The Instigator
Tommy.leadbetter
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Smooosh
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

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 1 vote the winner is...
Smooosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2018 Category: Education
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 798 times Debate No: 106425
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

This is not about legal equality: I am not arguing that women should have different rights to men. I am saying that its better for males to be in the 'driving seat' when it comes to relationships. Women are typically less stable, reasonable and rational than their male counterparts and also struggle with handling power to a greater degree than men. They typically lack the level of personal responsibility that males posses and thus can become emotionally charged more easily and are more likely to make rash decisions that detriment the family as a whole. Womens intrinsic value of having vaginas and wombs was offset against the males value of being productive, strong, protective and of possessing leadership qualities. Now however women have the upper hand and men are becoming increasingly obsolete and thus are being treat with increasing disdain from their female counterparts. People are less happy than ever in relationships and my argument is that the rise of feminism has played a major role in this change.

My view is that women are predominantly better suited to housekeeping and parental duties over work in the workplace. I also argue that they are typically happier in the home environment than in the workplace.

I also argue that separate duties within a household produce a more stable relationship and a better environment for raising children.

I argue that feminism, though valuable in providing rights for women, now has a negative impact on relationship satisfaction and stability. The idea that men and women are the same is the misconception at the heart of this issue.
Smooosh

Con

My opponents entire argument is based on shallow, generalizations on the difference between men and women, however there's no scientific evidence or statistics to back his claims. All the reader is left with are relative, cliche "observations" based solely from the point of view of my opponent. My opponent makes no attempt to provide evidence, and even admits his entire argument is based on his view (notice the first two words in the second paragraph of his argument). HIS VIEW is of no value to the readers and judges of this debate!!! I call on my opponent to clarify his use of the phrase "driving seat". Does my opponent believe men should always have the final say on every single matter in the household? I call that megalomania. So does that mean my opponent believes that women shouldn't have the right to leave such a ridiculous situation, or be able to defend herself mentally or physically (if need be) from that kind of circumstance? If so, that would mean my opponent IS against legal equality of women, even though he claims he is not. So far, I'm fairly underwhelmed by
my opponents entire argument.

Even if my opponent could prove that women are "less stable then men", or "people are less happy than ever in relationships", it would be of no consequence within this debate because our relationships are not publicly influenced or owned, they are a private matter between two consenting adults. My opponent so far has failed to show how public attitudes can effect private relationships. If every other couple on earth, broke -up with each other, that should mean nothing to you and your spouse because your relationship is personal to you and your spouse ONLY, it is owned by you and your spouse only. When will we stop letting these socialistic attitudes toward relationships stop effecting our personal space? If you let public opinion adversely effect your private relationship, then you deserve all the unwanted consequences of your actions (and I hope it never stops stinging for you!!!). Stop tacking my relationship onto you barely coherent "observations" of relationships!!! My spouse and I are quite happy with our shared responsibility based relationship, and if yours didn't work out for you, too bad, so sad! It doesn't affect my relationship with my spouse.

As far as women being the houskeeping unit of the relationship, that is a matter that's decided between two consenting adults. Although, even if most households wanted to have the woman stay at home and maintain the household, that's no longer a viable option for most couples. Unfortunately, because of these socialistic attitudes that have infected our society in the past century, minimum wages have gone up. When minimum wages go up, so do prices (cost of living). When the cost of living goes up, then regular households need to rely on women to make a living as well. My opponent seems to suffer from a "ninteen-fiftees hallucination". His assertions are based on nonsensical, outdated economics and public opinions.

I wouldn't be surprised if my opponents opinions stem from a bad relationship experience he had, and he's still seething with rage, and this is some kind of attempt at a philosophical temper tantrum as an outlet for his anger (or he has some deep seated "mommy issues") nevertheless, his arguments are baseless, illogical, and rather unflattering. I'm embarrassed AT him!
Debate Round No. 1
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

First of all, welcome to my debate; I am excited to continue and are very pleased to meet you.

I think I will try and address your argument piece by piece in a chronological fashion.

"My opponents entire argument is based on shallow, generalizations on the difference between men and women, however there's no scientific evidence or statistics to back his claims. All the reader is left with are relative, cliche "observations" based solely from the point of view of my opponent."

In what format would you prefer the citation? I will continue with APA for now.
There are many significant distinctions between males and females, within numerous areas of distinction. For instance: in brain hormone function (e.g. Nishizawa, 1997; Giedd, 2012), sexual behaviour and preference (Carrol, 1985) and across a wide range of personality measures (Hyde, 2014). There are studies galore to be found highlighting differences, I don"t think it"s a controversial topic; it is also assumtion held by every culture known to man for thousands of years. Also, its pretty self-evident from life experience that males are different from females, though its "un-scientific" it doesn"t make it false. As you are the one making the radical assumption that males and females have no differences, I feel the burden of proof lies with you. This point about life experience I want to come back to at the end and relate it to your last argument.

Use of the word "driving seat", I understand it needs some explanation; it was not a good choice of words. What I mean is that males are more suited to the external family situation (job, money, future plans) and so from the outside could be considered in "control" of the family. I do not mean that men should hold any power over a women or be able to hit them or anything ridiculous like that. Lets be serious here and stop boxing off the world into devil people and Saints: the word is more nuanced. Women and men should be equal in rights of course.

(http://www.actforlibraries.org...) Here is a quote from a meta-analytical study of gender differences:
"In reality nature has designed the two genders to have compatible, but differing psychological strengths, simply to ensure that a suitable balance is achieved in the male/female relationship"

"if my opponent could prove that women are "less stable then men", or "people are less happy than ever in relationships"

Women less stable than men: The world health organisation, over a huge meta-analytical study found overwhelmingly that women suffered greater from mental health problems (up to 40% more), (World Health Organization; 2002).

People less happy than ever in relationships: Peoples relationships are shorter than ever now; look it up in two seconds you will find evidence. Blanchflower (2004) found that since the 70s, satisfaction in life has decreased and flatlined in both the US and Britain. Its hard to demonstrate correlation, however studies show how the more egalitarian a couple is, the more conflict within the relationship and the lesser lifespan expected (Kaufman, 2000). Science is limited in its ability to prove that people are less happy in relationships but it does show that conflict is increased and length of the relationship is decreased. This may be an indication that satisfaction levels are lower.

"Our relationships are not publicly influenced"
"My opponent so far has failed to show how public attitudes can effect private relationships"

Now this is gross misconception, but a common one. I think "can"t see the wood for the tree"s" is the quickest way to explain your error here; in my view. You think your not influenced by the wider society in your relationship? I would go out on a limb here and suggest that 90% of your relationships" experiences, opinions and practices are publicly influenced. Let me explain: Are you monogamous or do you have a large number of husbands/boyfriends? What about your partner, are you one of his wives? If not then you fit into a minority of cultural practices in which the two person relationship is the norm " namely Christian cultures. So there"s one way in which your influenced by the public.

What about ownership? Are you owned by your husband? No? well that"s odd by traditional standards: why do you do it like that and not the normal way? Because the public has changed its mind perhaps? Or is it you, if you lived in the middle ages would you know better, from your gender studies in medieval sixth form collage?

Do you wear a veil? Why? Why not? Is your husband the only man who is allowed to look at you, or not? Why not? Do you share everything equally or is one expected to more/less of anything? How do you divide the labour? Whatever practices and beliefs you hold, they have come from the society. No person is an island. Women who wear the Niqab or Hijab say the same as you: that it is their choice and an expression of their individualism and freedom. Everybody feels like the decisions they make are their own and that they are individuals who are pure and un-sculpted by their society. Many argue that the more people feel this way, the more they are influenced by it! It is simply not true to say that our relationships are not publicly influenced. And I think its fairly self-evident from what I have eluded and from looking at the world that relationships are effected by public attitude.

Stop tacking my relationship onto you barely coherent "observations" of relationships

I don"t want to descend into an argument over grammar, but I recommend being careful when insulting someone"s grammar to not absolutely butcher the sentence insulting my ability to write sentences lol.

I wouldn't be surprised if my opponents opinions stem from a bad relationship experience he had, and he's still seething with rage, and this is some kind of attempt at a philosophical temper tantrum as an outlet for his anger (or he has some deep seated "mommy issues") nevertheless, his arguments are baseless, illogical, and rather unflattering. I'm embarrassed AT him!

This is spot on well done. Except for the mommy issues I think, or perhaps they are unconscious I don"t know! I am still with the spouse that turned me from staunch feminist to misogynist if your interested, she is locked in the basement now with my two daughters who are to be my wives. Now that"s my choice and I certainly don"t let public opinion influence my attitude to relationships! Seriously though, my opinion has been formed over an eight year relationship with marriage and two children and I think its hard for anyone to have a legitimate opinion on these matters without such an experience; not that this experience gives you the right opinion, I am not suggesting I am right because of my experience. But this experience, as well as researching this issue for a study and hearing many conflicting opinions, has led me to this conclusion. I would like to point out, if it helps my standing, that I have been a staunch feminist all my life until about 6 months ago; so I am sincere and well rounded in my opinion. My relationship experience has taught me however, to get back on track, that women are better suited to childcare and housekeeping. My partner takes far more pride in appearance than I do, and this is common across the board, she loves furnishings, decoration and patterns, to make the house look attractive: she will dress the kids smartly and always dislikes how I dress them: she will sit for ages and clean their ears, pick spots, etc and has the patience to play for prolonged periods and be comforting. I will do shorter sessions of play but mine will be task oriented such as cooking or building something, while she will put up with their nonsensical games (equally valuable). I look to the future and thus have dietary restrictions and savings accounts in mind; I will say when we have the money to go on holiday, then she can be in charge of that. She lives in the moment and will have fun, and I will check that by making sure we don"t spend to much money and eat loads of junk food etc. I also run a business and look to expand it to make a profit for the family to continue having fun. My wife however is extremely emotional at times and it causes arguments that can spur out of control because of irrationality on my partners part. This, every man, and I mean every man (over the age of 22) (please if you"re a man in the comments back me up on this) admits to overly frequent "crazy" behaviour on the part of their spouse.

My argument basically boils down to this: In many ways feminism encourages the attitude that women can do all the things that men can do (as well as men) and that feminine attributes are somehow lesser in value than masculine attributes and should not be praised. Could I be right in suggesting that your reaction to housekeeping and childcare supports my point? If I had said: "better suited to having a career and making money" you might not have had a problem. What is wrong with raising children I ask you? What is wrong with taking pride in your and your families appearance, and that of your dwelling? Ironically it is feminism that, nowadays, attacks womanhood-at least in this way.
Teaching women to be ashamed of doing housework and raising children full time has disrupted the natural balance of duties and roles within the household. Studies show how egalitarian households experience higher levels of conflict, which leads to a lack of stability and shorter relationships. This is a negative impact on relationships. Equality is expected, and no laws should compel this sort of behaviour, but my argument is that feminism negatively impacts relationships and, in this way, I believe it has.
Smooosh

Con

I feel my opponent might be chasing his tail a little. Like a dog who forgot where he buried his bone, my opponent seems to think that the holes he made trying to find it, are just as good a proof as the bone itself. NOPE!!!! And oh, how effective his "nodody is an island" spiel was. I ate it up like cheetos. But after reading his argument, I'm still not quite sure how he thinks public attitudes affect our relationships. I can't blame him though, rational people (like ourselves) are not easily swayed by silly wankerisms. Look, it's simple. If you prefer a traditional relationship with your spouse, that's YOUR choice of how YOU feel the household should be run. If your spouse rejects your notion of a well kept, functional household, that would be HER choice. If you choose to quarrel because of your disagreement, that would be both your choices and society has no say in any of it. Your choice is the most influential factor in all these situations. In fact, your choice is so influential that it makes it impossible for public attitudes to affect you, unless you accept public opinion as an influence, and even then, it's still YOUR choice to accept it's influence.

I don't think my opponent realizes it, but when you boil his argument down, he's actually saying that the problem is that women DO have equal rights! Thankfully my opponent agrees that women should have equal rights, but his argument is based on the idea that because women are actually exercising their equality in relationships, that's what causes the "negative impact". That's pretty much the meat and potatoes of this debate. My opponent thinks that a quick peruse through the world wide web will show obvious evidence of the breakdown of traditional relationships (which I will call "armagrelashionship". Ok, maybe not). I must not be looking in the right place because I haven't found any proof of that. My opponent tried using a vague "study" done over a decade ago that says "satisfaction in life has decreased and flatlined in both the US and Britain". Shame on him for trying to use that as evidence of dissatisfaction in relationships, it doesn't really even have anything to do with this argument, it has to do with satisfaction in life as a whole. I'm confused on how satisfaction in life can flatline anyway. Like, what does that even mean? If I was a Russian soldier in the battle for Stalingrad and I just got captured by the Germans and was being sent to a prisoner of war camp, perhaps then my satisfaction in life would flatline, but a couple skirmishes with the old lady won't make me wanna snuff it.

Perhaps I should apologize to my opponent for not specifying that I'm not a woman. I am a married father of two girls. We do not, I can't stress this enough, DO NOT teach our daughters to be ashamed of housework. In fact, doing the housekeeping is probably the main reason we had kids! My wife identifies as a feminist. She works full time now, but when she didn't, she always kept the house clean. Now that she works full time, we have to share the chores, and I have no problem with that! I can't think of any instances when we taught our children to hate the masculine traits I have and since they're girls, obviously we teach them to love their feminine traits. My older daughter plays football (American football, not soccer), and she's awesome. It seems that all my opponent and I have to use as references are our own relationships, which aren't very broad ranging. My argument hinges on the belief that your additude toward your spouse and your situation are far more influential than feminism. Perhaps my opponent is a snot, and expects his spouse to do all the cooking and cleaning and leave him free for his manly pursuits, like getting drunk at the pub and watching football (soccer). Perhaps she's not a very nice person and refuses to help out at all. Or maybe like BB king said, the thrill is gone. I don't think feminism plays that big of a role in those situations, perhaps your both just mean people. (I hope that wasn't offensive. I just meant it for the sake of the argument)

My opponent suggested that I was arguing that males and females have no differences?!? I call on my opponent to come up with a quote in any of my arguments that shows that I actually feel that way. I may let my daughters do things that were traditionally considered "boy things" in the past, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the many obvious differences between males and females. So obvious that I don't think it should have been brought up, but my opponent never ceases to amaze us. By the way, I wasn't insulting your grammar, I was insulting your observations. Trust me, I'd be the last guy to insult someones grammar. I've met glue sniffing addicts with better grammar than me!

I would like to thank my opponent for such an interesting debate, and am very pleased no meet you as well. Good luck, mate!
Debate Round No. 2
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

I feel like we are getting off topic.

So my three basic assumptions go as follows:
1."feminism" is the agreed term for the movement towards equality of women. Branches of modern Feminism have encouraged the assumption that males and females are the same and that women who opt for the "housewife" role are somehow brainwashed, in servitude to their spouse or are behaving like second-class citizens in a way. At least they do not hold this role on a pedestal.
2.The attitude that women should be financially equal to men or that there should be no separation of roles, leads to negative consequences in relationships.
3.Therefore this particular attitude, borne out of feminism, when adopted, leads to negative consequences within the relationship.

I will attempt to extract my opponents arguments against these principles and dispute them.

My opponents first contention with my argument is with the notion that feminism, or public attitudes at all for that matter, effect peoples relationships at all. This is an interesting and groundbreaking claim: that the attitude the public hold does not effect the relationships the public have with one another; does my opponent see his error? Lets hear him out:

"I'm still not quite sure how he thinks public attitudes affect our relationships. I can't blame him though, rational people (like ourselves) are not easily swayed by silly wankerisms. Look, it's simple. If you prefer a traditional relationship with your spouse, that's YOUR choice of how YOU feel the household should be run. If your spouse rejects your notion of a well kept, functional household, that would be HER choice. If you choose to quarrel because of your disagreement, that would be both your choices and society has no say in any of it. Your choice is the most influential factor in all these situations. In fact, your choice is so influential that it makes it impossible for public attitudes to affect you, unless you accept public opinion as an influence, and even then, it's still YOUR choice to accept it's influence."

I"m not sure that all my opponent has eluded us to is the notion of free-will. You know the term "culture"? This, what I am eluding to, is what a "culture" is. It"s a commonly held set of values and beliefs that are held by a group of people. For example, in the West it is our common belief that people should be free to choose so long as it doesn"t infringe on the rights of others: and that males and females are of equal legal status. That is just one culture among an infinite number of different belief systems. Believe it or not, your values derive from that and were not created by your "rationale" or "free-will" as you put it. Actually, the ideas that you and your partner have are rather rare if not unique in human history so lets be more humble about it.

So to dispute this I will argue that the idea that you are both free is just another idea. It is not the default. So to suggest that because you have a choice means your free from societies influence, is false. It is society that has told you that you are free (to a point). Also, to suggest that a societies value system and beliefs do not affect the behaviour of members of that society is incomprehensible to me. How have you concluded this?

My opponent has not explained the concentration of cultural practices around the world, in which I eluded to last round, that clearly demonstrate that culture effect behaviour. I do not feel as though my opponent has adequately challenged this position and demonstrated that cultural attitudes do not affect behaviour.

My opponents second paragraph states that I think women should be unequal, or at least practice inequality. What would that look like I ask you? This is pure virtue signalling and I expect better from a debate website member. I don"t know exactly how things should be done, obviously, but women need to feel less guilty about being housewives because that"s the most stable relationship. My argument is that feminism has negatively impacted relationships as it discourages this relationship model. I think women should feel comfortable, and that it should be the norm, that women are housewives. If women want to pursue a career or do whatever they want, they should have no issue. My opinion is however that the majority of women do not fit this feminist ideal and that striving for it is causing relationships to deteriorate. Do you see the difference between that and saying women should be unequal? Also I totally agree that people should do what they want, this does not contradict my argument though, so I would waste words on it.

You"re a man? Okay then. I don"t know what your point is on your third paragraph other than that free-will effects our relationships too; which I don"t really know where to go with, as I am not sure how it challenges my premise and we have already discussed it.

Your last bit in the paragraph:
"Perhaps my opponent is a snot, and expects his spouse to do all the cooking and cleaning and leave him free for his manly pursuits, like getting drunk at the pub and watching football (soccer). Perhaps she's not a very nice person and refuses to help out at all. Or maybe like BB king said, the thrill is gone. I don't think feminism plays that big of a role in those situations, perhaps your both just mean people."

This is ridiculous; what about I run a business which earns lots of money, takes up much time but allows for sporadic and unpredictable free-time to become available. I do this because of my "male typical" mentality of single-minded pursuit of goals. My partner gets to live with wealth, spend time with her children, look after the dwelling and pursue her own, less intense, ventures. She does this because she is happy to relax and do repetitive and low intensity work more than I am. We have been through this in my last argument did you not read? It fits our personality, like with typical males and females. Females love kids and males love to be socially ambitious.

"My opponent suggested that I was arguing that males and females have no differences?!? I call on my opponent to come up with a quote in any of my arguments that shows that I actually feel that way."

Does this qualify? "My opponents entire argument is based on shallow, generalizations on the difference between men and women, however there's no scientific evidence or statistics to back his claims"

But then you go on to admit there are differences. So what are these differences? and why then is my premise wrong that the belief that men and women are the same leads to negative consequences in relationships? If you admit this belief is wrong.
Smooosh

Con

For a culture or society to exist, everybody within that culture has to accept the values, ideals, and laws of said culture. It seems my opponent believes that a culture or society is held together by an unexplainable magnetic force. NOPE!!! ALL cultures/societies are held together by each individuals acceptance of the ideals of said culture. If people begin to reject the ideals of society, then that society crumbles or is changed, and a new set of ideals are put into place. Without the consent of the people on an individual basis then society wouldn't exist. That last sentence doesn't only pertain to "western" society, it pertains to all societies. Do you know what a social construct is? It's the idea that some things that we believe to be true, may only be true within the context of our society, but may not be true in nature, or politics, or history. Some may consider gender roles to be a social construct. There's no omnipresent force that renders you helpless if you choose to stray from socially accepted gender roles. It is solely and purely your choice to abide by whichever standard you choose. Right about now, you might be thinking, what if you live in Iran? Could a man choose to don a Lularoe dress and walk down the street like he's in a pageant? Not without putting his safety at risk, but that doesn't mean he cannot do it. I am arguing that we are only truly governed by our free will, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for our actions. There's no force stopping me from going outside and setting off fireworks at 2am in my thickly settled neighborhood, but my acceptance of the fact that the consequences for that action would not be pleasant, stops me from doing so, not an unseen cosmic force. The most obvious social construction would be society itself. If you think about it, you might come to the conclusion that we all live in anarchy. There's no mechanism that physically stops us from doing or not doing anything, it's only our choice. Societies and cultures are made up of large groups of individuals who've collectively decided to forego some freedom, for the safety of living with the herd. Since we were born into an already existing society, we get the feeling that the rules and ideals of our society are written in some cosmic pillar that keeps the balance of existence in check. NOPE!!!! It is, and always has been a large group of individuals who've collectively accepted the ideals and standards of society. So when you really boil it down, my opponent is saying he accepts the traditional standard for his relationship, and his spouse rejects that standard. I don't get the feeling that the ghost of William F Buckley Jr will haunt you if you give in to her standards. I also don't think you'll have a swarm of unshaven women, burning bras on your front lawn, if she gives in. So no, social influence does not play as big a role as you might think.

I think you misinterpreted my sentence about the "shallow generalizations on the difference between men and women". That sentence doesn't say, men and women are the same. Actually it says the opposite. It recognizes their are differences between men and women, but your generalizations (observations) seem shallow. Now, I don't know you, but you seem to be more intelligent than me, and I sort of get the sense that some of what you say is said out of spite, or bitterness, but perhaps you don't believe these things as strongly as you feel you do. I get the feeling that you are purposefully holding back on your sense of depth, for the sake of this debate.

My opponent argues that certain branches of feminism encourage women to reject the role of "housewife" and that men and women are the same. First off, it's a bit superfluous for a feminist to encourage women to reject the role of "housewife", because most of western society has already rejected it. Not necessarily for the sake of womans rights, but for economic reasons. As I've argued before, (and it seems my opponent has no desire to address this) most families need the women to get jobs because they need a second source of income. I don't deny there are some extreme fundamental sects within the feminist movement, but do those particular sentiments actually represent the core values of feminism? Do all white people have a poster of David Duke hanging on there wall? Do all black people swear allegiance to the honorable Elijah Muhammad? Are all feminists really man haters? An extreme view made by certain feminists may not be a fair representation of the core values of feminism. It's also worth noting that not all feminists share the same views as other feminists. Some traditional feminists believe pornography is basically just "legal prostitution" so it should be outlawed, but many modern feminists will argue that pornography is a way of showing that woman "own" their sex and body image and there's no need to infringe on artistic rights for the sake of outdated puritan sentiments. It's difficult to make an assessment of where the core values of feminism are, because there are opposing views within the movement itself. Just clumping all feminist sentiment into one extremist category is a tad bit obtuse.

I'm sure it can be heartbreaking to know that half of all marriages end in divorce. It's almost as if your a pessimist, your chances are pretty good that your marriage will end in divorce. I guess, on the flip side, if your prone to optimism, it seems you have a better chance of staying married for the remainder of your life. That almost gives me the feeling that your additude toward your relationship is the dominant factor within your relationship.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...
My opponent seems to have trouble with the concept that the framework of his relationship is based on his, and his spouses attitudes toward there relationship. It's based on how you feel about each other, and any bad or good sentiments you have for each other, are not influenced by feminism! Your relationship is based SOLELY on your feelings for each other. I could argue that "traditionalism" is the decadent factor in your relationship, but that wouldn't hold any water either. ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE!!!!
Debate Round No. 3
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

I am not not sure what your argument is here exactly. It seems you have eluded us to the fact that a "culture" is made up of the people"s collective attitude"s and value"s. This is of-course true but does not challenge my argument. Your point at the end is that culture doesn"t affect behaviour that much, so my initial premise that feminism has a negative impact cannot be accurate because feminism does not have an impact; or an significant impact. Your argument for this is that people have free-will whatever their situation and so culture does not effect relationships enough for the influences of feminism to have the negative impact I am referring to.

I have made the argument twice now for culture effecting relationships but my opponent remains unconvinced. I will make two more attempts to get this point across:

What my opponenent misses out in his analysis of culture is the influence of technological, social and interlectual factors. These exist outside the individual and significantly impact the individuals decisions. This may be by affecting the social and economic structures in place, such as the change from farming to industry changed the availability of work and the structure of the family; or it may be philosophical/interlectual, for instance the belief that women could go to school significantly effected womens choices and perception of themselves. Another philosophical change has been the adaptation to secularism, in which it has become acceptable for people to engage in non-religious practices and relationships. You highlightred the current economical need for women to engage in work, to be a factor in influencing women to engage in paid work, which then leads to change in perception of women. Many of these changes are separate from the collective individual I struggle with your oversimplification of this matter by highlighting the fact that people can theoretically do what they want even if it means social exclusion and even criminal charges.

This brings me on to point two: your argument may be relevant when referring to a specific individual and referring to that individual. However my premis refers to society as a whole and so individual freedom is less relevant. I argue relationships have been negatively effected as a whole so your or my freedom to choose differently is irellevant; I am not arguing that it effects my relationship (though it does) and that I cannot change it. In which case you would be justified in highlighting my power over the situation. However the fact that certain attitudes, encouraged by feminism, lead to more confrontational and shorter relationships in a significantly large portion of the population is not disputed by the fact that I (Tom) have some power to resist that ideology.

I have left myself no time to finish this argument I apologize I will try and summerise.

You keep saying that society has no influence then referring to things like social constructionism. You also state that "My opponent argues that certain branches of feminism encourage women to reject the role of "housewife" and that men and women are the same. First off, it's a bit superfluous for a feminist to encourage women to reject the role of "housewife", because most of western society has already rejected it" So if society has rejected it, then is that not society and values effecting relationships? I don"t get what you cannot see here.

So that"s your argument against the first premise.

I feel that that is all you have offered. You seem to have merely repeated your first point that people have free-will and there is an individualistic factor contributing to relationship satisfaction. I feel as though I have addressed this point thoroughly. You have offered no rebuttal to my other statements about the effect of egalitarian attitudes on relationship satisfaction and the natural order of things.

Women are generally better suited to childcare and small-time care work than males, and males are generally more adept to bigger business ventures/career paths; is it right to discourage women from the role that most of them would be happier in?
Smooosh

Con

Oh man, have I been barking up the wrong tree. It seems my opponents premise was referring to society as a whole, and so free will has no real place in this debate, boy is my face red!!!!! Ya, because society is made up of a mass of preprogrammed mandroids who have no control over social attitudes. And since we have no control over social attitudes, then we must not have control over how social attitudes affect our individual relationships (assuming we have individual relationships, because my opponent has proven that all of our relationships are a public matter and we have no control over it on an individual basis). I should have read his premise more thoroughly, then I would have noticed the word "society" was clearly present. Sorry for the misunderstanding!!! Just in case you didn't realize, this entire paragraph is sarcasm!

All of a sudden, this debate is meaningless on an individual basis and only refers to society as a whole!?! If I may quote my opponent here
"my opinion has been formed over an eight year relationship with marriage and two children and I think its hard for anyone to have a legitimate opinion on these matters without such an experience; not that this experience gives you the right opinion, I am not suggesting I am right because of my experience. My relationship experience has taught me however, to get back on track, that women are better suited to childcare and housekeeping. My partner takes far more pride in appearance than I do, and this is common across the board, she loves furnishings, decoration and patterns, to make the house look attractive: she will dress the kids smartly and always dislikes how I dress them: she will sit for ages and clean their ears, pick spots, etc and has the patience to play for prolonged periods and be comforting." ***************Ummm, this all sounds like some very personal information and my opponent admits that it is his personal experience that has formed his opinion. My opponent began his argument from the basis of his relationship, but out of nowhere claims that this debate has nothing to do with individual relationships and it only pertains to society as a whole. I remain categorically unconvinced. You need to try harder to convince me that social attitudes affect my relationship more so than I am able to!!

I fail to see what point my opponent is trying to make when he talks about "the influence of technological, social and interlectual factors. He claims that these factors take place outside of the individuals control. Of course they do! Beside our bodily functions, ALL factors take place outside of our control. As individuals, we choose to react to these factors. Our choice is still the defining factor here!! What technological factors is my opponent talking about anyway? Is he trying to claim that we are being controlled by our phones and tablets and laptops? It is our CHOICE to engage in technology, it is our choice to let certain information influence us on our additudes. I don't know of any technology that physically drills ideas and attitudes into our head without our consent, and if this technology does exist, I would recommend not using it. Just a suggestion though, it's your choice in the end!

I question my opponents idea on the "natural order of things" concept, and I question how "relationship satisfaction" has anything to do with egalitarian attitudes. Is my opponent suggesting that what society thinks about our relationship is the dominant factor for "relationship satisfaction"? If consenting adults enter into a relationship, then the feelings they have or do not have for each other is the dominant factor. If these adults are affected by egalitarian additudes, then it's their choice to let these things affect their relationship. My opponents acceptance of a "natural order" seems to be a more disruptive additude than egalitarian or feminist additudes. When people use phrases like "natural order", what they're really doing is denying that social attitudes change or progress at all, and they label any shifts in additudes as deviance. They deny progress is a real thing, all it is to them is deviation, but denying progress is like denying that the wind blows. Whether you accept it or not, it's still going to happen. Like my opponent pointed out, we've changed from a farm based society to an industrial society, that's progress! I get the sense that my opponent thinks that womens new found sense of self is unprecedented and goes against the natural order of society. If that were true, we would not have the word matriarch. There have been societies where women were held in high regard and some claim they were dominant. Even in European and African cultures women could be queen, they were not specifically barred from that, and in light of this, it makes me wonder what my opponent means by the "natural order of things". I challenge my opponent to clarify his view of the "natural order" of society.
Debate Round No. 4
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Okay so by natural order I mean the natural characterisations associated with each sex. Though masculine and feminine traits may be on a spectrum, it is not a perfect equilibrium; instead is it polarised. Meaning males majorly posses masculine traits and females feminine traits. So when I say to attune to the "natural order" I mean to legislate and organise in order to enable and use these traits to our advantage. This argument is not about alternative social orders but instead about the impact of the idea that "housewives" are inferior. I argue that feminine traits are well suited, and indeed naturally designed for, childrearing and caring for people in the community; so to discourage "housewifery" is to go against the "natural order" of things, to an extent. Do you understand where I am coming from?

I am not saying that women should not be equal in every way. I must highlight this specifically as my opponent keeps attempting to strawman my argument with this claim. I demonstrate my sincerity by explaining my position: women having a choice makes no difference to my argument; that the movement to discourage housewifery is detrimental to relationships. How does it? I am well aware that many women can be highly successful at anything a man does and so it would be morally irreprehensible to restrict them; this freedom would also have to apply to every female because it would be immoral to differentiate. This is basic morality, can we put this to bed? My argument is more complex.

It is difficult to decipher what my opponent"s specific arguments are here. The sarcastic comment at the beginning; I"m not sure if I am to address, or how to address. You say in sarcasm that "society is made up of a mass of pre-programmed mandroids who have no control over social attitudes" and do not actually offer a reasoned rebuttal for me to discuss. However I will say that your statement is actually partly true; we are "pre-programmed" to a very large extent. I don"t wish to be insulting but what the hell: you don"t recognise this and this tells me that your heavily effected by it and its surprising you don"t see it because this is not even questioned by any sociologist A-level student; but what the hell its low hanging fruit for me. So on being "pre-programmed", let me explain: Many people don"t reach what is known by psychologists as "higher self-awareness" until late teens to early adulthood; many people don"t reach it until 30,40,50 or even never reach it. For the sake of argument let"s say that you are as self-aware as you are now when you are 16; your smart and aware of the pitfalls of thought that you are capable of and the impact of influences etc. You would have had 16 years of social imprinting from your society up until that point; then your "free-will" would be completely anchored in that worldview. Then into adulthood, you would be heavily encouraged to adopt the practices of the wider society for fear of social exclusion. Up until that point however, the point of self-awareness, you are essentially "pre-programmed" because you do not bare the capacity to question what value system is put on you. By the time you can question it, you have been heavily moulded by it. I have a three-year old and I tell you, there is no philosophical reasoning going on in there, he believes what he is told and copies what he sees (he is being pre-programmed). Indeed, this is no controversy, it is a part of nature that a creature must, in adolescence, learn the intricate details that will help them survive in their particular environment. The innate instincts that are born with are not enough by themselves and that is why the environment moulds our personality. So, to a very large extent, we are indeed pre-programed. And I have not even touched upon the pre-programming of our brain that supersedes societal influence.

I don"t understand your point about my relationship. Yes my experiences here have formed my opinion, but I made the generalisations after looking outwards. I found that all of my frineds had similar problems and that such large volumes of people talk about it in both comedy and academia. Also, I did a study on this in university and found a lot of evidence to support the idea that egalitarian attitudes are associated with increased instability and conflict in relationships.
You challenge" You need to try harder to convince me that social attitudes affect my relationship more so than I am able to!"

What if you were born in the Amazon rainforest in a remote tribe? How would your relationships be then? They would not be the same. Thus, your attitude now is a reflection of your cultural heritage and society, as you would have a different opinion/attitude if you where born in the Amazonian tribe. I have highlighted a number of different attitudes and value systems within cultures that relate to behaviour within relationships, and if you think that if you where born 1800 years ago in Northern Gaul that you would have the same opinion as you do now then I cannot help you. But thankfully it is not you I need to convince, and I am sure that the majority of observers understand this concept.

My opponent writes" I fail to see what point my opponent is trying to make when he talks about "the influence of technological, social and interlectual factors. He claims that these factors take place outside of the individuals control. Of course they do! Beside our bodily functions, ALL factors take place outside of our control. As individuals, we choose to react to these factors. Our choice is still the defining factor here!! What technological factors is my opponent talking about anyway? Is he trying to claim that we are being controlled by our phones and tablets and laptops? It is our CHOICE to engage in technology, it is our choice to let certain information influence us on our additudes. I don't know of any technology that physically drills ideas and attitudes into our head without our consent, and if this technology does exist, I would recommend not using it. Just a suggestion though, it's your choice in the end!"

I am responding to your argument that all societies values are derived from and created by the individuals within that society at their free-will. I am showing how people don"t just gradually become smarter and "progress" as you put it. We are influenced by the structures in society. The reason why things stagnated for 6000 years and then made more advancement in the last 100 years than in the previous 6000 is not because we are now super-smart humans with philosophical powers! We are still cavemen. What changes am I refereeing to? Well let"s see" I"m trying to think of some differences between an Amazonian tribe and the United States of America. Can you think of any? Don"t be ridiculous, society has changed in unimaginable ways to a point where it is nearly unrecognisable, even since 400 years ago it has. Of course these changes in the social order effect our attitudes and values I am sure I have made this point enough times now.

"Their choice to use a phone"? you say; sorry but I feel your not looking deep enough into this issue or understanding it properly.

In Conclusion.

Housewifery is discouraged by branches of Feminism " undisputed

Looking after children and focusing on their family over a career makes most women more happy than single-mindedly pursuing a career; as this is in tune with their nature " undisputed

Discouraging this idea is leading to conflict and instability in relationships, as women are being told to pursue something that generally makes them less happy; likewise those who do adopt this role of the "housewife" are made to feel like they are submitting to the patriarchy and are looked down upon-leading to unhappiness.

I don"t feel like these claims have been systematically challenged but that is up to the audience, thank you for an interesting debate and I wish you all the best.
Smooosh

Con

*Has my opponent scientifically proven that feminism is negatively impacting relationships?

As it is written now, the point of this debate is for him to prove that feminism is negatively impacting relationships, not what women are and aren't good at. He spent little time doling out statistics on modern relationship trends. He even admits "science is limited in it's ability to prove that people are less happy in relationships" then he puts forth statistics that don't have anything to do with relationships specifically, in hopes that the reader can find a correlation. I agree with my opponent that science is limited in it's ability to prove that relationships are being adversely affected. I took to the internet (at my opponents suggesting) to find evidence of the decline of the modern relationship, but to no avail. There really isn't any evidence suggesting that relationships are being adversely affected AT ALL, let alone by feminism. With a lack of proper evidence, all my opponent could do from here on out was draw correlations between his relationship and society, as if what happens in his relationship must be happening to us all. His point of view from his relationship cannot be considered a reliable representation of ALL relationships. I think he could've done a better job with trying to prove "scientifically", that relationships are being adversely affected, and that feminism is the specific cause. Without this concrete evidence, my opponents entire argument unravels fairly quick. Now, the entire debate is based solely from the point of view of my opponent.

*Has my opponent persuaded you of his premise in a social sense?

It seems my opponent has projected his image of his relationship onto society. He thinks his personal experience is a true representation of ALL society, then he tries to portray his problems as societies problems. In all truth, it was a revealing look inside the dark depths of a social echoe chamber. I know how he wanted so badly to argue that women are inferior when it comes to finances or personal responsibility etc etc, but I feel that whatever "role" Tom has in mind for men and women doesn't really matter in this debate. If he wanted to have a debate on the superiority or inferiority of men and women, his proposal should have been worded differently, like for instance, UNK NO LIKE WOMEN IN WORKPLACE, or something of that nature. It seems that Thomas thinks my relationship is "rather rare if not unique in human history", so I guess he thinks my relationship is NOT a good representation of society at large, to him I'm in an "alternative social order". He feels that him and his friends (who unsurprisingly have similar problems) and whatever comedy shows he watches are a good representation of society at large, because he did a study on the issue (I'm sure it's scintillating) and that's all he felt he needed as a good representation of society!?! My opponent offers no hard evidence on social trends suggesting that feminism has a negative impact on relationships, but here is a link to one study he mentioned and it seems that egalitarianism does not adversely affect relationships http://journals.sagepub.com....

*Has my opponent properly addressed the fact that economic circumstances make it difficult for women to be housewives?

My opponents assertion that feminist discouragement of women being housewives is totally irrelevant!! Womens rejection of the role of housewife isn't tied to feminism, it's tied to economic circumstance. I would wager that the VAST majority of women who have jobs do not identify themselves as feminists. Regardless of their feelings toward being housewives, more women are being thrust into a role of economic provider. My opponent has done nothing to address this point, which I have brought up more than once!

*Do social additudes directly influence our relationships?

I think my opponent got a little tongue tied when it came to this point. It seems he thinks that social attitudes have a more profound impact on our personal relationships than we as individuals do. Once again he's hijacked something and twisted it to fit his world view. Higher self awareness does not deal with societies influence, it deals with emotions. My opponent claims we are preprogrammed by society, and the concept of higher self awareness proves it. HOGWASH!!!! Higher self awareness says that our brains are capable of remembering the emotions we feel in any given situation we've ever had. Our brains then store that information and uses it as an emotional blueprint for our future reference. When we encounter a situation that is similar to a situation we've encountered in the past, our brains unconsciously remind us of the feelings we had in the past situation. This emotional information can and does profoundly influence our decision making. Some may interpret that as being preprogrammed by our emotions, but self awareness is the realization of this process and being able to overcome it. I think my opponent has a common misconception on the difference between emotions and actions. Emotions do influence us deeply, and we don't truly have control over them, but your not going to melt if you act "contrary" to your emotions. They're just feelings (Nietzsche spoke about this alot). Lets say you have a fear of flying, but you've decided to get on a plane and face your fear, that would be an example of you acting contrary to your emotions. Your choice of action is the dominant factor here, not emotions. We are not preprogrammed by our emotions.

I feel that the only way social attitudes can influence our relationships is if we choose to let them. Our relationships aren't owned by the public, and our love is not for the greater good of society, it's for our own personal interest. Our perception of our own relationship is far more influential than social attitudes. My wife and I are very happy together, but we have had quarrels in the past and will again in the future, but I don't simply blame our disagreements on feminism. Our personal feelings for each other are far more influential than social attitudes or feminism.

I thank my opponent for such a spirited debate, and I wish him good luck. I thank YOU the reader for taking interest in this debate, and I encourage you to vote on it.

Peace!
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Smooosh 6 months ago
Smooosh
Sorry, that last sentence in my argument should have said "very nice TO meet you.
Posted by Smooosh 6 months ago
Smooosh
Thanks for not forfeiting after the first round. The last five debates I had were dropped by my opponents after the first round. I was starting to lose faith in this site.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 6 months ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Didn't copy my sources: here they are if anybody is interested.

Kaufman, G. (2000). Do gender role attitudes matter? Family formation and dissolution among traditional and egalitarian men and women. Journal of Family Issues, 21(1), 128-144.

Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2004). Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. Journal of public economics, 88(7), 1359-1386.

Giedd, J. N., Raznahan, A., Mills, K. L., & Lenroot, R. K. (2012). magnetic resonance imaging of male/female differences in human adolescent brain anatomy. Biology of Sex Differences, 3(1), 19.

Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual review of psychology, 65, 373-398.

Nishizawa, S., Benkelfat, C., Young, S. N., Leyton, M., Mzengeza, S. D., De Montigny, C., ... & Diksic, M. (1997). Differences between males and females in rates of serotonin synthesis in human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94(10), 5308-5313.

Carroll, J. L., Volk, K. D., & Hyde, J. S. (1985). Differences between males and females in motives for engaging in sexual intercourse. Archives of sexual behavior, 14(2), 131-139.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 6 months ago
Tommy.leadbetter
whats your variation, i'm intrigued
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 6 months ago
Tommy.leadbetter
I like the term Feminazi - I'l have argument tomorrow. And thanks Vladamir thats what I hoped too lol
Posted by Vladimir_Lemon 6 months ago
Vladimir_Lemon
I only have a slightly varying opinion, and I"d like to respond, however It"d be much funnier to see a feminazi respond
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 6 months ago
Tommy.leadbetter
I am still waiting for the rush of feminists condemning me... Do any of you in the comments hold an opinion on this issue?

To be fair, if your under 25 and have not has a serious relationship or have kids then your opinion does not really interest me. I was a staunch feminist until 6 years of living with a women.
Posted by Zombieguy835 6 months ago
Zombieguy835
I can already tell this will be interesting, better grab some popcorn, this will be a long one
Posted by Bennett91 6 months ago
Bennett91
Do you intend to cite scholarly scientific sources for your claims?
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 6 months ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Thanks guys - go Ben Shapiro :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
Tommy.leadbetterSmoooshTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD given here: http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/110323/