Feminism has promoted toxic femininity and has only made the division between men and women wider over the past years.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 29,997
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
While Feminism like so many other harmful organizations of the past may have started on good grounds and may have even been needed to introduce change in western society, those days have long passed as women are not denied anything a man isn't in terms of civil liberties, career opportunities and living and everyday life just like men. And Yet feminism remains claiming to be fighting for equality that has long since already been achieved. Furthermore, Feminism refuses to leave the safety and comforts of western society to help fellow women in the east, all these actions prove feminism is nothing more than a toxic bid for female entitlement and supremacy trying and falling to pass itself off as the defender of rights that it used to be.
“Dear misogynist trolls I’m going to make things easier for you – save u some time. All men are rapists and should be put in prison then shot,”
“I mean, I would actually put them all (men) in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans,” said Bindel. “I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.”
"The campaign criticizes the use of the word "bossy" to describe assertive girls and women, proposing that the word is stigmatizing and may discourage girls and women from seeking positions of leadership"
"You don't need a father-so many families work in so many ways but if you do have a father, he better Werk"-Feminist Lena Dunham Posts Ridiculous Father’s Day Tweet, Quickly Deletes It | The Daily Wire
"Clearly, Dunham’s brand of “feminism” hinges on the demonization of men, as seen with her declaration that a man’s role in a family is unnecessary."
Preamble:So to start, I shall aim to argue that feminism is in no way responsible for the hate of men.BOPPro is claiming that feminism promotes and actively encourages bad behavior to men, so I believe they are required to submit proof.
Definitions:Feminism - The advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.Toxic Femininity - Behavior that reflects or supports gender-based stereotypes or social norms for women.
1. Feminism opposes toxic femininity. Toxic femininity is only harmful to women, not men. It is possible my opponent meant *misandry.
2. Since feminism promotes equality, then it stands to reason that it cannot be responsible for promoting a divide.
Many feminists were standing with Johnny Depp in his case against Amber Heard, accepting him as a male victim of abuse.
Con gives no links to either of these definitions, so that qualifies as self-made definitions which are formed from opinion not fact.
Con claims that toxic femininity harms only women and not men, yet one of my first examples in the first argument was of a toxic feminist expressing toxic femineity in which they desired to not only imprison men and kill them but also dehumanize them by claiming all men were rapists and deserve to be treated as library cards. While I acknowledge that Misandry does exist, the cons claim that toxic femininity cannot harm men is not only false as evidence I provided earlier debunks this claim but is hearsay as well since con has provided no counter evidence to support their claim.
While Cons claim could be true, they have not provided any evidence to back up this assertion, furthermore Amber Heard the aggressor in the case they are referring to is a feminist who was not only found guilty in the case of "abuse" as con puts it, but it also works against their previous claims that Feminists are incapable of being dividers against men and women. If con's argument was true, then Amber Heard as a feminist both could not be guilty of abusing a male in the relationship, but also could not be responsible for the division between her and Johnny Deep.
we must rember that you can make the same argument for any organization, even the Nazis and yet it won't make what said organizations does or leaders say any less vile or evil
Pro has cited various links of parasitic women who all happen to be feminists to somehow support the idea that feminism is the driving factor here behind these toxic behaviors.Firstly, correlation is not causation. I find myself repeating that a lot now quite frequently.
The definitions are on Google. All Pro has to do is copy and paste.
That's not toxic femininity.As previously stated, toxic femininity is only toxic to women. The women suffering from it are more reserved and more likely to tolerate abuse than speak out against it.
No, no, no, no.A feminist can harm somebody, not feminism. It is the individual that is at fault here, not the ideology.Evil people will always do evil, regardless of said ideology.
But you really can't because the Nazi ideology was founded in principles of bigotry and anti-Jewish propaganda. Feminism is about raising women in the eyes of society, not tearing men down.
Pro has not yet proven that the Feminism ideology is what is causing the divide between the sexes. (Especially considering the reason Feminism was created was because of this divide in the first place. How can Feminism be the cause if said divide predates its existence?)
Good round, I vote Pro, here's why:
1. I buy that we can use examples of individuals to buy group behavior because, even if correlation is not causation, this doesn't answer how Hitler was able to shape an entire party. This means that I buy every individual bad act of feminists as shaping the ideology.
2. I buy that feminists are calling for dystopian camps and genocides.
3. I buy that feminists want to ban words.
4. I buy that feminists demonize men by disparaging Father's Day.
5. I buy that feminists lack traditional values.
6. I buy both of Con's definitions because, even though Pro rightly proves they are not sourced, there is no counter definition, so I prefer a bad definition over no definition.
7. Because the definition of toxic feminity is only something that can hurt women, I buy that it can only hurt women and that goal of feminism is to rectify this problem.
8. I buy that feminism doesn't advocate for equality because of all the previous examples.
9. I buy that ideologies can be perverted by individuals and we should look at the pragmatics of an ideology, and not it's definition.
10. I buy that the BOP is "Pro is claiming that feminism promotes nad actively encourages bad behavior to men"
In conclusion, this is one of the hardest debates to weigh because both sides give me pieces of floating offense. Pro has left me with every example of bad individuals and movements that are bad, how they corrupt movements, and how this pragmatic analysis is better than ideology. Con leaves me with the misandry/feminism divide and how feminism only hopes to seek to to rectify toxic feminity. The debate is, "Feminism has promoted toxic femininity and has only made the division between men and women wider over the past years." The reason this is hard is that I think Pro fails to prove the resolution because of the definition of toxic feminity being impossible for feminism to create. Pro, however, does meet the BOP set out by Con. I am left with an internal dilemma I don't know how to rectify on face, which is, does the resolution or the BOP matter more. After a bathroom break, getting a drink, and listening to the song "Kokopelli Face Tattoo" by Andrew Jackson Jihad, I've come to the conclusion that the BOP matters more because it establishes how we access the resolution. This means that Pro has proven that feminism is antagonistic to men.
Notes for Pro
1. You have to wrestle with the definition debate. Even if it isn't warranted, without a counter-definition to put up against it, there's will always win so there is some interpretation to view the round through.
2. Your argument about the pragmatics of ideology over the definition of ideology is unclear, and I feel like I'm putting a lot of pieces together for you.
3. Stick to the resolution. A lot of your points simply don't matter. Ending freedom of speech and traditional values does not prove that feminism recreates toxic femininity or that feminism is widening the gap between the sexes. If feminism said we should kill all racial minorities, that would be horrible, but it doesn't prove the resolution, so doesn't help your case.
Notes for Con
1. Instead of creating a BOP that feels divorced from the resolution, you should force the Pro to affirm the resolution, especially when they are going for their rant against the woke feminists over winning the resolution.
2. You have to deal with this Nazis were good until Hitler came around. I don't know if this is true, but you should be casting doubt on either it as a true narrative or on it's relation to feminism. That, or you need to say looking at ideology in the abstract, devoid of it's pragmatic application is good, though that may be a steeper hill to win.
3. My brother/sister/sibling in Christ, Pro said feminists don't respect traditional values and you let that slide? Traditional values of what? The selling of women and relegating them as subhuman in the home? More generally, answer the individual warrants of Pro. The camp story is satire, freedom of speech is bad if it includes hate speech like bossy, Father's Day is a harmful social construct, etc.
As always, if yall have any questions or comments, feel free to question, comment, or message me!
uh. quick semantic question. are we talking about actual feminists? or people who claim to be feminist? this could be a kritik.
this debate is like hanging by a thread of assumed truism.