculative and lacking in evidence. These types of statements litter the opponent's argument, and being aware of them helps us to understand why the opponent has failed to uphold his burden of proof.

"[Women] gave up their feminine side so they could attain what they saw as masculine goals: the corner office, the big promotion, 'freedom'..."

You'll first note that the opponent has presented no evidence of this. What defines a "feminine side" and how was this lost? What analysis quantifies femininity and is capable of determining whether a loss occurred?

Additionally, anyone familiar with the feminist movement understand that women did not want to achieve "masculine goals", but instead argued that "the corner office" and "freedom" where not reserved for men -- that they were human goals that either sex should be equally capable of accomplishing.

"Feminists started using the word 'girly' as if it were a bad thing."

There was no evidence presented to support this.

"Women mistakenly coveted what men had, rather than holding onto [their] uniquely feminine power."

What does this statement even mean? What is a "uniquely feminine power", beyond the ability to conceive a child? More importantly, how could a subjective statement like this every be quantified in such a way that it could be analyzed? It can't be -- which is why this statement and nearly every other statement made by the opponent holds no weight in this debate. It's entirely speculative with no grounding in evidence or logic.

"Most females don't like it when men don't return their calls for a second date."

Why does this line of reasoning matter? Does anyone like it when they don't get a returned call for a second date? Additionally, the opponent wants to paint all women according to a stereotype -- his own notion of what a women is and how she thinks.

"Now a hookup culture fueled by feminisists that pressures women to forgo monogamy for one night stands...."

No evidence was provided to support this claim. How is "hookup culture" related to feminism?

"Emasculation of men has killed romance and courtship almost completely."

Again, no evidence. No evidence that men are being emasculated, no evidence that feminism is the cause and no evidence that emasculation damages romance or ability to court. Just a baseless claim.

The Evidence presented by the opponent and analysis of each specific argument.

The Power Tradeoff

The opponent's basic argument here is that women have "given up" a part of themselves in the name of feminism. This thing being given up is "uniquely feminine power".

It is not defined what that is, it was not proven that power was lost, and it was not proven why that would be bad in the first place. This entire argument is purely speculative rhetoric and does not stand up to analysis, since there isn't even an evidenced based claim to analyze.

Women Have Become Actresses

The argument here is that the feminist movement forces women to act unauthentically. And example of this was given, that "women pretending like they don't [care about what guys think]".

No evidence was provided to support this claim. The opponent is essentially saying, "Look, this is how all women feel", when he could not possibly know how women feel and act. His claim would have some legitimacy if it was backed up with evidence, but it simply wasn't.

This entire argument (and the other arguments he presented) are simply opinions. They have no weight here, as facts rule the day in a debate. The opponent explaining what he personally believes that women think doesn't even come close to meeting the burden of proof.

Feminism Kills Courtship

Speculative and unsupported. The only piece of evidence associated with this argument is a Fox News opinion column. This writer, Suzanne Venker, isn't an expert in the field -- she's a reporter who has personal feelings on this issue. Her argument is like the opponent's argument in that it's presented as an opinion, rather than an evidenced based appeal to reason.

We get one statistic -- that women now value marriage more highly than in 1997, and that men value marriage less so.

This statistics doesn't say, or even imply, why this opinion on marriage has changed. The opponent wishes to associate it with feminism, but the association is baseless without corroborating evidence.

This argument is again just the opponent saying, "I know how all men and women feel. This is how they feel and this is all due to feminism."


The opponent also presents a few more pieces of evidence, the purpose of which seems to be to add false legitimacy to the opponent's case. These are:

1. Women graduate with less self esteem than when they entered.
2. 26% of American women are on antidepressants/anxiolytics.
3. Some poll happened and people couldn't explain what "happiness" meant.

First, none of these were sourced. Claiming that the New York Times said something has no real weight, unless that actual thing is linked to. You can't analyze sources that were not given.

If we assume (1) is true, it doesn't imply that the feminist movement is to blame. We don't know if this "self esteem issue" has always existed, if it is recent, etc.

(2) also doesn't imply that feminism is to blame. Furthermore, it's misleading. Americans, as a people, are overly medicated. Some 70% of people on antidepressants aren't even depressed. [1] It's not surprising that a large percentage of women are on these medications, since a large percentage of everybody are on these pills.

(3) doesn't imply feminism is to blame and it's not even a proper scientific measurement. Asking someone to define a word does not indicate whether they are that word or whether feminism is the cause of their apparent inability to define "happiness".

In short, none of this evidence points the blame toward feminism.


Feminism has helped women tremendously

The efforts of the feminist movement have accomplished the following things:

(a) The Equal Pay Act of 1963, barring intersex pay discrimination. [2]
(b) The Civil Rights Act of 1964, barring discrimination based upon sex, amongs other things. [3]
(c) Education Ammendments of 1972, barrings sexual discrimination in education. [20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688]
(d) Women get the right to vote. [4]
(e) Planned Parenthood is formed in '42. [4]

This are just a few examples of what the feminist movement has accomplished for women, and just in the US. Across the world, women are now gaining the right to vote, the right to drive, and the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of sex.

Without the feminist movement, it is unlikely that women every would have accomplished these rights.

I'll save my net benefits analysis for next round, since I'm nearly out of space.


The opponent's case is a baseless opinion, not backed by facts. As such, he has failed to uphold his burden of proof. What's more, I demonstrated that the feminist movement has been a great boon to women.

I look forward to the opponent's presentation of evidence that proves the feminist movement has been significantly damaging to women.


1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -

Debate Round No. 2


"when he could not possibly know how women feel and act."

And thus, I quoted a female.
And then Con admits that I did.

"This writer, Suzanne Venker..."


"This statistics doesn't say, or even imply, why this opinion on marriage has changed."

Sure it does. And I requote my quote from round 2.

"When I ask them why, the answer is always the same. Women aren"t women anymore."

So we have proof from a woman who has interviewed many men, that men do feel this way. I can prove it is a loss in that females wishing to get married has went up. This is a mathematically proven loss in that more women want marriage and less men want marriage. If demand goes up but supply goes down, that would be a loss by definition.


"If we assume (1) is true, it doesn't imply that the feminist movement is to blame. We don't know if this "self esteem issue" has always existed, if it is recent, etc."

1 in 4 women are on an anti-depressent. True.

Depression affects more women than men. True.

Why? An article by Ellen Leibeluft, M.D. reveals the answer.

"What is coming into focus is that certain environmental factors--including stress, seasonal changes and social rank, produce different physiological responses in females than they do in males."

If you read the entire article you can see that women and men biologically are different and have different abilities to cope with different types of stress. Workplace stress is the type of stress that men are built for, the art of trying to figure things out, solve complex problems, etc.

Why? Because men are typically far left/far right brained, thus designed to handle large amounts of problem solving generally without adverse effects. On the other hand, women were built to handle large amounts of stress that comes in expected waves, like physical pain or a screaming child, where men actually are not as capable.

Thus, the feminist movement did have some good perks such as the right to vote, equal testimony in court, the right to choose their mate, the concept of equal pay for equal work, and being able to pursue the job of their choice but... from a pure biological and physiological perspective, women got jobbed in the end by the final wave of feminism. Why? Men and women were built for different things biologically and physiologically.

Con has cited some good things about the feminist movement, essentially designing an argument completely from the construct primarily of earlier waves of feminism. If feminism had stopped right there, Con might have a point, but it did not. It lurched and slithered its way into the abyss taking women with it.


Many women can no longer find husbands because the western men can see that feminist laws and applications have made marriage a bad deal for men. They scream "equality", but the rights of men in a divorce are by far inferior, thus men are in a position of marriage simply being risky.

Many others cannot find husbands because the toxic views feminism has led them to has made them "not marriage material". I wouldn't want to marry a full fledged bit*h. What normal, sane man would?

Still others cannot get married because the sexual liberation ideas pushed by feminism has led them to ride the carousel until their market values have fallen off a cliff. A feminist can wish their looks didn't affect their ability to get a good mate, but it does, like it or not. So now, once they reach a certain age where they begin to grow mature, they no longer have their greatest asset in snagging a good Alpha male, thus they settle or remain single.


And finally, many women, taken in by feminism, have done useless degrees only to find themselves heavily in debt and with little in the way of saleable skills. They can thank?...well, feminism...


Before I sum up the debate, I'd like to briefly talk about proof. Specifically, what constitutes a proof and what does not.

Let us suppose that we want to prove the following statement: The Earth is flat.

We have a few examples of evidence.


"My friend Bob told me that he saw the edge of the world on a sailing trip."

Is this proof? No. One person's account of an event does not prove the event actually occurred. People are notoriously innaccurate, have poor memories and are prone to exageration and lying.

Does this implicate the proposition? No. A secondhand account from a single person carries little weight in the realm of proof and implication. One person can easily mistake an event or lie about it altogether.


"When people travel far into the ocean, they sometimes disappear. This is because they fell off the Earth."

Is this proof? No. You can have proof that people disappeared on a voyage, but this does not prove that they fell off the Earth.

Does this implicate the proposition? No. There are a variety of possible events that could cause a ship to disappear -- only one of which is falling off the Earth. The fact that they disappeared does not indicate the manner in which they disappeared.


"Photographs surface of the Earth from space, showing it to be flat. These photographs were taken by multiple companies and right when private organizations were first allowed to go into space."

Is this proof? No. These photographs could be edited or part of some large conspiracy or joke.

Does this implicate the proposition? Yes, strongly. The fact that multiple companies independently took pictures of the Earth the first opportunity they got, all of which showed a flat Earth, strongly implies that the Earth may well be flat. While it is possible the images are fake, the sheer amount of evidence to the contrary makes that scenario unlikely.


Now that you've seen those examples, you'll understand why the opponent's evidence does not prove the resolution, nor does it implicate the resolution.

The Evidence

Here, we'll look at the evidence provided by the opponent and see what it does and doesn't prove.

Suzanne Varker's Opinion Piece

I argued that the opponent cannot speak for all women; that he cannot possibly know how all women feel and what all women believe.

His response is, "At thus, I quoted a female." The female in question, Ms. Venker, wrote an opinion piece in which she argued that feminism has made women defensive and hateful towards men.

In the "lack of proof" examples given above, one talked about Bob and how he swore that he "saw the edge of the Earth". We concluded that this was not proof that the Earth was flat, since Bob could have been lying or mistaken. Similarly, Ms. Venker's opinion on how all women feel is not proof that all women feel that way. She could be mistaken, lying or biased.

One woman could not possibly know how all or even most women feel, nor could she speak for them. What's more, Venker is not an expert in the field of sociology, history or women's studies -- meaning she doesn't even have credibility as a scholar. Even worse, she is a reporter from the biased news organization, Fox News -- a place which commonly paints all "liberal ideas" with a broad and negative brush.

Venker no more speaks for women than the opponent speaks for all DDO members. As such, her opinion does not constitute proof of the resolution, nor does it implicate it.


Men want to marry less than they did before

The opponent provides an assumably accurate statistic showing that men have less of a desire to marry than they did before. The opponent then says this proves that feminism has caused men to lose interest in women.

Again, looking to my second "flat earth" example above, we found that people "disappearing into the ocean" did not prove that they fell off of a flat Earth. Similarly, proving that men desire marriage less than 30 years ago does not prove that feminism is to blame.

This is because there are many possibilites as to why this might be the case and that evidence alone does not implicate a reason. It is an effect that does not imply the cause. The opponent simply asserts that the cause is feminism, when in reality such an assertion cannot be upheld, much less proven.

Additionally, this entire line of reasoning doesn't make sense. The opponent wishes to argue that "feminism has caused women to hate men", while simulataneously providing evidence proving that women desire marriage more now than they did in the past. If feminism was causing women to hate men, their desire to marry wouldn't increase.

So not only does this evidence not constitute a proof, it doesn't even make logical sense.


Many women are depressed

The opponent presents evidence showing that women are depressed, then draws the conclusion that this must be a result of feminism.

This is the same faulty logic as the above evidence -- the effect does not implicate the cause. There could be any number of reasons why women are depressed, so we cannot just assume that feminism is to blame.

The opponent includes a new piece of evidence, in which a Dr. Leibeluft explains that stress, seasonal changes and social rank affect men differently than women. She goes on to explain that this is because men and women have fundamentally different brains.

The opponent goes on to imply that feminism has caused women a great amount of stress, since "men and women were built for different things".

Importantly, he does not explain that leap of logic.

It may be true that men and women experience things differently, but that does not imply that feminism has caused women significant levels of stress. I'm pretty sure the opponent essentially means, "Women are now trying to do 'man things', which causes them stress." This operates on the faulty assumption that there are tasks in this world that "only men can do", which is itself a sexist misconception.


The opponent's last three pieces of evidence concerns marriage.

The first is an opinion piece from a blog in which an Andrew Lantz claims that "marriage is slavery". This is one man's opinion and it is not representative of how all women feel and act. The idea is essentially that "marriage is now more risky for men because women have legal power". This may be true, but (a) it's not an issue for healthy marriages and (b) women having more legal power is not bad for women.

The second piece is an opinion article (from another conservative news site, interestingly enough.) The article takes the statistic that 70% of men from 20-34 aren't married, then comes to a conclusion. Interestingly enough, this conclusion is that despite feminism, "men now set the standards and morrays" in a relationship. It basically argues that men are less romantic/interested in courtship than women, which is why marriage rates are declining. "Girls have to live by guys demands". Even this article doesn't blame feminism for the "marriage problem".

The final piece of evidence is a blog Q&A that says looks matter. The opponent is assumably implying that "feminists choose to be ugly, which therefore hurts their chances of marriage."

This implication is unfounded, ludicrous, and quite frankly, insulting.


We've seen that the opponent has not provided evidence which proves feminism has hurt women. What's more, the evidence doesn't even imply that feminism has hurt women. The opponent has essentially taken a few opinion columns, some tangetially related statistics, then made an incredibly unfounded assumption that feminism is the root of all evil for women.

Logical analysis has shown this is not true. Additionally, I've demonstrated that feminism has helpeed women tremendously. Any net benefit analysis will show that women are much better off than before feminism -- meaning that feminism has, on average, helped women.

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by C_e_e 2 years ago
Voting has not been enabled for me yet. If I could vote here is how I would.
Who did you agree with before the debate? _ * _
Who did you agree with after the debate? _ * _
Who had better conduct?_ * _
Who had better spelling and grammar? * _ _
Who made more convincing arguments? _ _ *
Who used the most reliable sources? _ * _
Pro"s arguments in Round 2 were original, there was nice style in his delivery, but there weren"t many facts. So, Con"s cross examination in Round 2 picked apart Pro"s argument. Round 3 was a much stronger case for Pro. I liked that Pro pointed out that there were different "waves" of the feminist movement. The "waves" shifted from an equality focus to advocating legal advantages which persist today. I think it would have helped Pro"s case if more were said about that shift. Con had more grammatical errors. "This statistics doesn't say"," "This are just a few"," and "that women every would have accomplished"," are a few instances. Con had more misspellings (exaggeration, possibilities, simultaneously, tangentially, and helped were misspelled). I wish Con's points regarding proof in Round 3 were expressed as principles concisely. Instead, the examples mentioned so many different areas that were not germane to the topic of the debate. For citations I look for .gov, .edu, and peer-reviewed publications. I found among Pro"s sources, the National Institutes of Health .gov website. But one is not enough to exemplify the norm in citations for this debate. So, that point remained tied as well.
Posted by brontoraptor 2 years ago
I want to see you get someone pregnant Con. ;-)
Posted by Cobalt 2 years ago
I thought about adding a line in there saying, "Except obvious biological functions, like conception, menstruation, an adam's apple and a prostate" -- but I figured that was obvious.
Posted by brontoraptor 2 years ago
Seeing that claiming there are things only men can do (or women) is sexist, I'll try to get pregnant tomorrow.
Posted by PandaSam67 2 years ago
What do you mean when it screwed women?
No votes have been placed for this debate.