A Buddhist, a Muslim, and a Jew Walk into a Bar

What it Takes to be a Spiritual Leader

The United States Army concept of leadership under which I was trained defined the four types of authority under which a leader may operate, as well as the types of power which a leader might wield.  Of the four types of authority, charismatic authority is the only authority with no external prerequisites.  Coincidentally, of the many types of power defined, one of them is charismatic.  There are many roads a person may travel which lead them to become a spiritual leader, and there are many attributes which may help them to be effective.  But there is one trait they absolutely must develop if they are to have any success at all.  In order to be an effective spiritual leader, they must have charisma.

Buddha was born a prince, and was “raised in great physical comfort (shielded) from human suffering” (Harter 1-1545).  Jesus was born the son of a carpenter.   It was a respectable occupation with a good future, but his family had to flee their homeland soon after he was born because of the persecution of the local government (Holy Bible Mathew 2:13).  Mohammed was born under the least hospitable conditions.  He was an orphan and for that he was rejected even by the wet nurses (Ishaq 2-135).

Each of these men had a very different life path ahead of him at birth, and they all travelled wildly different roads, yet they all made a similar contribution to humanity.  They each founded (or caused to be founded) a major religion.  These three men now have (collectively) over 3.6 billion followers (Robinson).  That is over half of the world's population.  The only similarity between these men was the courage of their convictions and the ability to convince others to follow.

A leader, by definition, provides purpose, direction, and motivation to achieve some goal.  One of the most effective methods of providing motivation is to convince the group that what they seek they will find if they follow your lead.  This requires the group to leave its comfort zone, for if it did not then the group would already have what it seeks.  Most people don't like to leave their comfort zone, which is why they have a tendency to wait around for shepherds to show them the way.  The additional prodding of the leader is designed to motivate them towards their ultimate goal: spiritual fulfillment.

For the spiritual leader, often the purpose of a group is pre-defined by the spiritual expectations of the group.  The group likely lacks direction, however, and this lack of direction leads to a feeling of hopelessness where spiritual growth is concerned.  It is from this spiritual malaise that a leader often emerges, and teaches the flock to reevaluate their beliefs.  Though the group may want a leader that will change their external situation, the change introduced is usually internal. Buddha taught that to escape the cycle of life and death we must change who we are by following the Eightfold Path (Basham 1-1558).

Part of a spiritual leader's charisma is their compassion for their fellow Man.  Jesus taught his followers to “love (their) enemies, and pray for their persecutors” (Holy Bible Mathew 5:44).  It was no small request, since persecution was common.  The great majority of spiritual leaders whom history remembers are revolutionaries.  Their purpose is to overthrow the status quo, and it is this aspect which puts them at odds with the powers that be.  Mohammed was actually seen as an enemy of the people because he spoke against the polytheistic views of the established religion (Ishaq  141).

The current establishment is ineffective at providing the leadership to help people reach spiritual fulfillment, else there would be no need for a new leader to rise.  However, the new leader is bereft of the power of the establishment.  Not only is he without the authentic authority of the established leadership, he must have something which convinces those who would follow to break with traditional leadership at the risk of persecution or even death.

Expert power may bolster a leader’s charisma.  Luke tells of a young Jesus who was so well versed in the scriptures that he could hold his own against the scribes of the temple (Holy Bible Luke 2:49).  The story is (perhaps) embellished by Mark, who follows it up with a story of young Jesus casting a demon out of a man (Holy Bible Mark 1:25), but purpose of the story is to establish the authority of Jesus.  Expert power revolves around what a person knows and what a person can do.  But it is not necessary to the spiritual leader.

Mohammed was reported to be an illiterate (Harter 2-98) who would be unable to have any direct knowledge of the scriptures, unless of course he were able to convince his followers that his knowledge came directly from a divine messenger.  And since these revelations were in direct contradiction of the current understanding of the divine, it required a tremendous amount of charisma to gain followers willing to risk their lives.

One can only presume that these men were absolutely certain in the validity of the things they said.  The strength of that belief gave power to their charisma.  In a land of confusion, people will follow the man who seems to know what he is talking about.  This is a very dangerous trait of mankind, one which other leaders (Hitler, Stalin, Bush, et al) have abused to the great detriment of our species.  They have all preyed upon some longing in the spirit of those that follow.  Tragedies like Jonestown and Waco are grim reminders of what happens when people put their faith in the words of Man.

In order to be an effective spiritual leader one need not be well versed in religious texts, though it helps.  One need not be touched by the hand of God, though the fire in one’s eyes may help convince the leery.   One need not have wealth or power.  One need not even preach peace and harmony; there are those that will follow.  But a spiritual leader, like any leader, must have charisma.  A hammer can build a house, or it can bludgeon a skull.  Charisma, too, is a double edged sword.  Whether the benefits gained from the teachings of men like Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed outweigh the tragedies perpetrated in their names remains to be seen.

---

Works Cited

Basham, A.L.  “Samyutta Nikaya”, Bedford Anthology of World Literature. Ed. Paul Davis, et al. Book 1. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. 1558-1559.

Harter, Alanya.  “Buddhist Texts, Fourth Century B.C.E.-First Century C.E.”, The Bedford Anthology of World Literature. Ed. Paul Davis, et al. Book 1. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. 1543-1548.

Harter, Alanya.  “The Qur’an”, The Bedford Anthology of World Literature. Ed. Paul Davis, et al. Book 2. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. 97-105.

Holy Bible: King James Version.  Holman Bible Publishers: Nashville, 1982.

Ishaq, Muhammad Ibn. “The Life of Muhammed.” The Bedford Anthology of World Literature. Ed. paul Davis, et al. Book 2. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. 134-157.

Robinson, B.A.  World Religions.   2009.  17 Nov. 2009. .

Debate: You are better off buying a pet from a breeder

 Transcripts of an online debate between myself and another.

(I take the Con)

I thank my opponent for her impassioned, albeit narrowly focused, response.

My opponent has certainly made some interesting arguments to support her position.  And, while it is refreshing to read of someone who has such faith in a group of people, many of her assertions are such broad generalizations that I cannot accept them as valid.

She is assigning qualities to an entire set based on her interactions with an extremely small subset.  She has, it would seem, had some excellent interactions with the breeders with which she was worked.  Indeed, she has had such wonderful experiences that she desires to be a breeder.  Certainly she would not think ill of a group of people she wants to join.

Having personally known three, and wanting to become one myself, I can say with total certainty that reputable, well-meaning breeders exist. These are the ones I am defending.

It is quite understandable and simple human nature to assign certain characteristics to an entire group of people based on the first experiences with a particular member of the set.  The implication is that she has had negative interactions with what few shelters she has dealt with (if any).  She has offered no indication on what merit she judges the entire set of shelters or the entire set of breeders.

So, while it heartens me to know that one can have such a string of successes in ones interactions with a subset of society, I know that this does not give one proof of the characteristics of the rest of the set.  My opponent clearly stated in her instigating round that if one uses statistics, one has to cite sources.  Granted, numeric statistics have not been used, but implied statistics (making sweeping statements without qualification) have been used repeatedly without any citations whatsoever except her limited experience.

These are all sweeping generalizations my opponent has made without providing foundation:

• Shelters don’t ensure this. They do not even try.
• There is no screening process whatsoever.
• They do not care where these animals go, or where they end up.
• Breeders are selective about who owns their animals, because they truly care about the individuals that they raised from birth.
• [Breeders] are helping the entire species, by(...) ensuring that each and every one of their animals goes to a loving home.
• If an animal bred by a breeder cannot find a home, for any reason, the breeder will keep them as a pet, and the animal will receive just as much affection and care as their prize champions.
• And I say with utmost certainty and conviction that this would never have happened had Mr. Fluffy been born to a breeder.

Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of many things that were not so.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Specific Refutations

Some people simply do not have the time and patience to tame a feral cat, or train a hyperactive dog.

Of course they don't.  But people who do not have time to train a hyperactive dog should also not get a Jack Russel Terrier from the breeder, correct?  People who do not have time and patience should get a digital aquarium.  Any kind of dog needs training, regardless of the source.  That is why a pet is a commitment.

It is not difficult to quickly ascertain the personality of an animal.  Is it socialized?  Is it hyper?  Is it aggressive?  Is it scared of people?  I am no animal expert, but even I can figure these out in a few minutes of interaction with the animal.  And, while it can certainly be said that an animal might exhibit other traits once brought to the home, it cannot be said that this is particular to rescue animals.

Any pet-quality pedigree is spayed or neutered.

Pro gives no evidence to support her claim.

I have never adopted an animal in which neutering was not a requirement.  Any of the links to shelters and animal societies I have included on this page will show that most shelters have a policy towards neutering.  Even if Pro's unfounded assertion is true, it does not differentiate the breeder from the shelter in a positive way.

Instead of letting these animals be adopted, shelters kill them. This is a practice that I simply cannot condone.

I won't argue that animals are not euthanized.  But if you do not condone the practice, then do something about it.  Quit breeding animals, neuter the ones you have, and adopt instead of purchase.  Purebred animals account for 30% of the animals in shelters [2].  Even if this were not the case, your judgement is unfair.  You assert (I disagree, with caveat) that some animals are too far gone to be rehabilitated and so should not be adopted, then you criticize the shelters for not letting them be adopted.  And your solution to this is to breed more animals?  You are putting fresh paint on rotted wood.  Your solution only hides the problem.

Furthermore, shelters create a cycle. People buy animals on a whim. Let’s say a puppy.  They buy it thinking it’s cute, and don’t take it to the veterinarian.

First, let me reiterate that shelters do far more than you seem willing to give them credit for.  A good shelter[3] will have animals checked by veterinarians and inoculated before adoption[4], and those that don't will likely have a veterinary visit as a stipulation of adoption.  Though my experience is not all inclusive, I have adopted animals from three different shelters (two in Missouri and one in Alabama) and worked with one shelter closely (in Oklahoma).  Two of these provided the inoculations and veterinary checkups and charged a flat fee, while the other two required that a document from a licensed veterinarian be returned within a month, stating the neutering, vaccinations, and examinations had been performed.

Second, the assertion that people never buy a purebred puppy on a whim is outlandish at best.  That is why there are so many purebreds in shelters.  If someone wants a puppy, they won't likely go to a shelter, because shelters have mostly adult animals[7].

There is nothing wrong with wanting to know the history of your animal. If I bought a dog that belonged to Michael Vick, I’d like to know about it. And a shelter would not be able to tell me.

Yeah, they would.  And it is proof against your assertion that some animals are too far gone for training[8].  I did not contradict myself, perhaps you had trouble parsing my statement, and that is my fault.  I said that a dog that was genetically inclined to be aggressive and then trained to be aggressive may or may not be trained away from it.  I know how hard it is to overcome genetic tendencies, and so I have to stipulate that some dogs, because of reinforced genetics, will not be successfully rehabilitated.

I asserted that dogs that have only been trained to be aggressive can always be re-trained.  It takes time and love and patience, and so people that just have money should probably stay away from it. It has taken three years of love and affection with constant positive reinforcement, but fifteen of Michael Vick's dogs, that some experts said should have been put down, are successfully being rehabilitated.  John Garcia, the manager of the Best Friends Animal Society, asserts that even dogs that have been bred and reinforced can be restored.

A veterinarian simply cannot screen for every single genetic disease known to feline kind.

Nope.  But by your own assertion breeders can only tell you if there is a history of the disease in the family.  So, does one take a chance on the animal?  Then what difference does it make that you knew the family history?  Does one refuse to take a chance on the animal?  Then why did the breeders breed an animal that had a history of disease?

I am, perhaps, old fashioned in thinking it is not always best to know the future.  What choices would my parents have made if they could have seen what a genetic tendency I had to be a problem child?  What choices would a man make if he knew his fiancee' comes from a history of cancer?  One takes a chance getting out of bed in the morning.  The only certainty in life is that we don't make it out alive.  Not being able to stack the deck is not a good reason to not play the game.

The only way to stop pets from going to shelters is to ensure that they really do go to good, loving homes.  Shelters don’t ensure this. They do not even try. Literally anyone with $200 in their pocket can buy an animal from a shelter.  There is no screening process whatsoever. They do not care where these animals go, or where they end up.

I have already given evidence of the absurdity of the claim that shelters do not try to place animals in a good home.  And to say that the people do not even care is hateful, to say the least.  The people I have worked with are some of the most selfless, caring individuals I have ever met that give of their time, money, and heart to help these animals out.  Shame on my opponent for making such a statement.

The logic here is that, [referring to the high cost of purchasing from a breeder] if you can afford to buy the pet initially, then you can afford to feed it, too. And as it grows up, you can afford to take it to the vet for shots. And if something happens, you can afford to take care of that as well.

First, by saying 'if something happens' you support my contention that not even knowing the family history or genetic makeup of an animal is proof of future health or behavior.

Second, the amount of money a person has is not related to the morality of a person.  Just because a person HAS the money to take care of a pet is no indication that they WILL take care of the pet.

But shelters are like a band-aid on a broken bone.

Yeah, but if all you have is a band-aid, you do what you can.  That is still better than sitting on the sidelines saying, "It shouldn't be like this."  The fact is, it IS like this.

My opponent’s arguments in the previous round have mainly been emotional. He makes a valid point that animals in shelters are in immediate need.

But that is what the debate is about, right?  The emotional impact of adopting a pet versus buying a breed?  We're not talking about show animals, we are talking about pets.

I would argue that buying a pet is also an investment. It's an emotional investment.

I completely agree.  It is an investment.  And what gives someone the highest payoff to my emotional investment?  I suppose that depends on the type of person they are.

I am the kind of person that can see the world as a flawed place, knowing that I will probably never change all of it (a hard lesson for me to learn), will still try to make it a little better each day.  Helen Keller said that, "I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do[9].  It is hard, and it is sometimes frustrating, and often the only reward I get is that I respect the man I see shaving every morning.  But that is enough.  That is more than enough.

I get a very good feeling when I have helped someone or something.  I am filled with compassion when I see the plight of shelter animals.  I am filled with gratefulness that I have had the pleasure to share my love with such wonderful creatures, creatures that may have died had I not stepped in.  The emotional return on my investments has been enormous.

Conclusion:
Many of the reasons that Pro has given have largely been unfair and unfounded generalizations.  I have shown how she is mistaken in her portrayal of shelters, and so such comparisons can not be used to make the case that it is better for someone to purchase from a breeder than adopt from a shelter.

I agree with Pro that responsible breeders are not the same as puppy mills, but I disagree with her sweeping conclusion that they are all as wonderful as those with which she has come in contact.  I agree with pro that many animals are euthanized every day in America.  I disagree that the solution is to purposefully breed more animals.  Pro asserts that the breeders are happy to provide a loving home for all the animals that they breed.  If this is true, I suggest they be left to it, and everyone else go rescue an animal from their local shelter.

This debate is about the positive return one receives from buying a bred animal compared to rescuing an animal in need.  Granted, this has much to do with the type of person someone is, but if someone has any kind of a heart, then the emotional return they get from helping an animal in need and providing a loving home most likely is greater than that from taking a pet from an already loving home.

I know I am better off from having rescued any of my animals, and so I urge the audience to vote Con.


[1] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/oliverwend166780.html
[2] http://www.petrescue.com/petlibrary/pet-rescue/spay-or-neuter-your-pet/
[3] http://www.petfinder.com/for-shelters/benchmarks-good-shelter-1.html
[4] http://www.adoptapet.com/adoption_rescue/79797.html
[5] http://cats.lovetoknow.com/Ragdoll_Cat_Rescue
[7] http://www.animalwelfaresociety.org/adpt_adopt_dogs.html
[8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/31/michael-vick-dogs-pit-bulls_n_816246.html#s232910
[9] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/helen_keller.html#ixzz1mHU0ogjc

Jesus Preached Tolerance Debate, Rd 1 and 2

Transcripts from an online debate between myself, claiming Jesus preached tolerance, and another.

Resolved:  Jesus preached tolerance

Round 1:  Pro (me)

Rd 1: Acceptance

Rd 2: Initial Arguments
Rd 3: Rebuttal, Supporting Arguments
Rd 4: Final Rebuttal, Closing Statements (no new arguments)

Definitions:

tol·er·ance   [1]
noun

1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.

3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

preach [2]
verb (used with object)
1. to proclaim or make known by sermon (the gospel, good tidings, etc.).

2. to deliver (a sermon).
3. to advocate or inculcate (religious or moral truth, right conduct, etc.) in speech or writing.

I am willing to stipulate that any red letter version of the Bible accurately represents the words of Jesus. I will not get into semantic arguments based on possible translation errors.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/preached

Round 1: Con (my opponent)

I accept. Thank you for picking such a great topic.

Round 2: Pro

I thank my opponent for taking up this challenge. I know that it can be difficult objectively arguing a position about which one feels passionately, but I look forward to a reasoned discussion about this subject.

It is important to note the distinction between the two statements, "Christianity is a tolerant religion" and, "Jesus preached tolerance." There are so many flavors of Christianity I think it is fair to say that they represent different interpretations of the Bible. Since Paul was one of the most prolific writers in the New Testament, having written thirteen of the thirty-nine books, much of the interpretation of what Christianity is can be directly linked to the interpretation that the apostle Paul outlines in his letters. Paul was not a tolerant person. Having changed his path late in life, he was very zealous in outlining what he thought the course of the church should be. Although it is understood that he perceived his believes to be of divine inspiration, the facts remain that he never once met Jesus in the flesh, never once heard him preach, and never once asked Jesus what he meant.

So, though it can be said that Christianity (or at least some applications of Christianity) are not tolerant, and some will even boast that it is thus, it can not be said that Jesus preached intolerance based on the application of the people who say follow him. Instead, we must look to the words of the man himself, and for the purpose of this discussion I have stipulated that the red-letter editions of bibles accurately represent the words of Jesus.

A good test of tolerance[1] is to determine whether a person can stand for something to happen different than it has always been done. The intolerant mind stands on a dogma that likely existed long before the person was able to form their own thought and now, with their reliance on dogma, the intolerant still have difficulty forming their own thoughts. The original purpose for the rule or procedure has been lost to posterity, but at the same time it has gained some mystical authority. Many of the rules and regulations in the Old Testament were, arguably, necessary when they were written, in order to ensure the survival of the tribe.

But when Jesus was confronted with these outdated laws[2] he rebuked the Pharisees for focusing on trivial things (like how to wash a pot, et al) and forgetting the important things. He said it wasn't what a person ate that made them unclean, but how they acted. And what is Jesus most central teaching about how we should behave? That we should love one and other, including our enemies. That we should take care of each other, even if we disagree[3].

Another test of tolerance [1] is whether a person has a permissive attitude towards others or prefers to force them into a lifestyle 'for their own good.' The intolerant seem to think it is their venue to stop others from living in a way that does not live up to their dogma, but that is not what Jesus said. Jesus taught that we were not meant to shun or despise others or to persecute them for their actions. Even if their actions negatively affected us we were to forgive them without resistance[4] and love them anyway. Jesus specifically said that we were to love those with whom we disagreed or that who had wronged us, because "Even a bad man loves his friends."[5]

Forcefully proclaiming how the world should act based on their interpretation of the Bible is not in accordance with the words of Jesus. One of the most egregious displays of intolerance, picketing the funerals of fallen soldiers because they do not agree with the lifestyles that others choose, is most definitely not in accordance with Jesus' words. This type of grandstanding is anathema to Jesus, based on his words. He said that acting out in public like that, proclaiming one's faith in public or declaring that one represents the moral authority of God, is hypocritical. He said that people who do that have their reward[6].

To instead store up reward in heaven, apostles are charged to be like the lilies of the field[7] meaning roughly they should not sweat the small stuff. God will take care of it. It is not the place of man to judge man, but rather to focus on being the best person one can be. According to Jesus, the energy it takes to be intolerant of others takes away from the energy one should be using to focus on being a better person[8].


“Christianity might be a good thing if anyone ever tried it.” ~George Bernard Shaw

[1] Definition of tolerance from round one.
[2] Mark 7
[3] Luke 10:30-37
[4] Matthew 5:39-42
[5] Matthew 5:44-48
[6] Mathew 6:5-8
[7] Matthew 7:3-5

Round 2: Con

My Initial Arguments: Jesus did not preach tolerance. Below are all the commands of Christ. I have unpacked the commands that often get misquoted for the context of tolerance-
Repent—Matthew 4:17

• Follow Me—Matthew 4:19
• Rejoice—Matthew 5:12
• Let Your Light Shine—Matthew 5:16
• Honor God’s Law—Matthew 5:17–18
• Be Reconciled—Matthew 5:24–25
• Do Not Commit Adultery—Matthew 5:29–30
• Keep Your Word—Matthew 5:37
• Go the Second Mile—Matthew 5:38–42
• Love Your Enemies—Matthew 5:44 (Does not teach tolerance, but love. They are still an enemy.)
• Be Perfect—Matthew 5:48
• Practice Secret Disciplines—Matthew 6:1–18
• Lay Up Treasures—Matthew 6:19–21
• Seek God’s Kingdom—Matthew 6:33
• Judge Not—Matthew 7:1 (Does not teach Tolerance, but humility. See Romans 2)
• Do Not Cast Pearls—Matthew 7:6   ( The opposite of tolerance. Keep what is holy as holy. Don't just give it to the faithless (referd to as swine and dogs).)
• Ask, Seek, and Knock—Matthew 7:7–8Do Unto Others—Matthew 7:12 (Not tolerance. Patience and temperance.Tolerance teaches that I leave you alone. Patience teaches that I persue out of love and mercy
  for as long as it takes.)
• Choose the Narrow Way—Matthew 7:13–14
• Beware of False Prophets—Matthew 7:15
• Pray For Laborers—Matthew 9:38
• Be Wise as Serpents—Matthew 10:16
• Fear God, Not Man—Matthew 10:26
• Hear God’s Voice—Matthew 11:15
• Take My Yoke—Matthew 11:29
• Honor Your Parents—Matthew 15:4
• Beware of Leaven—Matthew 16:6
• Deny Yourself—Luke 9:23
• Despise Not Little Ones—Matthew 18:10 (Does not teach tolerance. Teaches patience for Christians who have fallen away from the faith.)
• Go to Offenders—Matthew 18:15 (The opposite of tolerance.)
• Beware of Covetousness—Luke 12:15
• Forgive Offenders—Matthew 18:21–22
• Honor Marriage—Matthew 19:6
• Be a Servant—Matthew 20:26–28
• Be a House of Prayer—Matthew 21:13
• Ask in Faith—Matthew 21:21–22
• Bring in the Poor—Luke 14:12–14
• Render to Caesar—Matthew 22:19–21
• Love the Lord—Matthew 22:37–38
• Love Your Neighbor—Matthew 22:39
• Await My Return—Matthew 24:42–44
• Take, Eat, and Drink—Matthew 26:26–27
• Be Born Again—John 3:7
• Keep My Commandments—John 14:15
• Watch and Pray—Matthew 26:41
• Feed My Sheep—John 21:15–16
• Baptize My Disciples—Matthew 28:19 
• Receive God’s Power—Luke 24:49 
• Make Disciples—Matthew 28:20 (The opposite of tolerance)

http://www.sermoncentral.com/pastors-preaching-articles/tim-keller-preaching-hell-in-a-tolerant-age-752.asp
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/5399112165.html


My final point for this round of the debate:

Matthew
10:34. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
35 "For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law';36 "and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'

Feminism Debate: Round 1

The assertion that feminism has reached a point that it causes more harm than good is false.  There are many logical fallacies why this claim might be made, but they do not hold up under scrutiny.  Much circumstantial and anecdotal evidence might be given to support such claims, but they beg the question as to whether feminism is the cause of the evidence. 

The facts will show that equality of the sexes has not been reached in this country, let alone much of the rest of the world.  That this lofty goal has not been met does not imply that feminism failed, nor does it imply that feminism succeeded but that this is as close as we can get to equality.  The facts only show we have far to go; not as far as we once did, of course, but still miles to go before we sleep.

A June 2010 report by the U.S. Department of Labor(1)  read that, in 2009, women who were full time salary or wage employees earned only 80% of their male counterparts.  Though the gap is less than in 1979 (where they earned 62% of males), it can in no way be considered the best we can do.

Of course economic earnings are hardly the only factor to determine equality, and was not the prime cause that gave rise to the feminist movement.  The prime cause, the overarching grievance of the movement, is oppression. 

Feminism is grounded on the belief that women are oppressed or disadvantaged by comparison with men, and that their oppression is in some way illegitimate or unjustified. (2)

So it is not the equality of incomes that will signify the success of the feminist movement, but the eradication of all oppression against women.  Oppression is the flipside of liberty, and liberty can be gaged by choices.  Women today have many more choices than they did even twenty years ago, and so I concede that the yoke of oppression is lighter, but it has not been thrown off.

The roots of sexism go back thousands of years.  The patriarchal societies in which women have sought to thrive can point to their holy books to give ‘proof’ of the subservient role that women are supposed to assume.  Men who were comfortable with their role as breadwinners and protectors were taken aback by women who asserted their authority and power.  Many men lost their identity as a direct result of women redefining theirs, but that is not a failure of the movement, it is a failure of the men. 

Women struggled mightily to define themselves apart from their traditional roles, because it was those roles, in part, that were keeping them shackled to the past.  Women shattered the notion that they could be only housewives or secretaries.  Then they shattered the notion that there were any jobs that could only be fulfilled by males.  It wasn’t inferiority that made it difficult for women to break into the military, the police, the firefighters, et al.  It was the stubborn refusal of the male mindset to change.

We came very close already to running a female for the Presidency, and I anticipate we will have a First Husband in my lifetime.  But having women in such places of power does not mean that there is no more sexism any more than having a black President means there is no more racism.  It means we have come far, but the race is not run just because you can see the finish line.

Though there is much good yet for the feminist movement to accomplish, my opponent will also argue that the movement does more harm than good.  The hardships and failures that inevitably result from any evolutionary process in no way indicate that the struggle is not worth it.  It is always difficult when someone in power has to give up some of that power.  Many women, perhaps, have abused their newly claimed power but, considering the thousands of year of oppression, there is no indication that more harm is being caused than good.

---

(1)U.S. Department of Labor, 2010, Highlights of Women's Earnings in 2009, 1/25/2012,  Meridianville, AL, www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2009.pdf

(2)James, Susan. 1998. “Feminism.” In Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 10. London: Routledge, p. 576.