The Feminist Movement has achieved all its goals, and is no longer needed, in the Western World.

First, I will demonstrate that women are no longer disadvantaged in the modern world by any metric, and then explain the reason behind the differences that do exist between men and women, and that do not exist due to inequality. So, let's talk about the standards using political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights, as were defined under the definition we used at the beginning. Political Rights: Rights which protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations and private individuals, and which ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression. Women have long since been capable of running for office. They have been since the Convention on the Political Rights of Women by the United Nations General Assembly in 1953. 20 countries have women holding office as heads of state. Furthermore, women are afforded the same rights to freedom of speech as anyone else. Economic, social and cultural rights: Socio-economic human rights, such as the right to education, right to housing, right to adequate standard of living, right to health and the right to science and culture. Again, here, everything mentioned is available to women. All children are given education, all people can own property, and all people are allowed scientific and cultural access. Personal rights: Rights that a person has over their own body. Among personal rights are associated rights to protect and safeguard the body, most obviously protected by the torts of assault and battery. Again, rape, assault, and battery are outlawed universally. All of that boils down to this: Women and men are both encompassed under the sphere of human rights, which affords women all the rights that should be given to people. Thus, equality has been obtained. Now, I'd like to counter a few common arguments against my premise pre-emptively. My opponent is under no obligation to argue these points, and if he does not wish to, he need only declare to that effect. If he does, he must address the issues I've raised. 1. Wage Gap The Wage Gap is an existing thing, I am not disputing its existence. However, I argue that it exists not due to injustice, but rather as a function of a free society. Women study and thus work in fields that simply don't pay as much. "Men are more likely to be lawyers, doctors and business executives, while women are more likely to be teachers, nurses and office clerks. This gender occupational segregation might be a primary factor behind the [gender] wage gap." [https://www.stlouisfed.org...] So, over the STEM fields and high-paying occupations, men are more interested in them, and women are interested in others. This is simply because we allow people to choose what they wish to do, and do not force them into anything. Men and women have separate interests, and that isn't a problem. Furthermore, even when men and women work in the same fields, women lose out in terms of salary as many women choose to take time off work to raise a family. This, again, is because we allow them to choose what they wish to do, and raising a family is a choice they make that doesn't discriminate against them, it simply recognizes the circumstances. 2. Male Privilege The simplest way to argue against this is statistics. -80% of suicide victims are male -93% of workplace fatalities are male -76% of homicide victims are male Privileged groups do not tend to kill themselves. Then, I also ask what precisely the 'privilege' of males entitles them to. If my opponent does choose to argue this point, I challenge them to answer that question. Good luck.