Instigator / Pro

1480

rating

debates

52.94%

won

Topic

#4140

Feminism has promoted toxic femininity and has only made the division between men and women wider over the past years.

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Americandebater24

Tags

Politics

Parameters

Publication date: 02.06.2023 04:24AM
Last updated date: 02.22.2023 10:07AM
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

Contender / Con

Sir.Lancelot

1587

rating

182

debates

55.77%

won

Description

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.

Round 1

Americandebater24

02.06.2023 05:23AM

Pro

The First example I would like to submit which supports my argument is an article from the Daily wire written by https://www.dailywire.com/author/amanda-prestigiacomo where Radical feminist leader and notorious man hater Judy Bendel is quoted to not only Declare all men are rapists, but suggests that all men need to be put in prison and then shot.

“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,”

She goes further by saying

“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.”

While I am aware that Con could argue that Judy Bindel is just one radical leader and not all of them are like that, 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. And to ignore the evil actions of its memebers and its leaders on the premus that they are "not all like that" adds to the toxicity as it makes toxic actions impossible to judge. All memebers who claim membership or leadership reflect their group's image and thus the groups they claim to serve must be held accountable. Judys Statements are nothing short of toxic man hating and shows a clear ambition to have political power taken from men in favor of women as opposed to equality that feminism claims to stand for.

Additionally, Feminists are also guilty of trying to remove the first amendment, in a 2014 campaign titled "Ban Bossy" Feminists tried to launch a censorship campaign to ban the word Bossy which not only would be a violation of the first amendment which once again goes against the idea of freedom that feminism claims to champion for, but the justification for such actions are rooted in the benefit of women exclusively.

"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"

Feminism claims one hand to be defenders of liberty and freedom for both genders, and yet men just get the blame while women get the entitlement as seen by the actual demands that feminism makes. And if these damaging pieces of evidence were not enough, consider the fact that Feminists have also protested Father's Day as feminist Lena Dunham tweeted back in 2017 saying and I quote

"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

Even the author https://www.dailywire.com/author/amanda-prestigiacomo of the article admits that

"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."

Not only do feminists clearly lack any respect for men as a group, but it is also clear that they do not respect any traditional values despite claiming otherwise. If feminists cannot ask for things or advocate for freedom without demonizing men or taking away their liberties, then Feminism is neither for equality nor anything but toxic femineity. I only ask the con, not to dismiss the evidence as "not being true feminists" or "most feminists are not lime that" We are debating feminists as a group therefore, while the actions of individuals may not make a whole group guilty by association, they cannot be ignored as the actions of individuals does indeed reflect a political organization just as much as it does to themselves. Vote Pro.

Sir.Lancelot

02.06.2023 05:35AM

Con

Preamble:

So to start, I shall aim to argue that feminism is in no way responsible for the hate of men.

BOP

Pro 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.

Round 2

Americandebater24

02.06.2023 06:08AM

Pro

Preamble:
So to start, I shall aim to argue that feminism is in no way responsible for the hate of men.

BOP
Pro is claiming that feminism promotes and actively encourages bad behavior to men, so I believe they are required to submit proof.

As Pro I submitted multiple articles and quotes that demonstrate exactly what I had claimed, so cons demand that pro submit evidence is redundant as evidence has not only been provided but Con mentions and acknowledger's none of them.

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.

Con gives no links to either of these definitions, so that qualifies as self-made definitions which are formed from opinion not fact.

1. Feminism opposes toxic femininity. Toxic femininity is only harmful to women, not men. It is possible my opponent meant *misandry.

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.

2. Since feminism promotes equality, then it stands to reason that it cannot be responsible for promoting a divide.

Con's argument is a fallacy as it would require that feminism only promotes equality as a fact, However, as the evidence I provide earlier shows this can easily be debunked by the censorship campaigns, the disregarding of the importance of fathers, and the outright call to imprison/murder men. Furthermore, Con claims that based on this fallacy they cannot be responsible for promoting division which in of itself is another fallacy all together.

This would mean that Con is claiming that women who are equal to men are somehow incapable of causing a divide just as men can. This not only lacks logic but is clearly untrue.

Many feminists were standing with Johnny Depp in his case against Amber Heard, accepting him as a male victim of abuse.

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.

In conclusion I believe that Con needs to address the points I have made and review them and then make an effective counter argument based on what I provided in evidence or on the topic. which they have not done beyond demanding evidence that has already been provided and claiming that both feminists can't be dividers and Johnny Deep a victim in abuse reciving feminist sympathy, which is not only hearsay, but contradictory.

Vote Pro.

Sir.Lancelot

02.06.2023 06:28AM

Con

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.

Con gives no links to either of these definitions, so that qualifies as self-made definitions which are formed from opinion not fact.

The definitions are on Google. All Pro has to do is copy and paste.

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.

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.

Toxic Femininity: It’s Probably Not What You Think (vice.com)

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.

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.

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

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?)

Round 3

Americandebater24

02.06.2023 07:53AM

Pro

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.

Pro has provided more than that, as I also provided links to feminist supported movement that support censorship for the benefit of women. when judging a political group you must primarily gather evidence that is based on a political groups activities,

The definitions are on Google. All Pro has to do is copy and paste.

that does not prove those definitions are real. citing your sources is the first and foremost thing out do when making a claim.

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.
Toxic Femininity: It’s Probably Not What You Think (vice.com)

Con is arguing that toxic femininity doesn't harm men because women are less likely to speak out against it. Not only does this have no relevancy to the negative effects female toxicity has on men, but even if this were true, that would not prove men are not harmed by it as well. That is like saying that simply because a man or woman is less likely to report disability discrimination due to lacking the mental capacity or will power to do so, those disabled but not suffering from mental issues cannot suffer the same treatment.

Abuse is abuse, it does not matter the gender, race, wealth or status of the abuser or the victim, if Con wants to insist men can't be victims of female toxicity they must first establish that women can't harm men which is obviously false.

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.

Con forgets that they earlier stated that Men can't be victims of toxic femineity, now they have changed their statement to that while feminists can harm people, the ideology itself can't. Con seems unfamiliar when the idea that one can join and be part of an ideology that claims to be good in theory, but practices none of its principles. That is especially true for the nazi Ideology which originally only meant to be a national socialist worker until the leadership was usurped by Hitler.

Also, if con insists that evil people will do evil regardless of the ideology, how can feminism not be used for evil then? Afterall, all evil men and women in politics cloths themselves with claims of good intensions and insist that they have good virtues or a just cause, so one would have to admit that it is easy for feminists to claim to want equality while doing nothing but the opposite. For example, Feminists claim they simply want their voices as women heard, yet they support censorship campaigns that prevent criticism of them. as my ban bossy campaign link proved earlier

Therefore, while an ideology itself may not be inherently evil, if those who practice said ideology are using it for evil then whatever pretense the ideology claims to strive for is meaningless and as a result con's counter argument fails.

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.

Con's argument is based on a common falsehood that Nazism was always a ideology based on antisemitism and Jewish propaganda, in truth however, "Nazism" as it is known today did not actually exist originally in the nazi party as it was started by Anton Drexler - Wikipedia in 1919 and was orginally known as "German workers party" what con is referring to are the ideologies of Mein Kampf which did not get incorporated into the Nazi party until Hitlers rise to power.

The point I am making is that just as the nazi party was orginally not filled with antisemitism feminism has been filled with inequality and toxic man hatred even if that was not what it may have been based on orginally. thus, the cons argument fails.

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?)

Con forgets that for all their claims that feminism has yet to be proven to be the cause of the divide, they themselves have both denied that toxic femineity promoted by feminism harms men and the feminists can indeed harm men as they exemplified by referencing Johnny Deep. They also claimed that the examples I gave did not apply since evil people will be evil no matter what, which is a fallacy since I pointed out that by that same logic, any ideology regardless of pretenses can be used for evil.

Overall, I think I have provided plenty of examples that prove my argument correct despite the cons denial that I have done so, vote pro.

Sir.Lancelot

02.08.2023 06:00AM

Con

Extend.

AleutianTexan

02.09.2023 05:35AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

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!