The Feminist movement screwed women

Before I sum up the debate, I'd like to briefly talk about proof. Specifically, what constitutes a proof and what does not.Let us suppose that we want to prove the following statement: The Earth is flat.We have a few examples of evidence.------"My friend Bob told me that he saw the edge of the world on a sailing trip."Is this proof? No. One person's account of an event does not prove the event actually occurred. People are notoriously innaccurate, have poor memories and are prone to exageration and lying. Does this implicate the proposition? No. A secondhand account from a single person carries little weight in the realm of proof and implication. One person can easily mistake an event or lie about it altogether.------"When people travel far into the ocean, they sometimes disappear. This is because they fell off the Earth."Is this proof? No. You can have proof that people disappeared on a voyage, but this does not prove that they fell off the Earth. Does this implicate the proposition? No. There are a variety of possible events that could cause a ship to disappear -- only one of which is falling off the Earth. The fact that they disappeared does not indicate the manner in which they disappeared.------"Photographs surface of the Earth from space, showing it to be flat. These photographs were taken by multiple companies and right when private organizations were first allowed to go into space."Is this proof? No. These photographs could be edited or part of some large conspiracy or joke.Does this implicate the proposition? Yes, strongly. The fact that multiple companies independently took pictures of the Earth the first opportunity they got, all of which showed a flat Earth, strongly implies that the Earth may well be flat. While it is possible the images are fake, the sheer amount of evidence to the contrary makes that scenario unlikely. ------Now that you've seen those examples, you'll understand why the opponent's evidence does not prove the resolution, nor does it implicate the resolution. The EvidenceHere, we'll look at the evidence provided by the opponent and see what it does and doesn't prove. Suzanne Varker's Opinion PieceI argued that the opponent cannot speak for all women; that he cannot possibly know how all women feel and what all women believe.His response is, "At thus, I quoted a female." The female in question, Ms. Venker, wrote an opinion piece in which she argued that feminism has made women defensive and hateful towards men.In the "lack of proof" examples given above, one talked about Bob and how he swore that he "saw the edge of the Earth". We concluded that this was not proof that the Earth was flat, since Bob could have been lying or mistaken. Similarly, Ms. Venker's opinion on how all women feel is not proof that all women feel that way. She could be mistaken, lying or biased. One woman could not possibly know how all or even most women feel, nor could she speak for them. What's more, Venker is not an expert in the field of sociology, history or women's studies -- meaning she doesn't even have credibility as a scholar. Even worse, she is a reporter from the biased news organization, Fox News -- a place which commonly paints all "liberal ideas" with a broad and negative brush. Venker no more speaks for women than the opponent speaks for all DDO members. As such, her opinion does not constitute proof of the resolution, nor does it implicate it. -----------------------------------------Men want to marry less than they did beforeThe opponent provides an assumably accurate statistic showing that men have less of a desire to marry than they did before. The opponent then says this proves that feminism has caused men to lose interest in women. Again, looking to my second "flat earth" example above, we found that people "disappearing into the ocean" did not prove that they fell off of a flat Earth. Similarly, proving that men desire marriage less than 30 years ago does not prove that feminism is to blame. This is because there are many possibilites as to why this might be the case and that evidence alone does not implicate a reason. It is an effect that does not imply the cause. The opponent simply asserts that the cause is feminism, when in reality such an assertion cannot be upheld, much less proven. Additionally, this entire line of reasoning doesn't make sense. The opponent wishes to argue that "feminism has caused women to hate men", while simulataneously providing evidence proving that women desire marriage more now than they did in the past. If feminism was causing women to hate men, their desire to marry wouldn't increase. So not only does this evidence not constitute a proof, it doesn't even make logical sense. -----Many women are depressedThe opponent presents evidence showing that women are depressed, then draws the conclusion that this must be a result of feminism. This is the same faulty logic as the above evidence -- the effect does not implicate the cause. There could be any number of reasons why women are depressed, so we cannot just assume that feminism is to blame.The opponent includes a new piece of evidence, in which a Dr. Leibeluft explains that stress, seasonal changes and social rank affect men differently than women. She goes on to explain that this is because men and women have fundamentally different brains. The opponent goes on to imply that feminism has caused women a great amount of stress, since "men and women were built for different things".Importantly, he does not explain that leap of logic.It may be true that men and women experience things differently, but that does not imply that feminism has caused women significant levels of stress. I'm pretty sure the opponent essentially means, "Women are now trying to do 'man things', which causes them stress." This operates on the faulty assumption that there are tasks in this world that "only men can do", which is itself a sexist misconception. -----The opponent's last three pieces of evidence concerns marriage. The first is an opinion piece from a blog in which an Andrew Lantz claims that "marriage is slavery". This is one man's opinion and it is not representative of how all women feel and act. The idea is essentially that "marriage is now more risky for men because women have legal power". This may be true, but (a) it's not an issue for healthy marriages and (b) women having more legal power is not bad for women.The second piece is an opinion article (from another conservative news site, interestingly enough.) The article takes the statistic that 70% of men from 20-34 aren't married, then comes to a conclusion. Interestingly enough, this conclusion is that despite feminism, "men now set the standards and morrays" in a relationship. It basically argues that men are less romantic/interested in courtship than women, which is why marriage rates are declining. "Girls have to live by guys demands". Even this article doesn't blame feminism for the "marriage problem".The final piece of evidence is a blog Q&A that says looks matter. The opponent is assumably implying that "feminists choose to be ugly, which therefore hurts their chances of marriage."This implication is unfounded, ludicrous, and quite frankly, insulting. ConclusionWe've seen that the opponent has not provided evidence which proves feminism has hurt women. What's more, the evidence doesn't even imply that feminism has hurt women. The opponent has essentially taken a few opinion columns, some tangetially related statistics, then made an incredibly unfounded assumption that feminism is the root of all evil for women.Logical analysis has shown this is not true. Additionally, I've demonstrated that feminism has helpeed women tremendously. Any net benefit analysis will show that women are much better off than before feminism -- meaning that feminism has, on average, helped women.