This house believes radical feminism is just

Thanks to my opponent for raising this interesting subject. My role in this debate will be to demonstrate the absurdity and inherent injustice contained within Feminism (including Radical Feminism). Radical Feminism is not defined by my opponent. I will use the Wiki definition with some small changes: "Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical reordering of society in which an assumed male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts. Radical feminists seek to abolish what they see as a patriarchy, by challenging existing social norms and institutions, rather than through a purely political process". Feminism is a strand within the Social Justice Movement (SJM). Whilst so called first wave Feminism correctly fought for equal representative rights, the next waves were given a Radical boost in the 60's after the rise of Post Modernism, which sought to challenge the values of the Enlightenment. Its founders were Marxists who (after the well documented failures of Marxism and Socialism) knew the game was up for the failures of the Left. However, as with most religious convictions, they needed to hold onto their shattered worldview and did this by cleverly altering the dynamic. Out went the Proletariat/Bourgeoisie narrative, in came the Opressed/Oppressors narrative. We can still se the remnants of this today as most people in the SJM (including Feminism) are Leftists (probably without even knowing why). The new narrative created by the Post Modernists is now seen in these terms: Black/White, LGBT/Straight, Disabled/Able bodied, Muslim/non-Muslim and of course Women/Men (at a deeper level it is almost an infinite fractal pattern of Opressed/Oppressors built from these narratives). I will outline 3 fundamental objections to Feminism: 1) Foundationally, 2) Methodologically, 3) Rhetorically 1) Foundationally To challenge the norm certain tactics have been adopted by the followers of this quasi-religions. Firstly institutions or commonly held beliefs are deconstructed and contextualised (in the case of Feminism) as male created, self-serving, Phalo-centric and Patriarchal. The argument is therefore put forward that because of this they are institutionally sexist, therefore invalid and should be torn down and rebuilt. Here is the first obvious philosophical problem with Feminism. Jacques Derrida the founder and proponent of Deconstructionism was himself a man (even worse perhaps for SJM a white man), meaning we can deconstruct, deconstructionism rendering it invalid. It is as invalid Foundationally as a Logical Positivism. Removing this from the armory of Feminism, renders it adrift on the Philosophical seas floating free of foundations, morally or otherwise. Biologically it fails to accept the differences between men and women caused by in-utero testosterone. In general men and women have complimentary but different outlooks, capabilities and skills. Whilst there are masculine, females and feminine, males that hybridize these skills and capabilities to some extent, most of the population formally fit into a Care/People/Subjects orientation common in Females, or a Drive/System/Objects common in Males. Denial of this well understood biological difference is a faith based position found only in religions. Anthropologically Feminism fails to recognize humans as social, primate mammals which exist in a dominance hierarchy. These hierarchies are subtle, complex, sophisticated and effective. But tend to lead to domination by males. Feminism must deny these basic facts about primate mammalian societies, to maintain its arguments. 2) Methodologically The underlying weakness of Feminism is its reliance on outcomes analysis. Outcomes are put forward as a factual basis for discrimination be it the so called wage gap, representation of women in certain fields of research, lack of women in 'place favourite cause here' power group. However, not only is the data put forward bogus (fixed to try and prove the assertion of the Feminist), it fails a basic test. As all social scientists know 'correlation is not causation'. Even if a wage gap can be proved (and it cant on a like for like basis), a correlation does not prove the asserted causation, nor does it eliminate the possibility of a third variable. For example rates French suicide rates can be correlated with US steel production. So what? Are there general conclusions one can draw from this, clearly not. However this is exactly the approach of Feminism. It is to draw invalid conclusions, from invalid data to their pre determined Derridian assertions. But that tactic does nothing to validate those assertions. Worse still analysis of the underlying data if anything show the disadvantaged group to be males (more on this in subsequent rounds) actually rendering Feminist claims absurd when measured against reality. Studies have shown that Females applying for Engineering and Science are favored over Males at a ratio of 2:1. This is merely the action of Administration departments trying to meet arbitrary targets. But has real impacts on talented Male individuals who are denied University access in favor of less talented females. A clear example of affirmative action and an individual injustice, to try and rectify a non existent problem. Because whilst one might conclude that the under representation (25:75%) of women in graduate engineering is evidence of institutional sexism. This is just false. Overall the population of females at higher education exceeds males, and particularly in professions where Care/People/Subject interests are maximized over Drive/Systems/Objects (clearly Engineering is the latter). In other words left to their own devices Males and a Females choose the paths they feel suit them better, but this is not sexism. We can even even find country patterns. Norway is amongst the most egalatrian places on earth. Most background variables affecting the sexes have been eliminated. But in Norway the differences between Male and Feale professions are even more sharply divided. They are free to follow their own paths, but those paths are the ones dictated by biology and not by a Feminists view of what they should be doing. 3) Rhetorically The Feminist rhetoric is normally abhorrent to those who treasure the Enlightenment. Hopefully my opponent can on this occasion be the exception to the rule. Normally anyone not representing the Feminist lines are slurred as Sexist and possibly other pejoratives. Amongst the present third-wave feminist movement, it is the norm to shame men for negative traits assigned by feminists to the entire male population. A reprehensible tactic, which if reversed would be rightly condemned by Females. The aim appears to be to shut down debate, and throw so much 'mud' at the opponent that something inevitably sticks. There is something decidedly sociopathic in this approach. But even on a deeper level Feminism fails rhetorically. Justice as a concept is transacted between individuals. I can be just to a fellow human, they can be just to me. But how can a whole population be just to another population? Most of the individuals within and between the populations do not know each other and are unaware of each other's existence. It is impersonal, and as such an impersonal process has no concept of justice or being just. Just like the price mechanism responds to demand and supply. It is impersonal and the price is the price, and cannot be judged as just or not. I do not blame my opponent particularly here, because no-one in the SJM has defined what Social Justice really is. It appears to be a set of hollow claims, without foundation in philosophy, empirical data or even in language. The people who are its mouthpiece want to claim victim status, whilst peddling leftist ideas. Until my opponent can demonstrate otherwise this is where we stand, and I conclude Feminism is absurd and deals in injustice not justice