Women leaders have a secret agenda to establish a Matriarchy, using feminism as a guiding force
Alright. This is my first debate on this site, so I'm nervous right now, especially since I'm generally insecure about my debating skills. Nevertheless, I will do my best. Good luck to both you and me.
Before I argue those claims in detail, let me point out that you are severely misunderstanding the meaning of feminism. Your (common) understanding of feminism is female rights over male rights, while the proper and most basic definition of feminism is gender equality. Dictionary.com's longer definition of feminism is "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." Please do get that right, the definition isn't subjective!
It seems that one of your main claims is that systemic sexism doesn't currently exist, and has instead reversed in favor of females. Systemic oppression of females has always and still exists at different levels all around the world. Sure, sexism towards men may have existed, but systemic oppression toward males has never and does not exist. The ultimate goal of feminists is to achieve gender equality, anything that surpasses that--that is, when one gender's powers and rights exceeds the other's--is no longer feminism, but gender-based oppression. Thus, women cannot "use feminism to establish matriarchy" or undermine male power/rights. That is now oppression, which, again, doesn't exist for men because women globally are not yet even "economically, politically, and socially equal to men" as you (and whoever you got that information from) say they are. Not even in the United States. In the regions of the Middle East and North Africa, East Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, only 17%, 19%, 27%, 19%, 23%, respectively, of their parliaments are held by women in 2014 (http://datatopics.worldbank.org...). In the hypothetical situation that there is an equal representation of both genders in any parliament, both genders would of course comprise of about half of any parliament's members. Yet women's presence in contemporary parliaments rarely even exceed 25%. Now consider the gender pay gaps that also exists globally:
(http://www.theguardian.com...) In all the major countries of the world, women are paid less than men, which is quintessential of gender inequality. With and because of these gender gaps, women continue to be seen as less than men, and thus will continue to be oppressed by them. And while oppression towards women remains existent, women continue to risk gender-based violence, which several times are unjustly overlooked by authorities, leaving women to suffer longer than they need to. Consider the female rape victims around the world that don't receive public sympathy simply because they are female. That is, because females tend to be seen as sluts, and because of it, deserve to be raped. That's 1 in 5 females in the U.S. alone who are at such a risk (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). Additionally, 30% of women who have been in a relationship experienced sexual or phsyical violence by their partner (http://www.who.int...). And around the world (mostly in Iran, India, and Pakistan, where systemic oppression towards women are the most dangerous), there are about 1,500 acid-attacks primarily on women and children, where acid is deliberately thrown on their faces by men (http://www.bbc.com...). Such injustice occurs because women aren't empowered, which is precisely why we need feminism; so that women's rights can no longer be abused and so that women can be seen as equal to men. The fact that you believe gender inequality no longer exists is, to me, extraordinarily baffling and quite ludicrous, so I apologize for throwing all those statistics at you, but I felt they were most necessary. Please research more into it, rather than creating hypotheticals! This is a genuine request.
To paraphrase a large part of our argument, you also believe that women--at least those in power--are oppressive, narrow-minded, fascistic, and somehow plotting together to undermine male rights and powers in "secret" So you're saying that no one but females, primarily, know that this plan, or "agenda," exists and are all working together in support of it. But I am female, my strongly feminist friends are female, and many of my feminist teachers are female. I live in a largely liberal area, and I have never heard of such endeavors, nor have I even imagined it! Again, feminists don't wish to undermine men's rights/powers; if they do, then they aren't feminists at all. You referred to Hillary Clinton as a part of this "agenda" but here's a quote from her: "If women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish. And when families flourish, communities and nations will flourish" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). Here, Hillary Clinton does not at all wish to overpower men, but simply to rid of any existing gender inequality in disfavor of women and stand alongside of men as "equal partners in society." You also mentioned that "if a women such as Hillary Clinton would have to give back presidential office to the hands of the 'oppressive' patriarchy, she could cancel presidential elections by stripping your constitutional rights through the logical fallacy that is Martial Law." First of all, she was never the president; in fact, as you very well know, there has never been a female president, hence why feminism exists in the first place. Second, I can assure you that she, and any other president, will never be able to commit such totalitarianistic actions given the strictly structured government the Framers created for the US. Our government's three branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--are all checked and balanced by each other. The executive branch (which includes the president) doesn't possess any formal legislative powers besides his veto power. There is the executive agreement, which allows the president to make treaties without congressional consent, and the executive order, which allows the president to make law also without congressional approval. But both aren't very powerful arguments as one is irrelevant; the other, rare, highly scrutinized, and lacks enough power to actually "cancel presidential elections," which would undeniably undermine the Constitution, which then could easily be grounds for a presidential impeachment. In fact, if Obama had any real legislative powers, he would have been able to pass so many of his laws, but he is mostly rendered inefficient and incapable of doing anything because of the largely Republican Congress (the legislative branch) that almost always opposes him and his proposed legislations. So no, women, just like males, cannot so easily undermine the very scared doctrine that is the Constitution. The closest way of doing so would be interpreting the Constitution, which only the Supreme Court has the power to do. I am concerned about your cruel (and quite offensive) depiction of feminist women as oppressive, narrow-minded, and fascistic. Feminists only wish for equality; if you see any woman, or anyone for that matter, advocating for a single gender's rights over those of the other, then by all means, call them out. But that's not what feminists are.
And yes, women may "favor one social aspect and execute another," just like any person may. Not all women agree on the same exact set of beliefs--by implying so, you are stereotyping women. All individual women have their own set of beliefs distinct from other women. Of course, large groups of women may agree on some things, but again, large groups of people in general do. And woman can't well execute their beliefs because they don't dominate the media, like you said they do, since women only make up a mere 30% of the total journalists in the US. (http://www.theguardian.com...)
http://time.com... ) This very article, is a (subjectively speaking) much more credible source than Huffington post and various other liberal- influenced articles, which you have linked. This article also refutes your points of domestic violence within first world countries. You seem to focus on feminism much more than the idea of matriarchy, because I presume by your arguments feminism is striving toward equality, rather than superiority, and thus not only reinforces your strong beliefs of the feminist movement, but also crushes my idea of a matriarchy. Furthermore, a rather disturbing insight from your argument, "That is, because females tend to be seen as sluts, and because of it, deserve to be raped" is both extremely subjective and enormously offensive, for you are objectifying females as sluts. Perhaps more disturbing, you illustrate men as a whole having a lust to rape a "slut" because they deserve it. You are illustrating men as evil and are further supporting your assumed man-hating stance, which would go against your supposed "gender equality". Moving along, you quote Hillary Clinton as if she is a verifiable source, yet it is proven that politicians constantly lie, even publicly to their supporters , to complete their agenda of holding office http://www.politics.co.uk... , even using misleading statistics as you did (When Obama talked about wage gap, using same statistics as you, John Kerry's Vietnam record in 2004, Nixon's Watergate Scandal, etc). Yet another unreliable source about the apparent "inequality" in first world countries. Then you go on to inexplicably take my hypothetical and try to dissolve it, yet fail again. Presidents have an ability to solely declare Martial Law and thus Martial Law revokes constitutional rights, such as holding elections, etc. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... Thus, you have no supported proof that there is gender equality in first world countries like the USA, Germany, England, etc. Therefore, there must be a reason why you think so, (this is purely conjecture), with the reason being the scripted media, and its power to sway public opinion http://thefreethoughtproject.com... , with this "fact" influenced upon the masses (Sheep) ( A.K.A. brainwashing). Mainstream media can proceed agendas such as Clinton's. If there is no gender equality, then why is the feminist culture so prevalent today? The only logical reason is the push toward superiority and an ultimate matriarchy. Proof of your elevation, not subjugation, are supplied here http://reason.com... . Thanks for your time, and if throughout this I ever seemed to degrade you in any way, it was purely for the reason of getting my point across.
Nele21 forfeited this round.
NickTheRationalPolitician forfeited this round.
Thank you, Con. I apologize for not being able to submit my 2 counterclaims in on time. I also apologize for not realizing that you were excluding non-1st-world countries; I was misled when you said that the patriarchal system has been threatened “especially” by 1st world countries.
I deliberately chose not to directly debunk your theories of matriarchy because it doesn’t and cannot even exist, especially when gender equality hasn’t even yet been achieved (which is again why we still need feminism and why it is so prevalent in current society). A majority of what you’re arguing about matriarchy is based purely on poorly supported or uneducated conjectures, not on concrete facts. But regardless of whether or not I refer to 1st world countries or non-1st-world-countries, my point remains unchanged. Gender inequality still exists all around the globe, and that undeniably includes USA, Britain, France, etc. On the 2014 Global Gender Gap Index’s gender pay gap rankings, where countries are ranked from 0 (inequality) to 1 (equality), no country--of course including all 1st world countries--has a 1. According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, a world org. of 166 parliaments, US has only about 20% in both the House and the Senate; UK has about 23% in parliament; Canada, only 28%; and Japan, 12% (more: http://www.ipu.org...).
When you commented on when I apparently accused women of sluts, please reread what I said. None of what I said about the matter indicated that I myself thought of them as sluts, or that I myself pointed to men as evil for seeing them that way. I had indirectly referred to society in general, not myself.And yes, Martial Law allows a presidential to temporarily strip citizens of their constitutional RIGHTS, but the electoral college is not a right. The college, the elections, etc. is a part of the workings of the government, so the powers of the Martial Law would not be able to encompass such a power that exceeds what it is limited to. That would be seen as abuse of power, and again, be grounds for impeachment. To eliminate the electoral college altogether requires a bill, which must directly go through the very difficult obstacles that are the Senate and Congress, and indirectly through the public. Additionally, Martial Law deals with criminals and military matters and exists only to maintain order, so eliminating the electoral college would only incite disorder and thus wouldn’t be authorized under Martial Law. In fact, Lincoln exercised Martial Law by suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War; however, the Supreme Court found it too extreme and ruled it unconstitutional. This is how our government works. Checks and balances.
Since presidents and any politician in general requires the support of the public for their legislations to pass, to lie and keep secrets from the public would be counterproductive. Any political advances towards matriarchy would easily be eliminated as long as a significant amount of people continue to believe that feminism stands for equality, as long as equality still ceases to exist, and frankly, as long as people remain sane. Thousands of bills go through Congress a year and only a very small percentage actually become passed (through severe lobbying, especially by interest groups, and public support), most even become altered through the process.