Debate suggestion by Walken.

Has Feminism gone too far? Have women reached equality with men, or is there still lot of work ahead to acheive that goal? Walken and Raistlin Majere will be arguing that it has; and I am looking for two participants to debate that it hasn't.

This will be a formal, 2v2 debate. Each team will post a total of one introduction, six body posts and one conclusion.

Any questions, please PM myself or Lottie.

I'd be happy to comprise the opposing team.

Excellent!

We currently have Walken and Raistlin Majere ready to debate that we have acheived gender equality in today's society.

And kerkido will be debating on the side that feminism still has a lot of work ahead. We are still looking for one more participant to join this side of the debate.

Can I be on the hasn't team?

UniversalParadox.. Bear in mind.. You will have to hi-5 with me

Hmm... Sounds risky. ok.

Excellent!

Now just to recap:

We currently have Walken and Raistlin Majere to debate that we have acheived gender equality in today's society.

And kerkido and UniversalParadox are debating on the side that feminism still has a lot of work ahead.

Each team will post a total of one introduction, six body posts and one conclusion. Remember to quote your sources, and please remember to post within the 7 day time frame. Should this not be possible, please let Lottie or myself know.

Any questions, please PM me.

Good luck!

Okay folks. This should be good. I've already spoken with you all, or at least one person on each team, and so it's already been privately established that I will write the intro.

Just a fore-word; I notice that I'm debating two guys. Shame, as I was hoping to take to the debates with a modern day feminist, however it should be equally good

Okay doke. Time to get this underway. Good luck everyone

Introduction

Less than one hundred years ago the suffragettes finally reached their goal, what had only been a dream since the dawn of democracy. Woman had the right to vote. It was considered a mile-stone in history, and still is, and gave birth to feminism.

But where did it go from there? Or course, after World War one woman, who had been takeing over the manual labour jobs in mens absence in munitions factorys, began their new quest; equal pay.

And found it. Back in the sixties the pay equality act was passed. The gap between the average annual salary of a man and average annual salary of a woman has closed at such a rapid rate that if it were to continue in this way for just five more years woman would be earning more pay than men.

So there we go. Woman now are completely equal to men. They have just as much freedom, money, and all points inbetween.

Sometimes even more

Heres a thought. Men's social clubs are now outlawed. They can be sued if they deny a woman entry. In fact, they've nearly all been closed down or changed to public houses and social clubs to avoid this. Private mens clubs are illegal, subject to lawsuit. But aren't womans clubs protected, encouraged? Did you know that men's-only health clubs are legal by federal law and men's-only are not? And what about the woman community buildings, paid for with taxes, paid by men and woman.

Heres a thought. Woman get the child in nearly 90% of contested custody cases. Strange, seeing as more commonly the man will be the one with the job and steady income. Then again, won't he lose one third of his income in a divorce, 75% of which are initated by woman? (stats from 2003)

Heres a thought. Men are statistically twenty times more likely to get the death penalty than woman for the same crime.

Heres a thought. The draft laws only apply for men and only men have to register. Many argue that it doesnt matter, as it's highly unlikely that there will be a draft in the next twenty years. But what if there is? How quickly will they be able to change the law before the fighting starts, I wonder.

Heres a thought. Men die earlier from all eight major causes of death. Yet there's never been a federal study as to why. Isn't that funny? But there's an office of Women's Health. None for men yet, maybe one day.

Heres a thought. Isn't breast cancer federally funded 14 times as much as prostate cancer? But aren't both lethal? And don't both genders pay taxes?

Heres a thought. Why is it that women can hit men in the movies, even knock them unconscious, but men can't hit back? Funny how there's so much attention on kicking men in the groin in movies and TV now. Isn't that legally sexual assault? Sure is a big joke.

Heres a thought. How about that Violence Against Women act? It's created an entire industry of lawyers, social workers, and counsellors. Funny that men never objected to this kind of law that is gender-specific, that only protects women. Yes, it's skewed the idea of justice and created kangaroo courts, and yes, it's based on the idea that women must receive special protection from men and privileges from the government.

Heres a thought. Why do woman have the only say in whether to abort their child or not? Why don't men have a say? Isn't it there child too?

Until my opponents can go over that entire list, proving me wrong point by point and providing suitable counter-arguments for each thought I gave them, I'll be sure that gender equality has failed, and the tables have turned; that woman (thanks to modern day 'feminism') now have more rights and more bias from the law. And unless not just men, but woman too, begin to embrace that and come up with a solution for precise equality between both genders, I don't think it's going to change.

Hi guys!

Just a quick note that the point deductions if you go over the 7 day time frame to post will apply in this debate. If for any reason you cannot post within this period, please PM myself or Lottie.

Thank you.

INTRODUCTION
In the 1950's and before, women were confined to the house,
cooking and cleaning as their obligations, and they were
treated as inferior, unintelligent beings. This was wrong.
The women of the world needed to step up and speak for themselves.
They did. The feminists refused to be the underlings of the race. They've got most of the work done. But definitely not all of it.
As to the answer of the debate question, it has not gone far enough.
Women are still looked down upon and excluded from many things,
professional sports leagues, church activities (such as being a bishop, priest, or pope), and women never seem to get past the first step when trying to be president (Hmmm, THERE'S A THOUGHT )
It is a well known fact that women are still paid twenty-five cents less than men an hour for the exact same position.
It is such discrimination that so clearly shows that men and women are not yet looked upon as equals. There are generally excepted generalities and stereotypes, such as ‘all women love shopping’, and ‘all men love sports’ (I don’t) that cannot and would not exist if our society was truly an equal one.
Feminists should only stop at impartiality, and they're not there yet. If prejudice exists, there is no equality.

Thank You! I was going to use those points in our argument!
Men murder OVER 20 times more than women do (Statistically), and even if that doesn’t factor into the statistics, that point is prejudice AGAINST women. It shows that women are thought of as too fragile to be executed, and also that they don’t have to take full responsibility like the men do. An Eye for an Eye, except if you are a woman, right? (Well, I don’t believe in an eye for an eye [or the death penalty]but it makes the point. )

The draft was going to be one of my major points. It shows that the government thinks that women aren't 'tough' enough to fight in a war without prior training, but men are. If that's not prejudice, nothing is. Again, you made one of my arguments for me. I don't think the draft should exist at all, but that's my opinion.

ERM? Have you read the news lately? It's still, as I said, an average quarter less an hour for the same position for women(Many a much larger ammount). 11- .25 Does not equal 11, unless I'm doing the math wrong.

Ah, so the lack of a study means inequality? There's never been a study to see why women die later, so you can't really use that as an example. There's a bill that was just submitted to establish an office of men's health, it doesn't mean anything that the women's office came first. (And just to stop you from saying what I know you were going to say, If the Men's Health Office had come first, and there was a bill out for establishing a Women's office, I would not be complaining.) And no, it's not all that funny.


You think that they had a reason to object? All the law does is prevent Spousal Abuse, it was gender specific because women were ,most of the time, the ones being abused.

I find the highlighted part offensive. Women have a job pretty much as often as men do in these cases. Women get the kids because they were seen more fit to take care of them. Even if that sexist statement were true, I could just as easily say that the father had less time to spend with the children, since he's the 'only one' with a job.


Because it doesn't have to grow inside of the man's body, or rip out of it for that matter , in fact, after conception, it has nothing to do with the man's body. Many situations of abortion are when the father isn't in the picture, or the woman was raped. If you were a woman, could you imagine having the man who raped you force you to carry and deliver his baby?
I guess you can scratch those of the list! (Sorry, I couldn't wait to debunk them)
P.S: Dis, it was funny with the extra Excellent!
P.P.S. It gets really annoying after a while when you keep saying "Here's a thought." (espicially since it doesn't make sense with a period) I know you were trying to make a point, but it comes off as a bit pompous.
I wasn't trying to be insulting with anything in this post, so I'm sorry if you thought I was.
C’est a toi.

Great Introduction

Main body post 1

In this post, the first of my main body posts, I will dispell many of the myths my opponent has put fowards in his introduction



Now there is a myth. Woman have professional sports leagues. In fact I do believe the British womans football premiership had more succsess last year than any previous.

So why isn't there live coverage on televison? Why aren't the football players stars, appearing on newspapers and magazines? It's quite simple really, and obvious when you consider it. It's the same reason televison shows get cancalled; they don't pull in as much of an audience. The managers of the football league can hardly be expected to spend millions more on the womans football league if they aren't going to profit from it. Of course the next question a feminist will ask is 'Well why can't the men go and see the womans football instead?'

Because they'd rather see the teams they've grown up supporting, as have they're fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers (all before womans football). Also, mens football, due to it being much more publicised and having much larger audiences, will have a much better atmosphere than womans football. When I then put foward the question to my 'feminist friend', why doesn't she go and see a womans football game, she replied "'cause I'm not interested in football", hardly a valid argument. She then further ruined what was once a fair statement by saying 'Well surely men would want to see the womans legs and stuff'.

Church activities? Hardly. There are no woman bishops or, more topical, popes, because that is considered against gods will. It is thought this because Jesus had 12 disciples, men, and no woman, who travelled with him. If feminists fighting for a woman pope knew this then they would also know that they're fighting an entire church, one of the worlds best established, along with it's holy books and central beliefs. Whether or not this is sexist, it is an issue of religion, not feminism.

And a woman for president? Well, Hilary Clinton is certainly on the right path. In fact, she seems two or three steps higher than her husband was at this time. Woman are not never elected as president or prime minister because they're woman, just as Margaret Thatcher was not hated because she was a woman. The United States of America will have a woman president one day, possibly soon, however whether or not she will be successful remains to be seen.

So there is a thought. You just haven't thought it through.



This is the second biggest myth associated with modern feminism; its a lie, it's misleading and it has been discredited on hundreds of occasions. The 75 cent figure is terribly misleading. This statistic is a snapshot of all current full-time workers. It does not consider relevant factors like length of time in the workplace, education, occupation, and number of hours worked per week. (The experience gap is particularly large between older men and women in the workplace.) When economists do the proper controls, as have been done many times before since this figure was first released, in a feminist book might I add, the so-called gender wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.




Indeed, neither do I. A recent study showed that men actually spend more on their wifes/girlfriends than they do on football.

Not to relevant, but it is some interesting reading is you're interested.

I wonder how long it will be until the feminists begin to fight for equality on mens behalf? I wonder how long it'll be until the modern day feminist allies itself with fathers for justice? Excuse me if I'm still waiting in a decades time. I predict a huge up-hill struggle, comparable to that of the suffragettes, in the near future for the fathers 4 justice. I also wonder why feminists are campagening that genetic screenings and DNA tests cannot be performed on their child without the permission. Did you read that study that up to one-third of fathers aren't really the child's father? Of course, if the man finds out that he isn't really the father, he still has to pay child support--after all, what's most important is the child. Maybe thats why, hmm?



Firstly, You're right. That is in no way a factor of the statistics I put fowards.

Secondly, I don't see feminists campaining against this. Do you? Are their feminists outside your local courtroom yelling 'Kill her!' and sporting signs that say 'Execute her like you'd execute him!'? So much for equal rights, I guess.



By the time you read this part of this post you would already know the truth about that feminist myth.



Of course there hasn't. Womans life expectancy is no problem. It's all of the men that will die eight years earlier. I hardly see how twisting my argument and asking for a study into the opposite weakens this argument.

As for the office of mens health, I'm glad to see that. Of course, perhaps now they'll be a little more actual equality. I wonder how the feminists will react to this?



Of course, gender stereotypes mean that a man who was abused by his wife is a lot less likely to report it. Think this is a shallow argument? Funny, because don't the feminists frequently argue that 'a lot more woman have been sexually assaulted or raped than will report it'?.



I'm sorry if I offended you, but surely that statistic cannot be denied? More men have jobs than woman; Proven statistically. More woman stay at home as housewifes and look after the children during the day than men do; Proven statistically. I really doubt that, and I'd like to see you debate that at the next fathers for justice rally. Perhaps the woman had spent more time with the children why the father was at work, but I don't really see how that makes the father any worse of a parent.

And don't ever try arguing that woman make better parents again, please. The strength of a parent depends on outside influence, it is not genetic.



If a father doesn't want his baby but the woman does, the father still has to pay child support. And rightly so. He made the decision to gratify himself sexually, just like the woman did. So why should she alone have to bear the burden of raising the child for the rest of her life? Consequently, the father will pay child support.

But what about the father who fervently wants his unborn child to live? Does he have the right to stop the mother from having an abortion? No. So, then, fathers have to pay child support, but have no say in the abortion decision.

Equal rights, I guess.

Equal as in, the father has no say, but still has to pay. The father will have his child killed, and not even get a choice.

I don't see many feminists campaining against this, do you?



I guess I can put them back on there. Thats unless you wish to challenge the counter arguments put fowards in this debate?



I guess it does. I'll remember that.

That concludes my first main body post. I look foward to the reply.

That was fun. I can tell I'm going to enjoy this debate.

Since we've had 2 participants (one on each team) drop out of the debate, this will now be a formal 1 vs 1 debate.

We have Walken who is debating against feminism in today's society;
And UniversalParadox who is debating for feminism.

So we're now looking for UniversalParadox's first body post.

PM me with any questions.

A few notes before I begin my post:
I never said that women make better parents. What I said was that, when mothers win, it was because they were the better parent. They don't win for no reason.
Can you prove that the $.75-1 fact is a myth?

BODY POST ONE
Challenge accepted. I will dispute what you said.



That statement is pretty much self-defeating. Women's sports aren't on TV because no one watches them when they're on TV. Hmm. Also, one of the reasons so many people watch the sports is because of how much funding is put in to advertise it. So, if there isn't as much promotion, how are as many people going to watch it, or know it exists? Anyway, my point was, there aren't Co-ed teams in the proffesional leagues. Women aren't even considered for the teams, no matter how talented they are.
Where you said that no one ever said "kill her", that would be irrelevant if it was true. Just because not a lot of people fight for it doesn't mean it's not wrong. I'm against the death penalty in general,

Again, self-defeaty-ness. This carries one of the theories that bothers me the most. It goes like this: "Well, they've been doing things wrong for a long time, so it's like tradition to do things wrong, so they should." The reason that Jesus the Great Magician had just men following him was becuase women weren't allowed to go anywhere back then. Sexism justifies Sexism? I think not. Also, at the beginning of this paragraph, you said they aren't excluded from church activities, but then went on to admit that they are.


As far as twisting your argument goes, I didn't. I just said that just because people haven't got around to studying why men die earlier as opposed to oh, say, cancer, doesn't show sexism. But anyway, what are you implying with that last sentence? That feminists will react badly to giving men a health office? Why would they?They were lucky enough to get one first.

Yes it is a BIG JOKE. That's all it is. The whole thing is. Men murder women in movies all the time. Does that mean it's sexist? No.

I don't know how anyone can look at today's society and think it's an even playing field. You can look at anything and see the prejudice. Girls are 'taught' at an early age that they should be playing with barbie dolls and dream houses. Any time that a toy involves clothes, accessories, cooking or cleaning, it is always marketed towards girls. But all the toys that involve construction, bulldozing, or weapons always have a little boy on the cover and playing with the toy in the commercial. Disturbingly, sometimes they will have the boy with his arm around the girl, sending the message that the boy should rule the girl at a very early age. Surely you can't dispute that this is an extremely sexist world when there are commercials on TV every ten seconds that say or show something like "Mama's got the magic of Clorox" or a woman dusting, washing clothes, or cleaning dishes. Did you ever notice that whenever it's a man doing any of these things, they always show him confused about what to do? There's a thought, huh?

Sorry Uni, this is going to be a very long one. But hopefully you'll think it was worth it when you get to 'The Vote'.

Main body post 2

In this post I intend to reply to my opponents last, and give some more examples of gender bias



Of course I can. Read my source- Why men earn more. It is a very intresting book that clearly outlines how woman below a certain age and unmarried will on average earn slightly more than men, where as older woman will earn slightly less than older men due to the experience gap, which is now closing.

To summerise the books contents, woman below the age of 29, unmarried and without children, will earn 106 cents for evrey dollar a man of the same age and positon earns. Men above this age will make just below that more than a woman each year. The book clearly explains how at the moment, on average, woman are earning more than men, but only just, therefore the margin of area from the study overlaps the even marker.



Actually they were on televison. They were shown on ITV here in the UK before they were cancalled. The viewing figures were appuling. If evrey feminist who ever complained about a lack of coverage of womans sports watched it, it'd be a ratings high. Of course, they didn't.



Then when will someone start doing something about it? When will the feminists, with their cries of equal rights, start working for mens rights? When will they start working for rights in favour of others? When will they start working towards true equality?

We've established that it is wrong that woman are 20 x less likely to get the death penaltey for the same crime as a man. So now let's establish why it is wrong.

Because it is sexist. It is sexual discrimination, in that which men are judged and treated more harshly than woman, for the one reason that they are men. But do feminists, who do, afterall, want equal rights, campagin against this?

No. Because the movement is not about equal rights. It is about womans rights; the empowerment of woman above that of men. That is what feminism is.



Not really. As clearly explained, their used to be coverage. It stopped because the ratings were so terrible. But the feminists do not then go to the games do they?

Lack of coverage in womans sports is just another excuse for feminism. If feminists wanted they could have live coverage of womans sports back on the menu simply by going to a game. But no. Rather than do something about it, they will blame men and decleare it an act of sexual discrimination.



Firstly, statistics show woman are becoming more involved (and sucsessful, where relavent) in schools, church, socially. I never said woman were excluded from religeon, I said they could not be popes or bishops in the catholic faith. Once again, this is just one faith. If you find it sexist that you cannot be a pope or bishop because you're a woman then you're not a fundamentalist catholic anyway.

Other faiths provide the same oppertunitys for woman and men. Some, such as Pagan and Wicca, even provide more.

Therefor if it is sexist that you cannot be a pope or bishop in the catholic faith, or that you cannot be a god in the Mormon faith, it is sexist that you cannot be a god in the Pagan faith if you're a man.



Actually it does. Men die earlier of all eight major causes of death, yet there has never been a study as to one. Further more study into breast cancer receives fourteen times more federal funding than prostate cancer. Why is this, considoring both genders pay taxes? And men pay more into social security taxes than woman...



They wern't lucky, they were grateful, because it was men who gave it to them and men and woman alike payed for it. This leads me to my next section.

Woman- Oppressed by men for 2000 years

This is the lie we constantly see spinning from newspapers and spewing from the mouths of a million feminists. Thats what it is; A lie.

2000 years ago? Why is it that I am the only one who questions this? After the death of Jesus Christ was the earth suddenly launched into a woman-bashing phase? Of course not! Woman have never been the oppressed Gender.

What about 500-600 years ago? Did woman start being oppressed then?

Hardly. They received more consideration than anyone.

From about 1430 until 1832 the first of the political reform Acts some four hundred years, very few people indeed were able to vote. If my instinct is correct, in today's terms you would need to have been something like a cash millionaire to be able to vote, or, which is more likely an extremely high standing in society. We are talking lord of the manor here. Catholics weren't able to vote and neither were Jews. Parliament which is nothing like it is today was mainly made up of land owners and Vast swathes of the country had no representation at all.

There isn't really any mention that a woman of great standing was not allowed to vote but in the year 1831 and census was conducted and it was determined that in 1832 with passing of the first reform act, roughly 2% of the whole of the UK population was eligible to vote. The whole system was still corrupt.

Alrighty, so what happened after this?

The 'oppressed' gender received the first ever peice of consideration of it's kind. In 1844 women and children under 18, working hours, were limited to 12 hours. No such restriction on men.

So which groups of people rights were considered first, Men or women and children ?

...So which gender was oppressed....?

Okay, but the female oppression myth must have come from somewhere, right?

1847 and yet another reduction in working hours for women and children, this time to 10 hours. No such restriction on men.

So which groups of people rights were considered second, Men or women and children ? So much for female oppression, I guess.

Okay, so where did the oppresion myth come from? What happened next?

1867-1914

The 1867 Reform Act gave the vote to about 1,500,000. Roughly 6%. The 1884 Reform Act added about 6,000,000 voters. Roughly 24%. I'd like to stress that there is still no mention of woman not being given the vote. It has nothing to do with gender.

But we already know at some point, woman didn't have the vote. They had to fight and sacrafice for it. But how much did they truly sacrafice? And what about the common man? When did he get the vote?

The Great war.

The grewat war begins and propaganda emerges from all sides. A scheme is thought up in which woman would give any man not serving in the army a white feather to show he was a coward. This scheme was then led by the goverment, the millitary, and the feminists. Some of the leading feminists at the time such as Emmeline Pankhurst, Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney played a leading role as speakers at meetings to shame young men into the army.

Instead of volunteering to go to war themselves, or being thankful for the sacrafices these young men were making, feminists stayed at home complaining about how they didn't have equal rights in areas that suited them and shaming men into joining the army.

When this war had finally ended there were some 10,000,000 men dead, 21,000,000 wounded and 7,000,000 prisoners or missing.

And look who were some of the main activists in forcing men to die.

The vote

This is it. The big Shin-dig. The ultimate arguement for feminism and the proof of oppresion from men, inflicted upon woman one hundred years ago. The vote.

So, I ask you this. Do you know how long after common man got the vote, common woman did? 100 years? 80? 50?

Ten.

It took Ten years.

Can you beleive that? I couldn't at first.

As a reward for there sacrifices, had they lived to 1918 all men over the age of 21 were allowed to vote. Common man had the vote.

And as a reward for the efforts the feminist and women's movement in sending so many of our men to their death women over 30 were given the vote.

So, hang on...woman were never denied the vote, right? Men and woman both got the vote in 1918. Men just got the right to vote 9 years younger than woman as their reward for their work in the war.

A typical feminist type response with regard voting rights that if it wasn't for Emily Wilding Davison who threw herself under the King's horse, Anmer, as it rounded Tattenham Corner women wouldn't have had the vote.

My response to the typical feminist on this issue now, is your forbearers helped to commit genocide to get the vote.

Women got the right to vote at 21 in 1928 some 10 years later at the cost of 10,000,000 lives and one martyr.

The actual difference was 10 years not a 100 or 2000, but 10.

The only difference in voting rights throughout this time was that men could vote 9 years earlier than woman. Thats 2 general elections.

Read evreything from 'The vote' again. Take it all in.

Woman got the vote at the same voting age as men thanks to one martyr.

Men got the right to vote at a lower age than woman after 10,000,000 deaths, and countless wounded and missing.

So much for woman being the oppressed sex.

All those words and really nothing to say.
BODY POST TWO

Walken, now you have gone to far. To say that women were Never oppressed, to go so far as to say that there was but one sacrifice, to say that women were the cause of every single casualty, injury, and missing person in the 'great war ', is to go where I never thought you would. Insulting the very base of feminism. Maybe you should read the name of the debate. 'Has feminism gone too far?'. It's not 'Feminism: Should it ever had existed?'

Wow. In this post, you have said, basically, that women were NEVER thought of as lesser, that feminists never wanted equality, but in fact superiority, and that men, in fact, are the suppressed ones. There's also the fact that I can dispute your theory that women were never excluded from voting. While your argument is based on inferences, mine is based on fact.
The ammendments of the constitution which go over voting (except the one which
gives women the right to vote) say that men are given the rights to vote. They don't mention women, and it's clear that it wasn't meant in the way of the species of man. Even the Civil Rights Movements, which gave African Americans (African American MEN, that is) the right to vote, did not apply to women. In some states it was actually ILLEGAL, meaning you could and would be arrested, to vote if you were a woman. .

Oh. Men pay more into social security? I thought women made more money than men. Strange. Oh and by the way: Just because it says it in a book, doesn't mean it's true. Or else we'd all see hobbits and dementors everywhere.
Oh, right. Men gave them the health offices because, you know, women aren't in congress or senate or anything. It's the big strong men with their big-strongness that makes the real decisions, right? Just leave the little decisions like, what to feed that man for breakfast. Unbelievable.
Another point that you twisted to put on your side. See the word 'restriction'? Can you hear yourself talk sometimes?



Women can be degraded constantly on telivision or in movies, but if they 'dare' to say a derrogetory term about men, it usually ends up on the cutting room floor. A woman can be called a .female dog. to her face, but a woman calls a man a pig on cable and it's bleeped out.
So, I guess since we can just say anything we want is a myth now, you're a myth, I'm a myth, EVeryone's a Myth MYth. I'm sort of sorry if I seemed harsh, but it was worth it, right?
P.S.: So this wasn't sexist either, right? [attachmentid=14372] (A poster for the US Navy) If you can't read it, It says:"GEE! I wish I were a man so I could be in the navy!"

Body Post 3

First I intent to summarise the last main body post, before responding to my opponent.

Summary so far

*Woman never didn't have the vote in the United Kingdom, where suffaragettes were most active and they gained their first and only martyr. They simply received the right to vote 9 years older than men.

*Men received this right at a younger age as a reward for their sacrafice at war.

Notes: Now I'm not saying that was right or fair. Men and woman should both have been given the vote at the same time. But men and woman should both have been conscripted to war, and men and woman should both have been given workers rights.

*Woman received the same right on the same day, but only those over 30.

*Ten years later, after one martyr, woman were giving the voting right 9 years earlier in their life times. The voting right was no completly equal.

*10,000,000 men; fathers, sons, brothers, lost their lives. They were slaughtered and abused by the thousand. 21,000,000 wounded and 7,000,000 prisoners or missing. Their reward; the vote.

*One feminist became a martyr as she lost her life by accident, after planning to tag a banner to the leg of the kings horse. Her reward: the vote.

Forgive me if I fail to see how that was fair.

But don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying woman shouldn't have got the vote, or even that men should have more voting rights than woman. I just find it disgusting that feminism helped to commit genocide in order the obtain this vote. And while woman were working in the factories in mens absence, they told the authoritys of how they could do a job just as well as men, if not better...

...And no one wondered why then they couldn't go to war?

And its worth baring in mind that ten years after that, from 1939-1945 British men were conscripted to fight in the Second World War, and women – who had equal voting power – had no such obligation to be sent abroad to be possibly slaughtered for their country.

So much for female oppression



Woman are still oppressed. They are stoned to death in the middle east for disobeying their husband. But does feminism lend a head? No. It would rather stay here where it can point the finger and yell sexual harrasment.

I never ever said there was one sacrafice. I appreciate all of the hard work and years of pain it took for those woman to get equal voting age to men. But there was one martyr. And it was her death that led to the female vote being reorganised to the same age as mens. One Martyr died and woman received the vote. 38,000,000 men were either dead, wounded, missing or prisoners so men could...

Further more, I have always said throughout this debate that they helped to cause genocide in the great war. Never have I said they were fully responsable for evrey life.



The very base of feminism is built on a myth of 2000 years of oppression, when in fact, as I have already proved, woman rights were considored first, second and third. Perhaps feminism shouldn't have exsisted. Perhaps it should've.

So how is that relavent? Well, it proves that woman have never been the oppressed gender, and their rights were actually considored first. So is there a need for feminism now, when there wasn't in the first place?



No, in that post I said exactly what you quoted, that feminism was not about equal rights, but female empowerment. Men have never been suppressed, nor did I ever say that. But I ask again, whose rights were considored first?



I was reffering to the United Kingdom. Rest assured, I could've used feminism in any country as an example. In Australlia for instance, woman had the vote before the 1900's.

And I think you'll find that USA woman were being given the vote as early as 1869 in differnt states and terrortories(with Wyoming first).

Therefore, no, you haven't debunked my theory on The vote. Because it isn't a theory. What I posted was historic fact. In the UK there was no mention of woman ever not being able to vote, EVER. The requirements had nothing to do with gender. When the vote was installed for common man, it was installed for common woman, but 9 years older. May I remind you that 9 years is two general elections...

...Therefore 38,000,000 men would die, get wounded, or be taken prisoner, or even go missing, so they could vote in 2 general elections before woman.



As already explained, woman are running for governer and senate, even president. In fact Hilary Clinton looks like the next president, if you ask me. But will she make a good president? Does she deserve to be there? Or will she be collecting votes just because shes a woman, like Margret Thatcher?



Firstly, that statement is in no way connected to what I was saying. Did I ever say that? Did I ever even mention the strength of men in this entire debate?



That is absurd! How can I possibly twist a point on to my side, when it's historic proof that woman received workers rights before men? I don't need to twist it on to my side, it's already on my side. It's a hisoric fact that woman and children received workers rights first and second, long before men. And who gave these rights to them? The goverment that was 'oppressing woman for 2000 years'....



How can you say that when this site proves feminism censorship in todays media?



Thats not harsh, thats just lame The female oppresion f the last two thousand years, as I proved, IS a myth.

That concludes my third main body post

BODY POST THREE:Notes:First of all, I read and understood your propaganda whoops I mean post the first time. Just because I didn't agree with it doesn't mean I didn't read it. Don't talk down to me like I'm an idiot because I'm not. Second, Whenever I make a point, you DO NOT address it. You also did not address the fact that I called you on this. If YOU would read MY posts more thouroughly, maybe you could see what makes you wrong. Lastly, just because you "clearly explained" that you didn't agree with what I said, doesn't make it wrong. I can argue the same point over and over again, just like you can.


Well then why do you keep using those same statistics? You are saying that everyone who died in the war died for voting, and that even though only men were allowed to join the war, women should of. I don't know if you can even make sense of that one. Just because you and your "Sexism for Dummies" Book think that the reason they got the vote was because the men fought in the war, doesn't mean that that makes you right.
Note: I know what the book is called. It was sarcasm if you couldn't recognise it, just as was, because they clearly and most obviously are.

They did not help commit genocide. Not going to war doesn't make you responsible for the people who die in it, or else all of us civilians are guilty of mass-murder. Telling someone to go to war isn't murder either, unless the method of persuasion is violent, which it wasn't, so I don't see what the issue is here.

Hmm. Only one paragraph apart and yet you have a completely different opinion. Hey Everybody, watch out, Walken might have multiple personalities.

OK, please read my post. You did not prove that they weren't oppressed, you just gave your opinion based on foolish inferences.

They weren't rights if they were restrictions! How is telling women that they can only work for a limited ammount of hours helping them. Your argument is the only absurd one here.

Yes, and as I said, in some states, at the same time, it was ILLEGAL for women to vote. here's a thought: PLEASE READ MY POSTS.
Well, I read that whole thing, and it does not prove anything. Even in the part where the man asked for anti-feminist literature and they were mad at him, all that says is that those two women had a strong opinion.

First of all, I read what you said the first time, and what I said was a satirical view of what you said; a joke. You didn't prove anything. You stated your opinion and some selected facts over and over again.
Also, how, when even you admit that all over the world there are things going on that clearly demonstrate sexism against women and oppression against women, can you say that female oppression doesn't exist?
Women are constantly made to stay at home, with nothing to do but babysit the kids, do the laundry and dishes, cook, and clean whilst the husband is away doing the "real work". People think this is the right thing to do, but it's not. Women and men should share the responsibilities of having a home, including the financial ones. If you've ever watched such shows as 'I love Lucy', you can see how sexist they are. If you've ever seen the episode which I believe is titled 'Job Switching', everybody laughs when Lucy says that she wants a job, and Ricky and Fred are horrible at cooking because, BIG SHOCK COMING, they're men. As it was filmed in front of a studio audience, it is easy to see that it was the general opinion back then that that is the way it should go.

Main body post 4



I assure you, evrey point you've made, or at least those relvaent, I have quoted and then issued my counter-arguement for in the post afterwards. I will continue to do so. You may, if you wish, but I doubt it will get you anywhere. Please do not make this debate personal.



I'm sorry. Apprantly the statistics for men who specifically died so they could have the vote are a lot harder to find.



The arguements about the war and vote where structured and created by myself. 'Why men earn more' is a book written by William Farrel and The Census Bureau, only deals with pay. But on the subject, here are some more statistics from that book:

'Women are 15 times as likely as men to become top executives in major corporations before the age of 40. Never-married, college-educated males who work full time make only 85 percent of what comparable women earn. Female pay exceeds male pay in more than 80 different fields, 39 of them large fields that offer good jobs, like financial analyst, engineering manager, sales engineer, statistician, surveying and mapping technicians, agricultural and food scientists, and aerospace engineers. A female investment banker's starting salary is 116 percent of a male's. Part-time female workers make $1.10 for every $1 earned by part-time males. '

The book proves that Woman do not earn 75 cents for evrey dollar a Man earns. It proves that that is a myth, and that woman have been earning similar salaries to their male counterparts with the same titles and responsabilatys since the 1970's.



Listen to yourself



I'm sorry, I didn't understand that point. You probably left out something by mistake.



The issue is the white feather campagin, and many like it, led by feminists and woman, shamed young men into joining the army, walking to their deaths after being pressured by woman and femenists. Woman and femenists who certainly wernt complaining about the unequality of he draft not including woman. And, of course, it still doesn't.

Pressuring someone to go to war is like pressuring someone to murder. And that is illegal.



I'd like to note that my opponent is only quoting select peices of my post and the paragraphs around that which I've posted in an attempt to make me look like a fool. Obviously, the second peice he quoted was followed by...



Next time I hope my opponent learns to realise that before he pulls such a feat.



Instead of telling me they're foolish, please prove it. I backed up my arguement with historic facts and statistics. I PROVED that womans rights were considored first, second, and third, and that woman were never denied the vote. You've proved nothing.



Woman and children worked in the factories for hours and hours by slave drivers, being whipped and being offered five minute breaks a day. They got paid by the day, not by the hour which we use in todays socitey. So why then should woman be angry that they're being restricted to 12/10 hour days, when they won't be paid any less or have to endure the horror that is eighteenth centurey workhouses. Meanwhile, men will be paid the same for that day, but work up to 20 hours. I assure you, my arguement is not absurd.



I did.

As already stated, these statistics are relevant to the UK. Rest assured, I could have used statistics from anywhere. For instance, Australlia's woman got the vote in the closing years of the 1800's. The points and concept remains the same. I'm just using the UK because I'm most familiar with it.

Just to give you some perspective, the statistics I've provided on the basis of gender pay where provided for the USA.



And yet of a muslim refuses to sell the morning-after pill, legal action can be taken.

That web site proves feminist cencorship in our media. Our books, our movies, our televison programmes.



I have stated this many times now. Please understand and let this be the last.

Woman are still oppressed, but not here. Here in the US, Europe, Canada, we're at the point of equal, and in some areas, beyond it. In the Middle East, woman are oppressed and executed. If femenists would like to take the next plane over there and lend a hand, they're welcome to. Excuse me if they don't. They'd rather stay here and cry sexual harrasment.



1. Next time you make a point like this have statistics on hand to back it up.
2. This is not true. Not only are their an increasing number of male home-keepers, there is an even further increasing number of female workers. There is a huge rise in profit in the baby-sitting buisness. Woman are very rarly made to stay at home, as you put it.



And in that, the show was sexist in both directions. But it was written a long time ago. It in no way reflects the oppinions of todays societey.

That concludes my fourth main body post.

BODY POST FOUR.

I may if i wish what? Do you mean that I should stop arguing with you? In that case are you saying that if I try, i will only fail? This is my first debate, you know.
But you didn't say anything,for example, about the bias in commercials.

Well then you can't use the statistics you have, can you? If you know they don't even apply correctly to the point you're arguing, why do you use them? That's like this
"There are 12 rotten eggs in this package."
"No, there's only one."
"Well there are 12 eggs, though."
No I didn't. If you would read it (with the part where I quoted myself, which was right in the middle of that statement) it would make sense. You talk about me taking things out of context, which I didn’t, as I explain below, but you take words out of the middle of my sentences and ask me why they don’t make sense!



I know the draft doesn't include women, BUT as i said, that point could easily be used on my side of the argument. Women are thought of as too frail to fight, so they aren't drafted. Is there another reason why it doesn't include women? Surely feminists wouldn't get angry if they were, so why not?
As per the second part, I thought you meant that the women got the men killed, so they were responsible. However, this way, everyone who goes to war by themselves is a murderer, so....they didn't need help commiting genocide, did they?




Well, what would you call it if someone said "you can't work, you have to watch the children" to you?

Oh, I've proved nothing? I guess since the almighty walken says so, it's true.
I'm sure some people would admit that I've proved at least one thing.
Anyway, You haven't proved that women weren't oppressed 2000 thousand years ago. You said 'People didn't start women bashing right after jesus died'. That may be true, but it may have been before then. Men were always seen as more important in those times. The women were seen as things created for the use of men. Since you used no proof here, neither will I. 500-600 years ago... you said


It applied to the part where you said opression never existed in the US, Canada and The UK. The point that the men couldn't cook wasn't sexist against men, because they said that the reason was that because it was the women's job to do the cooking so they never did it before.
You didn't explain it that way the first time. All you said was women and children were restricted so they worked less hours.
Well, literature and drugs are two completely different things.

No, let ME explain this to YOU one more time. Just because I do not agree with your viewpoint, does not mean that I don't understand what you're saying, because I do. Wait, I can predict what you're going to say next. Sexual harrassment (at least against women) is a myth, right?

Main Body post 5

As My last Main Body post I will summerise evreything I've said so far, as well as adding new information to the table and countering my opponents last comments...But first, I will discount as many feminists myths as nessecery.

Myths VS Facts

If you'ver ever watched a feminist debate on the televison, you've without doubt heard at least one of these.

Myth: One in four women in college has been the victim of rape or attempted rape.

This paticular myth was absurd the day it was put foward. It is based on a survery conducted for Ms. Magazine. The researcher, Mary Koss, hand-picked by hard-line feminist Gloria Steinem, acknowledges that 73 percent of the young women she counted as rape victims were not aware they had been raped. Forty-three percent of them were dating their "attacker" again.

Although this myth has been discounted thousands of times, I think I'll have to explain why for the debate.

Rape is a uniquely horrible crime, and, although tragic despite the numbers, happens no where near as much as this study will show. Last years rape figures for the USA and UK actually showed the number of woman in college to have been the victim of rape or attempted rape well below one percent.

Once again, despite the numbers, rape is a tragic and horrendous crime, but falsehood is not a friend of the war against it. Women will not be helped by hyperbole and hysteria.

Myth: Women earn 75 cents for every dollar a man earns.

The mother of all feminist myths, the study is completley false, fails to considor many things and wasn't true, relavent or useful the day it was released, let alone today.

The fact is, woman and men in todays world get payed exactly the same, if they have the same title and responsabilatys. Those that don't are more often than not leaning towards woman. A fantastic book, Why Men Earn more, actually proves this with a goverment issued group of wage statistics. The book also says that older men will tend to get payed slightly more than woman because of the experience gap, which is closing fast, where as younger men tend to get paid less than woman of the same experience.

Myth: 30 percent of emergency room visits by women each year are the result of injuries from domestic violence.

This particular statistic is often used to justify gender-specific laws in favour of woman. Two responsible government studies report that the nationwide figure is closer to one percent. While these studies may have missed some cases of domestic violence, the 30% figure is a wild exaggeration.

Myth: Women have been short changed in medical research.

The National Institutes of Health and drug companies routinely include women in clinical trials that test for effectiveness of medications. By 1979, over 90% of all NIH-funded trials included women. Beginning in 1985, when the NIH's National Cancer Center began keeping track of specific cancer funding, it has annually spent more money on breast cancer than any other type of cancer. Currently, women represent over 60% of all subjects in NIH-funded clinical trails.

For one example, breast cancer research receives 14 times more federal funding than prostate cancer. This shows that, if anything, it is the men who have been short changed.

Myth: Anyone who opposes Feminism is a reactionary who wants to go "back to the past". Feminism is "progress".

Feminism was progress. Now it's a hassle. A Needless nuiscance. Not all anti-feminists are traditonalists, me for instance. Many just feel feminism has gone too far, and, in todays modern world, is now more about female empowerment than equal rights. It's needless.

Counter-arguements



I didn't. Why? Because the statistics are very hard to find. Hopefully what I'm saying is so obvious when you think about it, you won't need them, however...

In televison commercials, men are portrayed as slow-witted, unintelligent, football and beer obsessed slobs.

Did you ever see the advert for 'Mens magazine', 'Nuts'? Watch it, and then try to tell me that bias in televison commercials is in favour of woman.

Don't get me wrong, there is sexism and gender stereotypes of woman portrayed on televison too, but no more than there is men, in fact, statistics have shown, Less.



I never did use statistics, I merely stated the facts. 39,000,000 men died or was wounded in the Great War. A HUGE campagin pressured them to join by dismissing them as cowards was led by feminists. I beleive that speaks for itself.



There is nothing stopping a woman from running for senate or congress, or even president. But you can't blame SEXISM if they don't get voted in. Margeret Thatcher became prime ministress in a land slide.



The attempt to twist the arguement to your side is lost. We are talking about feminists, who campagin for 'equal rights'. When conscription occued in the great war, they did not complain about the inequality of it all. It happened again in WW2, where woman already had equal voting rights with men, whom therefore had no obligation to go to war, but did they complain then? No.

Feminists don't campagin for the draft because they don't want it. They want all of the benefits of 'equal rights' but are willing to stay out of areas that don't benefit them. The whole smoke screen of equal rights is a cover-up for female empowerment.



The question is irrelvant and in no way counters the arguement I supplied. Like I said, woman aren't made to stay any more than men are.



Alrighty. Woman have never been oppressed for these 'melleniums' that are spoke of. They had their rights considored long before men, and then again before men. They have always received a bias in the law. Even as far back as the romans, woman could not be thrown into a colloseum.



Such was the attitude of many men at the time. Likewise, a womans attitude would be that men had to work and drive. Their has always been sexism against both genders, and it has never been exclusive to one.



Actually I said that there was no such restriction placed on men. In other words, employers and work-house owners had to send their female employees and child workers home after 10 hours. Men, on the over hand, could be kept in as long as they saw fit, usually upwards of 16 hours.



You'd be surprised



Actually I have never said that in this debate and certainly won't now. Two melleniums of female oppression is a myth, as I have proven. Sexual Harrasment is very real, as it has always been, but happens to both men and woman.

Alrighty, over to you.

That concludes my fifth and final main body post. I look foward to your reply, Universal Paradox.

UniversalParadox has been granted an extra couple of days to post.

Why hello, everybody. It's been a crazy thing for a while, so I was unable to get my 5TH BODY POST posted.



Well, first of all, I don't exactly know how this applies to the debate. One extremist feminist falsifying a study doesn't exactly say feminism has gone too far. Nextly, Many rape victims do date their attackers again, because the person had said they were sorry and they believed them. I don't appreciate the insinuation that a woman can't be raped by the person they are in a relationship with (the quotation marks).

I just noticed that many parts of your posts are copied word by word from the discussion of the book in the books, music, movies section of UM about the book.
Anyway, you have not "proven" that this is a myth. You have said what it says in your book, and I would like you to find a different source that confirms the opinion of your book. I have looked and I still can't find one. However, the very title of the book implies two things that I find interesting:
1. That men actually do earn more, and in that case, the whole rest of the book is contradictory to the title.
2. That there is a reason that men earn more.
I find both of these things very strange, considering it's not supposed to be a anti-feminist book (right?).

I don't really like the term "domestic violence". I prefer the terms that actually get the point across, such as "spousal abuse". The term "domestic violence" makes it sound like you are training the spouse by hitting them.
If the studies are flawed and may have missed cases, how are they reliable? Who is to say they didn't miss a thousand cases or more? It's simple. Studies that are wrong are not right!
Well, breast cancer is more deadly than prostate cancer, and a lot more people have breast cancer than prostate cancer. The myth, as it is called, has merit. There are incredible true horror stories in which a man and his wife are brought in, both having heart complications. The woman is sent home with a bottle of TUMS, the man is treated. The woman dies from the heart attack she was having.
Frankly, I don't know why you would disagree with feminism if you were not a 'traditionalist', a nice way to put 'sexist', which is another example of trying to make things seem okay when they're not by changing the names. The point isn't where it has gone (if you think so far, or as I think, not far enough), the point is what it actually is. It's fixing society from the way it was, the evil way it was and partially still is, and putting it the way it should be. Equal. You believe in the ideals, not the progress.
I have not yet found one relevant fact in your 'debunking' of the "myths"
No, I've never seen the advertisement you talk about, but explain it to me if you will. In telivision commercials men ARE portrayed as beer-drinking football watching PEOPLE, BUT if you look closely, you will see him telling the woman to get him another beer or where she put the remote. It's messages like that that are keeping us from evolving as a whole.
Okay, I read this the first, second and third time you said this. I was talking about the fact that you keep saying that 39 million people were dead or wounded and all that but that not only isn't relevant, but you try to make it out to be the fault of feminists, when really it is only the fault of the people who volunteered to fight, whatever the message of persuasion to do so, and the people who started the war in the first place. Nothing more. Nothing less.
LISTEN TO ME FOR THE SIXTH TIME! THERE ARE WOMEN IN CONGRESS. PLEASE READ WHAT I REPLY TO YOUR POSTS. THEY WERE VOTED IN, SO WHY DO YOU KEEP ACTING LIKE THEY WEREN'T? My question is relevant, unlike half of the things you say. I was saying that many women are seen through the stereotype that they are weak and only good at cleaning and cooking. As you said, statistically, more men work than women, so If they're not at home...where are they? This is the exact same point as the point of capital punishment, which,as I have already argued, is on MY side. You didn't prove anything in that paragraph either, when I specifically asked you for proof. No, it was the attitude that ONLY men COULD work and drive. Big strong man, little neat woman. Sexism against women was ALWAYS more than sexism agaisnt men, just through obvious observations.

Feminism doesn't want Female superiority. It never did. It wants equality and WE ARE NOT THERE YET.
On to the conclusions.

Conclusion

Since I had so long to prepare this post, I thought I'd move it to the next level.

So, hang tight UP; this is going to be a long one.

In this, my final post in what has been a very fun debate, I will first list thirty similaritys between feminism and nazism, before listing twentey nine areas of sexism against men created and managed by feminists, as well as respond to my opponents last post and explain, in depth, Why Feminism has gone Too far.

Some words you might need to know for this post are...

AH- Abbreiviation for 'Angry Harry', an anti-feminist site I've written articles for in the past. It's well worth checking out if you've got a minute.

SCUM- Extreamist feminist group that are actually very well respected in their feild, despite the fact they call for the murder of all men.

My response



It shows that feminists are willing to lie and release false studies (some of which you fell for in this very debate) to portray themselves as victims.

There was no insinuation there, but bear in mind there are thousands of false rape cases annually (yet next to no punishments for the crime).



Lies and slander. If you're trying to discredit me please do it properly.

I have said similar things to feminists in a thread about the book 'Why men earn more'. I have never copied a post from that thread, with the exception of one set of statistics.

You seem to be under the illousion that all of my knowledge of this subject is derived from one book. Do not underestimate me. I have an extreamaley vast wealth of information at my disposal and write articles for two anti-feminists site. I beleive I have demonstrated that in this debate.



The title is sarcasam, an act of mockerey.

If you have any doubts about the reliabilaty of the book, hear this; it operates on a wide range of statistics some of which I've posted here, all of which are federally issued. If you'd like more information on the book please go to an online shop where it can be purchased, or, better yet, buy it yourself.



The book is written to discredit a feminist myth; that does not make it anti-feminist. The things you found strange are things you failed to understand, and thats natrual



Fine, have it your way.

I gave you the 'one or two missed cases' as a compromise because I knew you'd attack the reliabilaty of the study.

But one thousand is just taking liberties.

So we'll compromise; fifty to 100 cases could've been missed...

...meaning that percentage is still a wild overexaggeration.



Alrighty then; well these studies are approved by the medical office and right, and studies that are right are usually right.



Statistics show the numbers for them both are almost identacle, and although breast cancer takes affect faster, both are deadly. Considoring those factors, perhaps Breast cancer research should receive slightly more funding, but 14 times more funding? Thats re-dick-you-less.



Those incredible true stories are often refferred to as 'friend of a friend stories' or Urban legends.



Because of it's blind double standards and hypocrisy; general sexist attitude towards men on the basis of genetic code?



Therefore both men and woman are stereotyped, not just woman, as you tried to put across.



Voluntered? Is your knowledge of history so bleak? Most men didn't volunter, they were either; a) Conscripted, or B ) Pressured into war, through many of campagins, the main one of which was lead by feminists.

If I push you under a truck I'm still a murderer.



You've hurt your own arguement more than mine by saying that



Men and woman are both stereotyped and we will never be without those stereotypes.



Your point on capital punishment was moronic. No offence, but I don't think woman are complaining that they're 20x less likely to receive the death penaltey than a man for the same crime. Do you?



I beleive I have proved otherwise. You, on the other hand, have added no substance to the debate, you've simply attempted to counter-attack the subtance I've added.

Feminism-Nazism

This will be intresting.

Feminism and Nazism have both ...

1. Discriminated against individuals on the basis of their genetic code.

2. Premoted the view that the targeted group was inferior genetically and behaviourally, e.g. see AH's Men Bear a Striking Resemblance to Slugs.