Women leaders have a secret agenda to establish a Matriarchy, using feminism as a guiding force

Alright. This is my first debate on this site, so I'm nervous right now, especially since I'm generally insecure about my debating skills. Nevertheless, I will do my best. Good luck to both you and me.Before I argue those claims in detail, let me point out that you are severely misunderstanding the meaning of feminism. Your (common) understanding of feminism is female rights over male rights, while the proper and most basic definition of feminism is gender equality. Dictionary.com's longer definition of feminism is "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." Please do get that right, the definition isn't subjective!It seems that one of your main claims is that systemic sexism doesn't currently exist, and has instead reversed in favor of females. Systemic oppression of females has always and still exists at different levels all around the world. Sure, sexism towards men may have existed, but systemic oppression toward males has never and does not exist. The ultimate goal of feminists is to achieve gender equality, anything that surpasses that--that is, when one gender's powers and rights exceeds the other's--is no longer feminism, but gender-based oppression. Thus, women cannot "use feminism to establish matriarchy" or undermine male power/rights. That is now oppression, which, again, doesn't exist for men because women globally are not yet even "economically, politically, and socially equal to men" as you (and whoever you got that information from) say they are. Not even in the United States. In the regions of the Middle East and North Africa, East Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, only 17%, 19%, 27%, 19%, 23%, respectively, of their parliaments are held by women in 2014 (http://datatopics.worldbank.org...). In the hypothetical situation that there is an equal representation of both genders in any parliament, both genders would of course comprise of about half of any parliament's members. Yet women's presence in contemporary parliaments rarely even exceed 25%. Now consider the gender pay gaps that also exists globally: (http://www.theguardian.com...) In all the major countries of the world, women are paid less than men, which is quintessential of gender inequality. With and because of these gender gaps, women continue to be seen as less than men, and thus will continue to be oppressed by them. And while oppression towards women remains existent, women continue to risk gender-based violence, which several times are unjustly overlooked by authorities, leaving women to suffer longer than they need to. Consider the female rape victims around the world that don't receive public sympathy simply because they are female. That is, because females tend to be seen as sluts, and because of it, deserve to be raped. That's 1 in 5 females in the U.S. alone who are at such a risk (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). Additionally, 30% of women who have been in a relationship experienced sexual or phsyical violence by their partner (http://www.who.int...). And around the world (mostly in Iran, India, and Pakistan, where systemic oppression towards women are the most dangerous), there are about 1,500 acid-attacks primarily on women and children, where acid is deliberately thrown on their faces by men (http://www.bbc.com...). Such injustice occurs because women aren't empowered, which is precisely why we need feminism; so that women's rights can no longer be abused and so that women can be seen as equal to men. The fact that you believe gender inequality no longer exists is, to me, extraordinarily baffling and quite ludicrous, so I apologize for throwing all those statistics at you, but I felt they were most necessary. Please research more into it, rather than creating hypotheticals! This is a genuine request.To paraphrase a large part of our argument, you also believe that women--at least those in power--are oppressive, narrow-minded, fascistic, and somehow plotting together to undermine male rights and powers in "secret" So you're saying that no one but females, primarily, know that this plan, or "agenda," exists and are all working together in support of it. But I am female, my strongly feminist friends are female, and many of my feminist teachers are female. I live in a largely liberal area, and I have never heard of such endeavors, nor have I even imagined it! Again, feminists don't wish to undermine men's rights/powers; if they do, then they aren't feminists at all. You referred to Hillary Clinton as a part of this "agenda" but here's a quote from her: "If women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish. And when families flourish, communities and nations will flourish" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). Here, Hillary Clinton does not at all wish to overpower men, but simply to rid of any existing gender inequality in disfavor of women and stand alongside of men as "equal partners in society." You also mentioned that "if a women such as Hillary Clinton would have to give back presidential office to the hands of the 'oppressive' patriarchy, she could cancel presidential elections by stripping your constitutional rights through the logical fallacy that is Martial Law." First of all, she was never the president; in fact, as you very well know, there has never been a female president, hence why feminism exists in the first place. Second, I can assure you that she, and any other president, will never be able to commit such totalitarianistic actions given the strictly structured government the Framers created for the US. Our government's three branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--are all checked and balanced by each other. The executive branch (which includes the president) doesn't possess any formal legislative powers besides his veto power. There is the executive agreement, which allows the president to make treaties without congressional consent, and the executive order, which allows the president to make law also without congressional approval. But both aren't very powerful arguments as one is irrelevant; the other, rare, highly scrutinized, and lacks enough power to actually "cancel presidential elections," which would undeniably undermine the Constitution, which then could easily be grounds for a presidential impeachment. In fact, if Obama had any real legislative powers, he would have been able to pass so many of his laws, but he is mostly rendered inefficient and incapable of doing anything because of the largely Republican Congress (the legislative branch) that almost always opposes him and his proposed legislations. So no, women, just like males, cannot so easily undermine the very scared doctrine that is the Constitution. The closest way of doing so would be interpreting the Constitution, which only the Supreme Court has the power to do. I am concerned about your cruel (and quite offensive) depiction of feminist women as oppressive, narrow-minded, and fascistic. Feminists only wish for equality; if you see any woman, or anyone for that matter, advocating for a single gender's rights over those of the other, then by all means, call them out. But that's not what feminists are.And yes, women may "favor one social aspect and execute another," just like any person may. Not all women agree on the same exact set of beliefs--by implying so, you are stereotyping women. All individual women have their own set of beliefs distinct from other women. Of course, large groups of women may agree on some things, but again, large groups of people in general do. And woman can't well execute their beliefs because they don't dominate the media, like you said they do, since women only make up a mere 30% of the total journalists in the US. (http://www.theguardian.com...)