frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Third wave feminsm in America is good

Debate Information

I belive feminsm has already reach equality and now there are going after men with: toxic masclinity, hepeating, Mansplaining these are all sexist terms but its ok for some reson.
So please give me a logical reason for feminism.
joecavalryYeshuaBoughtZombieguy1987SkeletalSkeptic



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • FredsnephewFredsnephew 361 Pts   -  
    Women.
  • joecavalryjoecavalry 430 Pts   -  
    Feminism is a discriminatory group of women, etc. against men. Feminism should be allowed, but scaled down.
    armored2dillo
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • theo11theo11 29 Pts   -  
    Feminism is cancer.
    armored2dillo
  • armored2dilloarmored2dillo 11 Pts   -   edited May 2018
    Stop comenting if you agree with me.
    funperson
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    Strictly speaking, absolute equality will never be reached: as long as words "man" and "woman" have different meaning, there will always be related stereotypes at play. As such, feminism will always be needed to push against the existing inequality. This is a logically sound reason for it to exist: as long as the demand exists, the supply will appear.
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 123 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    Actually, there will never be absolute equality as long as there are biological differences between men and women. The closest we can achieve is fairness, not equality. It is logically sound for fairness to exist. Though, it's not logically sound for a group whose goals are bias to exist, because it would defeat the purpose of either equality or fairness.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    I belive feminsm has already reach equality and now there are going after men with: toxic masclinity, hepeating, Mansplaining these are all sexist terms but its ok for some reson.
    So please give me a logical reason for feminism.
    I... honestly just feel like you don't understand what third wave feminism is or why it exists. I mean, you spend all of 7 words essentially dismissing the vast majority of what modern feminists are seeking by claiming that women have achieved equality, and then focus your attention squarely on the way some feminists police language, which is at most a minor grievance compared with the vast majority of what feminists actually seek.

    So, let's go through the issues they present.

    Violence against women is a very different issue than violence against men. Admittedly, all people face some risk of violence, but the risk of rape, domestic violence, and sexual harassment are all far higher for women. There is a litany of facts and figures on this, so rather than listing them here, I will simply provide citations for you to peruse if you're interested.[https://now.org/resource/violence-against-women-in-the-united-states-statistic/, http://www.endvawnow.org/en/articles/299-fast-facts-statistics-on-violence-against-women-and-girls-.html, http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/facts-and-figures] The evidence speaks for itself, but to conclude from it, there is obviously a problem with how women are treated in society, and fighting for equal treatment seems entirely reasonable when women are faced with a constant threat of violence that leads many of them to feel entirely unsafe in public places.

    Reproductive rights are not at all solved in status quo. Whatever you may think of abortion, many women view it as a necessary part of their basic reproductive rights, and across much of the country, access is diminishing based on the number of available clinics and the window of time allowed to get abortions. Access to contraceptives can also vary, particularly when it comes to the birth control pill. Again, you're welcome to disagree with what feminists believe they require in this regard, but I don't think you can dismiss that this is an important issue to them and does have value, even if you believe that value is negative.

    I'd say these are likely the two largest issues, though there are a bunch of others that we could get into. Just to list a few:

    The rights of various racial groups, social classes, and transgender peoples
    Sexual liberation, otherwise known as constructing one's own gender identity and acceptance of that identity
    Workplace matters, particularly with regards to hiring practices, the glass ceiling, and unfair maternity-leave policies

    There is certainly an issue with the use of certain words, though I think most feminists would agree that the more problematic issue is the use of certain derogatory words specifically aimed at women, rather than the inclusion of masculinity in certain common-use words.

    So, yes, I'd say there are many logical reasons for the continued existence and evolution of feminism in modern times. Women are still faced with many of the same issues, and though absolute equality may be impossible, equal treatment should not be. And, more importantly, striving for that equal treatment should not be considered "illogical." Many of these points are about basic human decency, yet a lot of women even in developed countries feel they lack even that. Demeaning their position as unimportant or illogical is exceedingly dismissive of their plight.
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 123 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame
    Why do we need a group that has evolved into such a hateful, vindictive, violent group to solve women's issues when it would be more productive to use a non-bias group to work toward solving both men and women's issues? I agree that not all feminists are the same as the ones we mostly see in the media, but since the ones we mostly see are the hateful ones, the entire group receives backlash and resistance. It also doesn't help their case that they tend to exclude some people who are just as deserving of having issues resolved. Wouldn't it be wiser to create an organization with a neutral image to work toward solving every group's issues equally?
    PyromanGaming
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @LogicVault

    Alright, that breaks down to two questions, so I'll address each in turn.

    1) Why support feminism when its public image has been tarnished?

    I don't support the more extreme factions within the movement, and I doubt that much of the feminist movement does, either. It's strange that, from the outset, you generalize about the entire movement being "hateful, vindictive, violent" and then admit that "not all feminists are the same as the ones we mostly see in the media". There are problematic factions in a great deal of large movements, and they also get a lot of media attention. Some people will take actions to the extremes. Having a portion of your movement become fanatical should not be a basis for disbanding the movement - it's an opportunity to clarify what the movement stands for and exclude those who subvert those goals. 

    2) Why not support a more sex-neutral organization aimed at improving rights across the board?

    The simple answer is because women and men deal with different issues. I'm not saying that there's no sexism displayed towards men, and there are certainly problems that could and should be addressed regarding how men are perceived in society, but women do clearly face a separate set of issues. It's worth directing some attention to the issues I described in my initial post, and while a sex-neutral group might accomplish the same goals, it would probably be much more difficult to emphasize any specific problems in a group that wants to address... well, all of them. There's a reason that we have lobbying groups rather than just lumping everyone together and saying "let's all do good things" - focus and attention needs to be brought to issues that are harming specific segments of the population. Addressing sexist issues that men deal with in society is worthwhile, but it does not have to be at the expense of addressing blatant inequalities that women face on a regular basis. Just as Jewish groups would be justified in focusing their attention on antisemitism, feminists are justified in focusing their attention on the various problems that women face. It also doesn't help that men have typically held a great deal of the power within any given nation, which inevitably skews most issues in our favor. Despite being a majority of the population, women are underrepresented in government. They feel the need to advocate for themselves in the absence of that representation. 
  • someone234someone234 647 Pts   -   edited May 2018
    I agree. I think that we need fourth wave feminism. Really I believe that women naturally submit to men but that our society (and yes, I am taking a conservative stance here) has diluted what a real woman and a real man is to pander to (no, not to effeminate men who would simply have been beta males back in the day, but rather to) masculine-minded women who have high activity in the areas of their brain where men typically have it even if they appear extremely attractive for a woman it doesn't matter. You could be very muscular for a woman and really get teased a lot in childhood about being trans when really you are as feminine as they come.

    The issue I have is that there really are feminine men and masculine women but instead of saying 'you are a man who has hormones and psychology like women' and vice versa we say 'you are a woman trapped in a man's body' and vice versa. The issue I have is not at all with LGBT but in the way people approach outliers on their gender's spectrum. A feminine man will be a natural follower, team-player and most certainly prone to emotional outbursts of some sort of emotional outbursts either way (find me a single bipolar man who is not extremely effeminate in psyche, you can't).

    The issue I have with third-wave feminism is that they deny a rule that is necessary to make feminism work. Men are naturally superior to women at being alone and women are naturally superior to men at being together. It is extremely likely that in an all-out war of humanity in every single universe there is either an 'everybody dies' outcome or a 'women win' outcome. The men would begin to kill each other off protecting Harems of women for the few survivors to inseminate and the women would almost definitely be so traumatised and overcome with fear at humanity's extinction that they'd submit. This is correct, there's almost no way that the men win the war and almost no way the women don't submit to the few men left in a physical sense but also even a leadership sense; I'm quite certain of that.

    Women are the gel, the lubricant, the grease on the axle. Men are the parts of the machine. If you had grease on its own it's vile, irritating and becomes not just worthless but a nuisance and if you have ever met a lonely woman she is just that. If you have a part of a machine on its own it can still clearly have a purpose but in performing its purpose will indeed break the machine and conflict with other parts severely if there isn't that grease to help it turn and not scrape the other parts. It has been proven by many, many psychological tests that grown females who went to all-girls school are completely as prone to sanity and marital happiness as those who went to mixed gender schools (I will not bother to link the multitude of tests affirming this, one google search provides irrefutable evidence on the matter). In reverse, it has been proven that men who went to all-boys schools as children (from the same studies and just as valid therefore) were proven to have far higher hostility to their spouses and often were prone to either severe depression that haunted them for life or constant anger and narcissism. Men are cruel creatures in groups, this is why (yes I would actually go as far as to say this) that since women joined the military of any nation you will notice that by seemingly total coincidence that nation no longer is at any seriously hostile state of war. You can say nukes made this happen, you can say politics has just not erupted to that level yet but you will find that the more patriarchal the society is, the more disgustingly inhumane and hostile it is overall.

    I am a feminist and I understand trans people better than most despite being a cis male myself. I see trans women as feminine men and trans men as the inverse and do not personally comprehend why this world has come to such a state of delusion we deny that women are naturally submissive and men are dominant. You cannot deny the rule of nature in any mammalian species. Did you ever notice that any species that is matriarchal is always extremely towards the bottom of the food chain? That's not a coincidence either but you can think it is.

    Men were built to dominate, women to keep peace. This is a fact and as long as we deny it feminism will always displease those who are not trans and are very in touch with their apparent gender in both a hormonal and psychological manner.
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 123 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame
    "Having a portion of your movement become fanatical should not be a basis for disbanding the movement" I disagree. One their image is tarnished, their progress will always be hindered. It's wiser to start a new organization with a neutral image while actively rejecting any extremists that would risk the image. It's like an old house that's about to crumble. It's better to tear it down and build a new one.

    "it's an opportunity to clarify what the movement stands for and exclude those who subvert those goals." They don't appear to be taking that opportunity. The closest that I've seen is first and second wave feminists rejecting third wave feminists.

    "The simple answer is because women and men deal with different issues." Of course, but why can't both be dealt with by the same organization? An organization that only deals with nearly only one group is at high risk of becoming bias. Hence the current state of feminism. I'm actually curious, when is the last time feminists did something for women that did not have even the slightest negative outcome for men?

    "it would probably be much more difficult to emphasize any specific problems in a group that wants to address... well, all of them." Why would it be difficult? What is stopping them from handling one issue one week, then another issue the next week? Or creating specific departments within the organization? Keeping men and women completely separate in their strive to deal with their issues seems to be what causes a lot of the conflicts between them. Seems wiser to have them work together under the same organization to help deal with each other's issues.

    "It also doesn't help that men have typically held a great deal of the power within any given nation" That's because men are more driven to power. It's one of the differences between male and female brains. There are differences between the sexes mentally that is observable even during infancy.

    "women are underrepresented in government." They are only as underrepresented as they choose to be. Not as many women want to be in the government as men do. Men and women generally have different desires in life. Every woman that says there should be more women in the government, but then does not attempt to enter the government herself, should take a look at herself and realize that is exactly why there isn't as many women there. They say there should be more, but they don't have the desire to be one of them.

    "They feel the need to advocate for themselves in the absence of that representation." Why do they have to be 50% of the government for their issues to be handled? It technically only takes one representative to bring any particular women's issue to light for the government to deal with. That one representative can be supported by all the women that's not in the government, which is majority of the American population. Equal rights were won for women back when even less women were in the government. So, it obviously doesn't require the government being 50/50.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -   edited May 2018

    @LogicVault Again, I’m going to boil this down to the handful of issues you’re presenting.


    1.    Feminists should eschew their organization because of the fanatics that identify with them. They haven’t excluded fanatics within their ranks, ergo they should start over.

    Honestly, this seems utterly absurd to me. If we took your logic to literally any other movement or group, I think you wouldn’t take this stance. The NRA has had numerous members do pretty terrible things with their weapons, and those people get a great deal of press, yet I don’t see the NRA contemplating closing up shop. The Jewish religion includes fanatical individuals who have committed violent acts (killing Yitzhak Rabin, for example), but they’re not about to disband the religion. A movement is not a house, and the feminist movement most certainly is not crumbling, as a great deal of women consider themselves feminist.

    As for clarifying their position and excluding extremists, I don’t know what news you’re reading, but many in the feminist movement have come out against radical feminism.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism#Criticism, http://www.yorku.ca/mlc/sosc3990A/projects/radfem/radfem3.html] Even if they hadn’t, though, you haven’t provided any reason why this wouldn’t be a sufficient path for feminists to take in support of their cause. If the problem is that they’re associated with radicals, why wouldn’t simply distancing themselves from that more violent element effectively eliminate that association? We aren’t just talking about what they have done, but what they could do. Why is this not enough?


    2. A sex-neutral organization is better because it’s unbiased and encompasses a broader issue of equity.

    You seem to be dancing around my point, so I’m going to make it has blunt as possible. Why does any lobbying group exist? They are all clearly biased, they all have agendas, and they all have things they want to achieve at the expense of someone or something (I’ll come back to this). Looking back to my examples from before, the NRA and Jewish people have lobbying groups that are clearly biased. Why don’t we just lump all groups that are associated with guns together, including those against guns? Why not just lump all religious organizations together, including atheist and agnostic groups, and reduce the bias with which they present their view?

    Bias is inherent to how these groups present what they want because they are representing the interests of a specific subset of the population. If a bunch of gun control advocates and the NRA were forced to work together in their lobbying, they would be incredibly ineffective because they function at different purposes. Bias wouldn’t be reduced, it would just be directed in two different and clashing directions. The same is true for a gender neutral lobbying group (and, by the way, that group would have to include more than just men and women, as many people do not fall into either camp). You would have a large male population who wants specific action taken for their interests, and a large female population who wants the same done for theirs. You’ve already accepted that they deal with different issues, so that also means you accept that the pursuit of those goals would require starkly different efforts, many of which would be likely to contradict.

    However, I think you’re missing the key issue here, which is that lobbyists are trying to become the biggest voice in the room for a reason: they need their issue heard loud and clear and they need to be put at the head of the line. A line exists in the first place because there are limited resources, and when I say resources, I mean everything that word implies, from mental to physical. Any policy being sought out requires political capitol, and they aren’t all going to get it. They need legislators willing to hear them out, legislators willing to pull for them in session, a majority of those legislators agreeing with that policy direction, and the signature of the President. They need the funds necessary to keep that legislation enacted including any enforcement measures. The idea that any group could just knock out a key piece of legislation in a week is absurd, yet you’re suggesting that men and women could just swap weeks and see results. They won’t. They’ll merely be interrupting each other’s efforts repeatedly. And they’ll have spent a great deal to get the ball rolling on those efforts. They will also probably be speaking with the same legislators, as they’ll need to go through the same committees to see legislation come to fruition, which means that one of them is going to get priority while the other gets left behind. Separate departments within the same organization would conflict, and nothing would get done.

    And all this links to your last point, which is that women simply don’t have to have the same presence as men in government to see change. I beg to differ. Certainly, women have seen gains in their rights in recent years despite the gap between them and men, and that is something to celebrate. However, the idea that all their issues, many of which continue to plague them despite women regularly speaking up about them in Congress, will be solved if we just let things go as they are is just factually wrong. The issues I listed in my first post have been persistent. They aren’t being resolved in the status quo, at least not in any meaningful ways. Is it possible that a small group of women could bring about these changes? Sure. Has that small group of women managed to do this? No, and whatever the reason behind their inability to see these changes through, it is undeniable that having more representation of women in Congress would improve their odds of passing. Again, attention is a crucial factor. Men have substantially less interest in the rights issues of women because men are not women. We cannot empathize with many of the problems women face because we have not experienced them. Men can care, men can act on that caring, but they’re less likely to do so than women who experienced them personally, and those men haven’t acted.


    3. Feminist pursuits inherently lead to negative results for men.

    First off, the fact that you’re making this point effectively invalidates your argument that men and women could work together towards these pursuits. If all of feminist pursuits, including efforts to reduce violence against women, are absolutely going to result in negative outcomes for men, then why would you put the two together in the same organization? No male would ever agree to any of these efforts, so it would effectively cancel out any of the feminist aims. Second, I would argue that giving women the right to vote didn’t have a negative outcome for men. Many of the self-defense laws we have today are meant to protect women in court after they’ve been the victims of abuse, and I don’t think that harms any male who hasn’t committed those actions. I’d say that very little of what feminists have accomplished and are aiming to accomplish harm any male rights, at least not ones we shouldn’t have to begin with. Third, I’d turn this around on you: how many policies have men enacted over the years that have actively harmed women? Much of the legal structure in this country from its inception has favored men, often to the detriment of women. I’m not saying that this is payback, but at the very least, I don’t feel you have much of a case singling out feminists as having some agenda that goes beyond anything men have done.

     

    4. Men and women are fundamentally different mentally.

    I’ll start by conceding that there are some differences in how male and female brains work. However, your claims go well beyond established evidence. There is no evidence that “men are more driven to [obtain] power” that I can find, and no evidence that women are less driven to seek it. You’re seeing the conclusion (that women are less prevalent in government) and assuming the reason behind it (that their brains are wired differently) rather than actually basing your conclusions on neurology. You assert that women just don’t want to be in government as much as men, but their access to governmental positions only started relatively recently in our history, and there is good reason to believe that it’s still somewhat restricted. You assume that the number of women running for office is fewer, and then base that assumption on another assumption: that they simply don’t want to be in government. Again, you’re not supporting any of these arguments. Your assertions regarding how men and women work comparatively don’t function as evidence.

    If your argument is that women don't have as great a position of power as men because they're not willing to seek those roles, then why does the feminist movement exist? They have less drive for power, and yet they have an entire movement dedicated to ensuring that they have an equal seat at the table? That sounds like a contradiction. If your argument is that it's their own fault for not putting more women into powerful positions, then why are you arguing that it's inherent to them? It's not a choice if their brain chemistry is to blame for preventing them from taking these positions of power. 

    But all of this is beside the point. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this argument, but it doesn't counter my points. Women are underrepresented in government, whatever the reason for that may be. They lack support for issues that matter greatly to them as a result. Feminism functions as a means to lobby for that support. If men are driven to power as you claim, it shouldn't be at the expense of women's basic rights, yet that is what has come to pass and it has persisted. The need is still there. So, whatever the biological contributions are to the current state of affairs, feminism maintains an important role in balancing a power dynamic that is decidedly leaning towards male.

  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @FredsnephewHelp me, this layout us confusing. Feminists have some good and bad ideas, IMHO.
  • PyromanGamingPyromanGaming 63 Pts   -  
    While I do believe that feminism's intents are good, I don't think that there are any issues anymore regarding sexism. While yes, there is more sexual violence against women, there is more physical violence against men. I think that to reach a conclusion to this debate, we first have to look at if the issues that feminism in its current state fights for are legitimate. I do not believe they are, but I am open to anyone opposing that. If the issues are legitimate, then we can talk about if what they are doing is helping or ethical or whatever.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    While I do believe that feminism's intents are good, I don't think that there are any issues anymore regarding sexism. While yes, there is more sexual violence against women, there is more physical violence against men. I think that to reach a conclusion to this debate, we first have to look at if the issues that feminism in its current state fights for are legitimate. I do not believe they are, but I am open to anyone opposing that. If the issues are legitimate, then we can talk about if what they are doing is helping or ethical or whatever.
    Alright, a few things.

    One, where are you getting the statistic that there is more physical violence against men than women? The data I'm seeing on the matter places the women far higher in sexual and domestic violence, as well as all kinds of abuse. Most of the statistics point to women being more common victims of physical violence in general. If you have some information that says otherwise, I'd love to see it.

    Two, even if not all issues of violence show a bias against women, why is this not a reasonable basis for feminism to exist? Sexual and domestic violence are huge problems with substantial associated health hazards, particularly in medical and mental health costs. These problems stand as things that are worth fixing, both from the perspective of the country in general and for women in particular. We can acknowledge that men face their own issues with violence and address them, while simultaneously seeking to resolve problems that are more specific to women.

    Three, I don't know how you can write off other issues currently pursued by feminists as unimportant. The issue of reproductive rights, particularly with regards to access to contraceptives and abortion services, continues to matter, and certain state laws are exacerbating these issues. You're welcome to disagree with what feminists believe they require in this regard, but I don't think you can dismiss that this is an important issue to them and does have value, even if you believe that value is negative. I'd also like to hear why you don't think workplace matters, particularly as they relate to hiring practices, the glass ceilingunfair maternity-leave policies, and earnings disparities.  
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 123 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame
    "Honestly, this seems utterly absurd to me." That's your opinion, just as I have mine.

    "If we took your logic to literally any other movement or group, I think you wouldn’t take this stance." Yes, I would.

    "If we took your logic to literally any other movement or group, I think you wouldn’t take this stance. The NRA has had numerous members do pretty terrible things with their weapons, and those people get a great deal of press, yet I don’t see the NRA contemplating closing up shop." I think they should. As you see, my opinion is consistent, regardless of your assumption that it wouldn't be.

    "The Jewish religion includes fanatical individuals who have committed violent acts (killing Yitzhak Rabin, for example), but they’re not about to disband the religion." I think they should.

    "A movement is not a house, and the feminist movement most certainly is not crumbling, as a great deal of women consider themselves feminist." Not according to statistics. According to statistics, less of a percentage of the population identify as or support feminists than in previous years. They are only increasing in members because the population is increasing. Though, najority of the increase is deciding against modern third wave feminism. For every member feminism gains, anti-feminists or at least non-supporters gain more. They are becoming more outnumbered every year.

    "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism#Criticism" That actually helps prove my point. It even said this, "Therefore, the fight against male domination took priority because "the liberation of women would mean the liberation of all".[81] This view is contested, particularly by intersectional feminism and black feminism. Critics argue that this ideology accepts the notion that identities are singular and disparate, rather than multiple and intersecting." Which contradicts itself. Intersectional feminism is the main faction that accuses all men and white people of being the source of nearly all problems. Black feminism is even more bias due to the fact it's specifically black and not for all women. Then it says critics claim it's not intersecting even though it's called INTERSECTIONAL feminism. Wikipedia is not a good source to use. It's edited by anyone.

    Your second link results in "error message - file not found"

    "Even if they hadn’t, though, you haven’t provided any reason why this wouldn’t be a sufficient path for feminists to take in support of their cause" I clearly said their image is tarnished and receives backlash. And I clearly said a new group with a neutral image would receive better response. This is logic. Bad name groups will meet resistance, neutral groups stand a better chance at receiving no resistance. Common sense.

    "If the problem is that they’re associated with radicals, why wouldn’t simply distancing themselves from that more violent element effectively eliminate that association?" They aren't succeeding at it. The entire organization still holds that image to majority. They can never regain their original image due to the fact that the bat-crap crazy feminists get most of the spotlight. We can't hear the low voiced, logical feminists over the loud, crazy, violent feminists. Because physics.

    "We aren’t just talking about what they have done, but what they could do" They can't do much when most people reject them due to the crazies.

    "They are all clearly biased, they all have agendas, and they all have things they want to achieve at the expense of someone or something" And when the public becomes aware of their bias intentions, they receive backlash.

    "Looking back to my examples from before, the NRA and Jewish people have lobbying groups that are clearly biased." Yeah, but the general public does not hear about it very much. Today we here about crazy feminists way too often.

    "Why don’t we just lump all groups that are associated with guns together, including those against guns?" Why don't we just lump all groups associated with solving problems into one? Why do they all have to be separated? I know you claimed before that it's too heavy of a load to deal with, but not if all the people currently in groups come together as one. The same number of people, but on the same path. Segregating leads to more problems. "Come on people now. Smile on your brother. Everybody get together. Try to love one another right now."

    "Why not just lump all religious organizations together, including atheist and agnostic groups, and reduce the bias with which they present their view?" There you go, you're getting the idea..... kinda.

    "Bias is inherent to how these groups present what they want because they are representing the interests of a specific subset of the population." Bias is also the root of all conflicts. Caring about only what matters to you and your kind while caring not for anything that does not agree with your concerns. Every war ever.

    I'm going to hold off responding to anymore because that last point was a damn good one. Mull that point over in your brain for a bit. Every concept you are supporting in this topic is also the same cause of every conflict in existence.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @LogicVault

    Alright, you're consistent, I'll give you that. Too bad that consistency pushes well beyond any sensible choice. Your argument appears to be that all groups should disband the moment that any individual who claims to be a part of them takes violent action. In that case, no organization should exist. Entire nations should disband and reform, and they would do so continuously because there will always be people who take violent actions within them. Every religion should disband, and since there will always be fanatics in every belief system, the newly formed organizations that come about will also continually disband. Nearly every movement or organization would have to disband, and every single one would be in danger of needing to disband the moment a violent person posts their allegiance to the group through social media. Reforming under some new name and require individuals who are a part of those organizations to continually alter their identities as the organizations shift continually has consequences. Yes, you're consistent, and that consistency would force almost every organization in existence to eschew the entirety of their history and risk alienating and ostracizing their many of their members by disbanding.  And that assumes organizations wouldn't simply give up existing simply because the process of disbanding and reforming takes far too much time and effort, and every reformation wouldn't last. So... congratulations?

    The rest of your post is a set of claims without any support. You claim that statistics show that feminists constitute a smaller proportion of the population than in previous years, but provide none that support that assertion. You claim that the majority of people joining the movement are against modern third wave feminism, but provide no support. You claim that anti-feminists and non-supporters are gaining more support proportionally than feminism, but provide no support. Instead, you ignore the argument I'm presenting and supporting with my sources. You don't address the fact that the bulk of the feminist movement has critiqued more extreme feminist groups, instead you're just arguing that there's a contradiction in the article, though you do little to support it, only asserting what intersectional and black feminism are and claiming they are themselves radical. And then you blow off the article because you don't like Wikipedia as a source, ignoring the support in the links at the bottom of the page, which go beyond simple edits. As for the second link, here it is again: http://www.yorku.ca/mlc/sosc3990A/projects/radfem/radfem3.html. All you had to do was delete the bracket on the end.

    And the assertions continue throughout the rest of your "damn good" responses. You assert that it's only logical that feminists would want to become more neutral in order to garner support. I've already addressed this in detail. None of your arguments have explained how a neutral group would form by simply lumping feminists in with male rights groups. All you're doing is putting two biased groups together and stating that it becomes neutral solely by virtue of their interaction. Even if a neutral group did form, it would be incapable of achieving any substantial aims since the process of passing legislation that improves equality requires a plethora of resources, including attention, political capital, and finances. A neutral group doesn't suddenly gain access to those. A neutral group is likely to garner little attention, provide no great voter base to incentivize support, and is likely to garner fewer donations, as they don't represent any set of issues.

    You assert that the feminist movement can never produce yield a positive image because of "bat-crap crazy feminists" taking the spotlight. First, it's unclear how even a "neutral" group that includes support for women's rights would have no radicals within it. If they're supporting a certain set of rights, there will always be subsets of that group that want more and are willing to fight for it. Nothing changes by just lumping groups together except that you now have extremists from diametrically opposed groups within the same organization. Second, even if a neutral group was absolutely perfect, radicals would just go elsewhere and form groups that are built solely to push extreme ideologies and violence. Taking those people away from moderating influences seems like a really bad idea, since you're providing the means for them to take their violent ideologies to a more organized and dangerous place. Third, neither physics nor your badly framed explanation provide any reason why feminists cannot improve their image. By that logic, Germany should still be perceived as a Nazi country. Feminism can effectively improve its image if it takes the necessary steps.

    You assert that the public becoming aware of biased intentions leads to backlash. Many of these groups wear their bias on their sleeves. Being feminist means they are biased towards improving rights for women. That's not something anyone discovered - that's what they established themselves. The same is true for practically any lobbying group: they wear their bias on their sleeves. Do they get backlash for having bias? Maybe, but that doesn't erase the need for these organizations to exist in order to ensure that the groups they support get a seat at the table. Human beings are biased, and both as individuals and groups, they have things they want. It's the reason why there isn't just a single world government - countries need individual governments to see to the needs of their people, states need governments to see to the needs of their people, localities need governments to see to the needs of their people, and so on. You can assert all you want that all of these could be solved by some massive organization that just decided everything and is somehow neutral, but that doesn't address the basic fact that that's not how the world works.

    And that's probably your biggest assertion: just lump everyone together and, poof, problems solved. You don't erase any of the bias of any of those groups. All you do is force every group to clash with one another over their desires and demands. Best case scenario, that leads to many of the subgroups working together to achieve specific goals, which will leave a substantial minority of members without any support whatsoever. Worst case scenario, the groups clash so much that they cannot unite behind any goal or set of goals, reducing the entire group to a mess that gets absolutely nothing done. Bias doesn't disappear just because you put people together and tell them to get along. War doesn't end just because push people into close proximity and try to force them to understand one another. If you think this is a good point, you're sorely misinformed.
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 123 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame
    "Too bad that consistency pushes well beyond any sensible choice." That's your opinion. I understand that it doesn't seem or feel like the best course of action. But I choose to ignore feelings and only take objective variables into account.

    "Your argument appears to be that all groups should disband the moment that any individual who claims to be a part of them takes violent action" No. Just organizations of which is mostly known for their outlandish supporters. Feminism today is mostly known for their extremists.

    "In that case, no organization should exist." That conclusion isn't necessary. An organization can choose to publicly reject every supporter that takes things too far. Feminism did not do that from the start. They allowed more and more outrageous ideas to be considered until it was too late. Now they have been hijacked by crybaby millennials. They can never regain the image they once had.

    "Entire nations should disband and reform, and they would do so continuously because there will always be people who take violent actions within them." That's taking things too far. People should stand up and take back control of the governments. Governments were created by the people for the people. Now it's just power hungry, selfish politicians. We need to force the government to be for us again as it once was. We outnumber them by a vast amount.

    I'll finish responding later. It's late and I don't feel like reading the entire thing you wrote.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @LogicVault

    You keep characterizing my responses as feelings. I'm providing support, explaining why a view you're expressing is problematic by analyzing how it would actually play out. If you want to address those warrants, be my guest, but don't pretend this is just opinion or feeling. It's supported by logical analysis, and your leaving it untouched doesn't suddenly make it any less logical.

    And now you're changing your argument. You state that only "organizations of which is mostly known for their outlandish supporters" should put an end to their existence, yet you said that the NRA and Jewish religion should also be disbanded. I would say that both organizations are not chiefly known for the minority of fanatics within their ranks. I would also say that the feminist movement is not chiefly known for violence, though clearly you would disagree. Given that disagreement, who gets to decide what an organization is mostly known for? How much of an organization has to be dedicated to violence before they must disband? How much media coverage does that faction have to get? Who decides when it becomes a majority? That sounds like a biased way to decide who gets to keep what they've built and who doesn't. Weren't you against bias?

    You then state that "an organization can choose to publicly reject every supporter that takes things too far", stating that feminism didn't do it already, so now it's too late. That's a shift as well, considering you rejected the idea that rejection would ever have been sufficient. But why is there a time limit on rejection? Why can't those "crybaby millennials" reject the violent elements in their organization now? Why do they have to return to the image they once had? Why can't they create a new image and have it be a good one? Again, for someone who is so against organizations being biased, you're inserting a lot of bias into your argument, claiming that there was ever only one way forward for feminists and their rejection of it relegates them to nothing more than crybabies.

    Finally, you get to my nations point, which you both seem to scoff at and agree with simultaneously. You say that you want the people to take back control of their governments, which basically means disbanding them. I'd say, if anything, that that takes it a step further than what I was suggesting was your argument. You're not just talking about disbanding them, you're talking about tearing them down piecemeal and installing something wholly new that better represents the people. But all of this is a sideshow. My point here was the same as the ones before. If being associated largely with violence is the feature that should lead to disbanding an organization, I can think of a few countries that should make the list. You seem to believe all governments should be torn down, so at least your consistent on that, even if the reason is something else entirely.
  • SBESBE 2 Pts   -   edited June 2018

    It may be a mans world but the universe is feminine in nature. The battle between the sexes is an ancient one. The masculine is afraid of the power of the feminine so it does what it can to suppress it. The females have no idea that they are in fact very powerful. So when the feminine movement began to rise in the 60s, the patriarchy (Rockefeller foundation) had to take over by agreeing with the movement to infiltrate and undermine it asap. They did this by not promoting the true feminine energies but instead made females think they should become more male in their quest for equality. End result, men still rule this world. I’m not saying one sex is better than the other, they have different roles but equally important. But as the female can create life, she is closer to Source. From androgyny, which is considered female even though it has male traits came the female then male. We have to stop being provoked into fighting each other and understand our different but equally important roles.

  • PyromanGamingPyromanGaming 63 Pts   -  
    @Whiteflame I want to address everything that you were talking about in your response. Let's start in the order you went in.

    You asked me where I got the statistic of how men get more physical violence, and I got it from the news show "Louder With Crowder" on YouTube hosted by Steven Crowder. I apologize I don't know what he sources but he apparently puts all his sources up on his website:

    https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/

    Next, why shouldn't feminism exist if there are still biases against women? Because feminism a) cannot combat this issue, and b) the entire point of feminism in the first place is to combat sexism. None of these examples which you give are because these people are women. First, sexual violence. Men have a higher sex drive. Most men are heterosexual. Does acting on a sexual impulse on women mean that you hate women or have a bias towards men? Of course not! Next, let's get to the statistical unlikelihood that is domestic violence. The abusive relationships which are some of the worst crimes there are. How is this sexist if men know that women are weaker so they prey on women and also how is it sexist if men just have a women in their life so their torment is only good on that lady? This has nothing to do with sexism it has to do with people who may damage society needing to get help.

    Next let's talk about abortion. Yes I agree that their reproductive rights beliefs are important. But this does not mean that they're good. Remember, we are debating whether or not third wave feminism is good, not whether their views are important. Diversity of opinion is important, but some opinions might not be good. Killing the life of an unborn child out of your own convenience is not good.

    Now finally to address you final statement about sexism in the workplace which was covered in second wave feminism, not third wave. But let's say it is in third wave feminism. So there are two issues at play which you talk about. It's the sexist hiring system, and the wage gap. So let's start with the sexist hiring system. On the website you sourced about how to alter your hiring practices the person who ran the comapany in the anecdotal example said "We know this is a big problem, but there just isn't enough pipeline to find other good people now". What is he saying? This person is saying that it's not that we filter out anyone who isn't a young, white male, it's just that the young white males are the most qualified. They still judge the people as individuals. I am very doubtful about the idea that there is racist and sexist hiring because Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to have people be judged as individuals would be the most economically beneficial to the workplace, so t hey would if anything choose that hiring method. Next, the wage gap. This has been debunked so many times. The best way to go about this is to compare one male and female in the same role in a job and compare their pay. If you could show me a source that says that, I would be thankful. We both know that women tend to take care of the children while the men are the breadwinners. Women because they would spend more time with their children would (if they go into a work-field) take less hours and be less likely to work overtime. It's not the sexist choices of the bosses, it's the choices the women make. About the motherhood. I'm unsure if this is a good idea to protest. Again, if you aren't going to work, you shouldn't get paid. If you get paid for no work, great! But if you aren't, you shouldn't complain. There is a reason why gender stereotypes exist. the men are the breadwinners and the women stay at home taking care of the kids. This is why the nuclear family model works so good. Sure the roles can be switched but they usually are not.

    I am looking forward to seeing your response to this. Thank you!
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 123 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame
    "I'm providing support, explaining why a view you're expressing is problematic by analyzing how it would actually play out." You're stating how you assume it will play out.

    "don't pretend this is just opinion or feeling." I'm not pretending.

    "It's supported by logical analysis" That's debatable.

    "You state that only "organizations of which is mostly known for their outlandish supporters" should put an end to their existence" My response was rushed due to the late hour in which I was replying. I should have said "organizations of which are somewhat controlled their outlandish supporters".

    "I would also say that the feminist movement is not chiefly known for violence" The vast majority of the many people I have surveyed about modern feminists and people I have listened to speak about them agree that they are more known for their hatred, selfishness, and violence these days. These people included a wide range of ages and many locations across the country.

    "who gets to decide what an organization is mostly known for" Popular opinion, of which I have personally surveyed across the entire country.

    "How much of an organization has to be dedicated to violence before they must disband?" However much it takes to cause the organization's image to be popularly known for violence.

    "How much media coverage does that faction have to get?" Enough that people are aware it exists.

    "Who decides when it becomes a majority?" The majority of our peers.

    "That sounds like a biased way to decide who gets to keep what they've built and who doesn't." Bias against violence.

    "Weren't you against bias?" I'm against any bias that causes people to be treated unfairly. Disbanding an organization that causes too much harm is for the sake of fairness for all the people it harms.

    "That's a shift as well, considering you rejected the idea that rejection would ever have been sufficient" Simply rejecting and publicly rejecting are different. If you reject a very immoral friend that people know is your friend and you don't tell anyone that you rejected them, then you still have the image of someone who stays friends with very immoral people. If the good feminists would speak up and publicly disown the bad feminists every single time they say or do something bad, then the image of feminism could be saved. They do not do this though, or at least not enough.

    "But why is there a time limit on rejection?" Because if you do not immediately reject negative behavior, it appears that you're not completely sure about your choice to reject it. Hesitation implies lack of importance.

    "Why can't those "crybaby millennials" reject the violent elements in their organization now?" The crybabies I was referring to ARE the violent element. They are so butthurt that the world isn't exactly how they wish it was, so they lash out instead of working on the issues in a civilized manner.

    "Why do they have to return to the image they once had?" Because right now most of the population resists modern feminism due to it's image.

    "Why can't they create a new image and have it be a good one?" Technically, anything is possible. But it's very improbable due to the fact that they do not take enough action against the bad elements in their organization.

    "Again, for someone who is so against organizations being biased, you're inserting a lot of bias into your argument, claiming that there was ever only one way forward for feminists and their rejection of it relegates them to nothing more than crybabies." There might be another way, but I fail to see any way that would logically work without rejecting the bad elements from their organization. Also, the bad elements in their organization are the ones I'm referring to as crybabies.

    "You say that you want the people to take back control of their governments, which basically means disbanding them." Not necessarily. I meant removing the career politicians and replacing them with citizens that actually represent the population's interests.

    "If being associated largely with violence is the feature that should lead to disbanding an organization, I can think of a few countries that should make the list." Or installing a better justice system.

    "You seem to believe all governments should be torn down" More along the lines of changed into a government that works for the people's interests.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @PyromanGaming

    Regarding your first response, I'm not sure what video of Crowder's you're referencing, so I can't check the sources he's using for that particular claim. If this is the source you're using, that's fine, but you will have to give me a little more in the way of direction to show me where he's getting his sources and how reliable they are. 

    Regarding your second point, I'm more than a little confused with your argument. You start by arguing that feminism cannot combat the issue of sexual or domestic violence, but the reasoning you're giving effectively abdicates any responsibility men have for their own actions. First off, you assert that men have a higher sex drive, which you don't support, though I honestly am having a hard time even understanding why it matters. Does the urge to reproduce invalidate the argument that women are more often the victims of sexual and domestic violence? You seem to acknowledge that they are issues chiefly faced by women, so you acknowledge that it is specifically a problem for women, even if the reasons behind it are not just straight up sexism (more on that in a moment). If the problem is one that women face far more often, and it is clearly something that is highly damaging to women, why shouldn't there be an effort in place to combat it for the sake of women? I really don't understand why the impetus behind it invalidates the movement aimed against it. Perhaps your argument is that the feminist movement is tackling it wrong by characterizing the problem chiefly or solely as sexism, but from my readings on the subject, they are aware of the effect of biological impulses and know that men can and do manage to function normally in society with them. They know that men controlling their sexual urges happens on a regular basis, and that the people who act on those urges by committing sexual or domestic violence aren't taking that control for numerous reasons. So I'll ask you: why can't those reasons be combated in any way by the feminist movement?

    Second, your argument seems to be "it's not sexism, but here's all of the sexist reasons why men act out against women." That's what is confusing me the most because pretty much every alternative reason you're presenting for male violence against females falls into the category of sexism. Men have a higher sex drive so they will subjugate the women who have less sex drive, so they feel justified in forcing themselves on women. Men are stronger than women, so they feel justified using their physical might to prey on women. Perceived differences between the sexes, even if they are justified by studies, are being used as reasons for men to act violently towards women. Even if they're not basing it on a broader view of the differences between the sexes, functioning based on the view that "this woman is clearly lesser than me in these regards, so I am justified in using violent force against her" is inherently sexist. It regards that woman as a non-human entity, effectively relegating her to the position of an object to be used and abused. Do these people need help to resolve their view? Absolutely. Does that mean that their actions are not sexist? Absolutely not. Their wrongful mentality employs sexism as a means of diminishing women, and regardless of where that comes from, it's still sexist.

    Regarding your third point, I fail to see the difference between reproductive rights being important and them being good, at least in the way you're arguing it. You've ignored the fact that I said contraception as well as abortion, the former of which is also about reproductive rights, but even if we're just talking about abortion, having access to abortions in the case of medical emergencies at the very least is something we should all agree is important. You chop the argument down to convenience only, yet that ignores the intricacies of the issue and why reproductive rights themselves are important. Is it good that women have access to basic reproductive rights? I think we can both agree it is, and some women have more access than others depending on where they live in the country and how much money they can access. The pursuit of improved access seems like a clear good to me, even if we cannot agree on just what that access should constitute. 

    As for your final point, you put more down here in terms of responses, but almost all of this seems like it's dodging the problems themselves. Sexism in the workplace may have also been a part of second wave feminism, but third wave has aimed to address the lingering problems. You also seem to automatically dismiss my sources on the glass ceiling, which prevents women from reaching the upper echelons of many companies, and basic maternity-leave policies, which clearly put an onus on women specifically.

    But let's move onto what you did address. You assert that the only reason for the disparity in hiring practices between men and women is because the women applying simply aren't as qualified. The very quote you point to is actually countered in the article itself: "With 50% of our population being female and nearly 50% in the U.S. (often overlapping) being racially diverse, the issue is not “pipeline,” so that is not a suitable answer and it’s a bad excuse." The article also talks about a litany of biases that go into hiring practices, each of which can and often does prevent a women from getting into the same roles as men, including various unnecessary and biased criteria, subconscious biases in the hiring process, a homogeneous set of interviewers, and generally using metrics that don't fundamentally assess an individual's capability, but rather their pedigree. None of these may be inherently sexist practices, but they all produce sexist (and often racist) results. You doubt the problem, but you don't counter the realities that actually make it a problem. Instead, what you seem to be doing is arguing that women are less qualified, an argument you don't support. 

    You also assert that the wage gap has been debunked. You provide no sources that support this, ignoring my source that points to 4 distinct ways that the gap is imposed. Again, you're trying to argue against my point without acknowledging the support for it that I've provided. Regarding what you've asked for, studies have been conducted that compare pay between women and men in the same roles. And they're reliable. So this isn't just about logical deduction regarding how women are receiving lower wages (the reasons likely go beyond the 4 in that post); it's also derived from empirical analysis.

    The rest of your response to this is you deriving your conclusions from information you're not supplying, and more importantly, the logic for them doesn't make much sense. You say "that women tend to take care of the children while the men are the breadwinners." First off, we don't both know that. As of 2014, almost half of US households had female breadwinners. As of 2013, 23% of households had a woman as the sole breadwinner. As of 2015, women were eclipsing men in education, and tend to have more earning potential as a result, even with the wage gap. So, while the raw numbers of men as breadwinners may still be higher for men, the trend is going towards women. Second, even if the trend favors men, I don't see why they should earn less as a result. The same labor warrants the same wage, regardless of where that money is going and who is earning it.

    You say that "because they [women] would spend more time with their children would (if they go into a work-field) take less hours and be less likely to work overtime." That's stereotyping, and it's not accurate. The sources I've provided show that this problem of wage discrimination doesn't just happen to women with children, and this argument only applies to women with children. There is also no reason why this argument applies solely to women. Men have kids, too, and many of them are stay-at-home. If you look at that link, the number of fathers who fit into this category is massively increasing. If taking on fewer hours or working less overtime is a problem for mothers, it's a problem for fathers as well, and yet the trends in wage discrimination seem not to extend to men with children. Last I checked, men make the choice to have children as well. However, all of this is besides the point. Employers aren't even legally allowed to ask if you have kids during an interview, which means that they shouldn't even know you have kids before they establish your wage/salary. A willingness to take on longer hours may be influenced by having kids, but so is virtually any hobby, anyone who has a significant other, or any number of outside activities. If employers are basing a person's wages on their willingness to take on more hours, having children is one of a very large set of alternate priorities that anyone, male or female, could have that take time away from work. Feminists are not asking to get paid for work they don't do - they're asking to get paid the same wage/salary for the work they do as their male counterparts.

    Whatever your thoughts on how good a nuclear family is and gender roles, the reality of the how families work today does not appear to fit your ideals. It sounds like you'd prefer a system that pushes women back into a gender role that facilitates a more nuclear family, but underpaying women is discriminatory, regardless of your intentions. Just as men have every right to be stay-at-home fathers, women have every right to be compensated equally in the workplace, and families can be just as strong, or even stronger, for it.
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 123 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame
    "You also assert that the wage gap has been debunked. You provide no sources that support this" I googled it and found plenty of sources on my own.

    "my source that points to 4 distinct ways that the gap is imposed." 3 of them were women's choices. So, that's their own fault. The other claims that men and women start off at different pay right out of college, even though there are studies that show they make the exact same right out of college if they are in the exact same, work the exact same hours, and produce the exact same amount and quality of work.

    "The rest of your response to this is you deriving your conclusions from information you're not supplying, and more importantly, the logic for them doesn't make much sense." I found the information without him providing any citations. Also, after reading the information, his statements about the wage gap make perfect sense to me.

    "You say "that women tend to take care of the children while the men are the breadwinners." First off, we don't both know that." You might not, but those of us that pay attention to the world around us do.

    "So, while the raw numbers of men as breadwinners may still be higher for men" And you just said we don't know that. Now suddenly you do know it?

    "Second, even if the trend favors men, I don't see why they should earn less as a result." That's not the reason they earn less.

    "The same labor warrants the same wage, regardless of where that money is going and who is earning it." I agree. But not every woman is producing the same amount and quality of labor.

    "You say that "because they [women] would spend more time with their children would (if they go into a work-field) take less hours and be less likely to work overtime." That's stereotyping, and it's not accurate." Wrong. Every place I have worked (that had female employees) always had multiple women who had to leave early or refuse overtime because of their children at times. I've also heard plenty of people complain about having to do extra work because of women at their work leaving early or refusing overtime due to children.

    "The sources I've provided show that this problem of wage discrimination doesn't just happen to women with children, and this argument only applies to women with children." The women without children that make less than men are still making choices that lead to that result.

    "Men have kids, too, and many of them are stay-at-home." Not as many as women.

    "If taking on fewer hours or working less overtime is a problem for mothers, it's a problem for fathers as well, and yet the trends in wage discrimination seem not to extend to men with children." Wrong. These changes are part of the reason why the gap has been narrowing for years.

    "Last I checked, men make the choice to have children as well."  But men do not have to spend days in the hospital after birth and even longer at home to recuperate. This time taken off work to give birth is part of what makes a woman slightly less useful to a company. Companies need their employees at work. They do not benefit from employees taking time off, regardless of the reason.

    "they shouldn't even know you have kids before they establish your wage/salary." But they know there's a 50/50 chance that you do and that it's more likely that a female parent will take time off. They are taking a higher risk at losing production.

    "A willingness to take on longer hours may be influenced by having kids, but so is virtually any hobby, anyone who has a significant other, or any number of outside activities." Which is why employees that take time off work (whether for children, significant others, hobbies, other activities) are less likely to receive raises. You can't take time off work and expect to be treated the same as someone who spends more time at work.

    "If employers are basing a person's wages on their willingness to take on more hours, having children is one of a very large set of alternate priorities that anyone, male or female, could have that take time away from work." Which is why those people make less in the long run than the people who stay at work more.

    "Feminists are not asking to get paid for work they don't do" Actually, a lot of them are requesting that paid maternity leave be mandatory. That's money for labor they aren't providing for the company.

    "they're asking to get paid the same wage/salary for the work they do as their male counterparts." Which they do. Any woman that performs the exact same position for the exact same amount of time with the exact same quality receive the exact same pay. Except for positions where the salary is negotiable. Women tend to not negotiate as high as men. That's their choice.

    "Whatever your thoughts on how good a nuclear family is and gender roles, the reality of the how families work today does not appear to fit your ideals." Studies show that an extremely high percentage of criminals (around 70%) come from broken homes and that children from broken homes are 9 times more likely to partake in illegal activity. So, it would seem nuclear families produce significantly less criminals.

    "underpaying women is discriminatory" Not if it's based on their decisions instead of their gender.

    "women have every right to be compensated equally in the workplace" Which they are. Men who take time off work also make less than men who work overtime. Gender is irrelevant.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @LogicVault

    I was initially going to respond to each of the points you were making, though I've decided against it at this stage. The reason why is pretty straightforward: what you're doing, and what you continue to do with each and every response, is assert that you are right rather than make any effort to support your argument. You claim there are a multitude of references that support your view of how people behave and how the world works, but you haven't presented a single one, instead asserting that they exist and that they're easy to find. You claim that everyone you know is aware of a certain truth, and that that anecdotal evidence is sufficient to support the entirety of your argument, even though a) I cannot verify that the people you know said this (or that you even know people, for that matter), b) I do not know the demographics of the people you know, c) I don't know how many people you know, and d) even if I could determine all this, I don't know how it proves your point. You live in a small selection of the country, likely surrounded by people who think rather similarly to you. You aren't taking an unbiased survey, you are likely asking leading questions, and you're almost certainly not endeavoring to get a broad scope of views on the issue. You have a point you want to prove, not research you want to conduct - you know the answer, so why bother seeking it out?

    The fact is that you don't want to debate because you're not taking any of my points seriously. You've dismissed the vast majority of what I've said in response to you without even addressing it, whether because you simply don't care to take the time or because you view them as moot points anyway. You haven't even touched the vast majority of my sources, despite claiming that a majority support your views. You employ responses that are more often bare assertions than anything else, challenging arguments that are made with actual support in the form of both warrants and evidence with blipped-out one-liners that do little more than contradict the argument without any support whatsoever. I'm not going to question that you honestly believe what you're saying, but you wield your belief like a club treating every view you have as established fact. That's why you don't care about any support I provide because to your mind, it is obviously wrong. The few places where you actually care enough to provide an argument that goes beyond assertion, you provide absolutely no support for your arguments, and will likely ignore the majority of my responses to them as well, as you've done both here and in every response you've given.

    There are points here and in your previous post where you put something down that actually adds something to the argument, and I may actually address those sometime tomorrow, though I'm not sure that it's worth the effort if all of them are going to lead to dead ends like this. The rest I'm going to leave where it is, mainly because I don't feel either of us are gaining anything by having you assert that every argument, no matter its support, is incorrect because you say it is. If you don't care enough to actually support your responses to my arguments, I'm not going to bother continuing to debate you.
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 123 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame
    If I can easily find the information that supports some of PyromanGaming's statements, then so can you. Stop complaining about it not being spoon fed to you. If I doubt anything you say, I will still never ask you for a citation. I will look it up myself.

    "You live in a small selection of the country" I've lived in multiple locations all across the country. Also, I speak to a lot of people online from all across the country as well and of various ages from teenagers to seniors.

    "likely surrounded by people who think rather similarly to you." That's an assumption and a false one at that. Most people disagree with me on most of my opinions. There are only a few things that most people I encounter do agree with me on. Usually, that's only because they're facts.

    "You aren't taking an unbiased survey, you are likely asking leading questions" How are questions like "What do you think about feminism?" misleading? It does not imply any preferred response. In surveys, I deliberately ask people questions in a way that does not reveal my position until after they have revealed theirs.

    "You have a point you want to prove, not research you want to conduct" I've already done the research and occasionally add to it.

    "you know the answer, so why bother seeking it out?" I'm not seeking an answer here. The questions I ask in a debate are usually rhetorical. I already know the answer. I'm trying to get you to think the question through or research it and realize the answer yourself. I'm not going to hand you all the answers. I like to make people put in some work figuring it out themselves.

    "The fact is that you don't want to debate because you're not taking any of my points seriously." I do not take your points seriously because they either do not match reality or are an opinion that sounds illogical to me.

    "You've dismissed the vast majority of what I've said in response to you without even addressing it, whether because you simply don't care to take the time or because you view them as moot points anyway." I've actually addressed most of everything you've said to me. The few I haven't addressed are because previous points made already cover them and I'm saving time by not repeating myself so much.


    "You haven't even touched the vast majority of my sources" Out of every response you have made to me, you only posted 2 links. One of them I did address. The other only explained what radical feminism is and that doesn't support your case nor contest mine.

    "You employ responses that are more often bare assertions than anything else" Assertions are not automatically false. The definition of assertion is "a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief". As you'll notice, it can be a statement of fact. Facts are true.

    "I'm not going to question that you honestly believe what you're saying, but you wield your belief like a club treating every view you have as established fact." I am aware that the opinions I state are opinions. I stick to mine because I haven't heard an alternate ones that sound more reasonable to me. It does not mean I consider them facts, regardless of the impression you get. Only when I state facts do I consider them facts.

    "you provide absolutely no support for your arguments" Google. You're currently at a device with internet. Use it. I do not ask for, nor require, any citation from you because I know how to use search engines. I expect you to put forth the same effort.

    "and will likely ignore the majority of my responses to them as well" We'll probably never know because rarely ever post links. Because like I said, I like to make people do some work themselves.

    "I don't feel either of us are gaining anything by having you assert that every argument, no matter its support, is incorrect because you say it is." First of all, I doubt there is anything I can gain from someone who defends such a well know toxic organization. Second, pretty much everything you have said to me has been opinions based on information you've gathered from feminist sources. And out of the 2 sources that you decided to link to me, one was not support of any kind and the other made false statements within the first few lines. Such as claiming that intersectional feminism contests radical feminism. Radical feminists ARE intersectional feminists. Intersectionality is a radical concept.

    "If you don't care enough to actually support your responses to my arguments, I'm not going to bother continuing to debate you." If you're too lazy to research for yourself, then I'm done with you as well. I have no problem researching anything you say for myself and I actually prefer to. So, the choice is up to you. You can crawl away because I won't play the game the way you want me to or you can take the initiative to look up facts I state for confirmation.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -   edited June 2018
    @LogicVault

    In the last post I made, the one where I used 8 sources, you responded to 1. And let's not forget that a majority of what we were debating before - all of that stuff about a neutral organization and how it would function - disappeared from your responses rather recently, despite the fact that you keep asserting that it would be an effective system.

    Assertions can be factual, you're right about that. Here's the problem, though: there's a lot of information online, and not all of it is fact. What you're essentially saying is "go out and find the information - you'll see that I'm right." I have researched this topic. I've gone out and found a number of sources that provide support for the points I've believed to be true. They are based in fact, even if you think they're illogical. If you want to challenge those facts, you have to do more than just challenge the assertion itself because it actually has support behind it. That's the reason I provide my sources: to show you that the assertion has a factual basis.

    And that seems to be where you draw the line. You've already stated that you know you're right, so clearly, you don't care enough to actually prove it. You treat the prospect of providing the sources that you say are so thoroughly supportive of your arguments as spoon feeding me, despite the fact that they inform your arguments and could inform me - last I checked, it's not unreasonable to ask someone to provide the sources they claim they've found, particularly when they are using those nonspecific sources as responses. Instead, you'd rather reference numerous conversations you've had with other people, claiming they are an unbiased and random survey of a broad assortment of people online and offline. I can't ever verify that. I've talked with plenty of people about feminism as well, and while some of them have claimed that it's chiefly known for its violent factions, the vast majority see it as a group aimed at improving women's rights. If I told you that that was comparable to or even better than your own survey of people, would you believe me? Neither of us can verify anecdotes, and personal surveys like this are nothing but anecdote. They're undocumented, random experiences that only tell us one thing: we know people who agree with us. 

    Look, you're not the first person (even on this website) who's told me "just look it up and you'll see that I'm right." The problem is that that's not debate. It's not an opportunity for clash, partly because any source I present you with is invalid on its face because it disagrees with you, which means the only "facts" you accept are those that match your worldview. You don't want a debate, you want to be right, and to show me I'm wrong. This isn't a game to me. Debate is something I enjoy quite deeply because it's an exchange of what is often very strong assertions backed up by something credible. It's an opportunity for me to learn more about a topic. Being told "just look it up" treats any and all research I have done as wrong, tells me there's "correct" research out there, and that I should go find it. I've done research. I've parsed data. I've found my view to be correct. I'd love to see where you derive your views from because it informs me of where there may be holes in my view, and explains why my data could be wrong. That's what makes debates like this one meaningful to me.

    So, at this point, feel free to keep treating me as though I don't understand without providing any meaningful way for me to better comprehend the issue. Asserting that I'm wrong and telling me to look it up (because of course, Google is a small site with only the most relevant of links, and parsing through that isn't a time consuming or complex process at all, and clearly I've never done it) doesn't help me to understand anything. It just tells me that you think you know better.
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 123 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame
    "In the last post I made, the one where I used 8 sources, you responded to 1." That response of yours was to PyromanGaming, not me. I'm not required to answer your responses to other people, nor even read them. But it's still an option if I choose to.

    "And let's not forget that a majority of what we were debating before - all of that stuff about a neutral organization and how it would function - disappeared from your responses rather recently, despite the fact that you keep asserting that it would be an effective system." If you scroll up, you'll see I responded to you on that topic and you stopped answering.

    "I have researched this topic. I've gone out and found a number of sources that provide support for the points I've believed to be true." I've seen those sources too. Unfortunately, those sources are either controlled by feminists or by people swayed by feminism. I can't trust their accuracy or honesty. That's why I check into many sources that disagree with each other until I narrow down each point to the information that shows the inaccuracy of other sources.

    The rest of your response is essentially playing the debating game, of which I'm not interested in. You're obviously determined to believe feminism is still what it's definition says even though their actions contradict it. You're not going to see them for what they've become over years until one of their goals or policies personally affect you negatively. So, at this point you're on your own. Good luck.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -  
    @LogicVault

    I saw that response. It left just about everything I said regarding how a movement such as the one you're suggesting (just lumping every movement together into one) would fail to accomplish anything and would not be neutral. But we're clearly not talking about that anymore.

    The reason I'm not interested in this debate anymore is because you're turning nearly every argument into a dead end by stating that you have certain information that contradicts it, and that you trust that information more. You won't divulge what that information is, so only you know how it compares to the information I'm using. You might view my desire to understand where you're getting your information as part of some "debating game," but believe it or not, I've just been trying to understand where you get your information from. You don't feel any desire to provide me with that information. We're clearly on different sides of this issue, but I guess I'm the only one who's willing to take your sources and arguments seriously, and you're not willing to give me the tools to do so.

    Regardless of our differences on this topic, I was honestly just hoping to learn more about differing opinions and where they come from. Seems I can't do that with you. Good luck to you as well.
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 123 Pts   -   edited June 2018
    @whiteflame
    If you actually cared to know the truth you would have researched sources that oppose feminism in order to compare the different sides of the story. You are so set on feminism that you obviously have either not researched the information that opposes it or you were already so set on feminism that you dismissed it due to it not agreeing with feminism. You know, the same thing you accuse me of but in the opposite direction. I actually supported feminism back when it really was doing more good than harm. I actually grew up with second wave feminism. I can see the difference between second and third, and third is garbage. I could spend hours explaining everything to you or providing links, but you would not budge because the modern feminists already have you in their grasp. I am willing to budge if anyone can show me where majority of modern feminists are actually upholding the current definition of feminism. They claim they are for equality between everyone but I haven't seen a modern feminist ever do anything to help a white male. Only women or men of color. And btw, I don't need your good luck. According to modern feminists I am so privileged that I don't need luck even though I'm just as poor as anyone living in the projects.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 689 Pts   -   edited June 2018
    @LogicVault

    Believe it or not, my beef with you has nothing to do with your perspective on the topic. It has everything to do with your willingness to impart information to me that you are claiming you have and using as responses. Believe what you want about my biases and the information I've read on the subject - you're far from the first person to claim I just hadn't read enough to understand a given issue (strange how every single one of you makes that assumption without knowing what I've read...) - though I don't really see how anyone could disprove your views given that it appears you don't trust any of the sources that provide information against those views. Again, though, that's separate from the point. I haven't been endeavoring to prove you wrong, at least not on your general perspective of feminism. I honestly doubt I could manage it even if I had every piece of available data, given that I have no clue where you're getting your sources and what sources you actually trust on the matter. That's why I'm cutting off this conversation here. There's no value in a debate where one side isn't willing to provide any of the data that they're using to refute your arguments, no matter how good that data may actually be.

    Don't want to take my wishes of good luck? That's fine. I'll leave off here and just wish you a pleasant weekend, then.
  • LogicVaultLogicVault 123 Pts   -  
    @whiteflame
    Don't worry, this is my last response to you. I know I'm far from the first person to say you haven't read up enough on the topic. That's because so many people have checked into it and know that modern feminism is nowhere near the same as first and second wave that actually cared about fairness. It doesn't even take that much research. You can just watch the news and see where feminism is currently heading. And that's all news sources, the ones that support feminism and the ones that are against it. They all show what feminists are currently doing. Though, the ones that support feminism will claim the outrageous actions of the feminists are justified. Anyone in their right mind can see that's poor judgement. Out of all the feminists I have ever even heard of, only 1 comes to mind that has her head on straight. I'm sure there are others, but they aren't the ones leading the movement anymore. The type of feminists we see are the type similar to Anita Sarkeesian, Hilary Clinton, Sarah Silverman,  Chanty Binx, Christie Winters, Steve Shives, Amy Schumer, etc. These feminists that are in the media, the psycho ones, are the ones that are bringing in the most new feminists. Because they are the ones people mostly see and hear. They are the ones paving the route for future feminists. So no, you can not prove to me that today's version of feminism is good, because anyone that is paying attention and understands how progression and evolution works can see where feminism currently is and is heading. You appear to have the intentions of meaning well, but not the intelligence to spot when a modern feminist spouts it. Such as the pay gap that has been debunked more times than you've defended feminism. You weren't even willing to consider the concept of the gap being due to women making different choices. You just automatically accepted what the feminists and their sources say. Providing citations for you would be as useful as wiping before I take a dump. That's why I don't waste my time providing sources for you people. Your mind is made up no matter what I say, just like you accuse me of.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch