args

Modern Feminism Is Pointless

1) This is not a debate regarding the ethics of abortion. But the legalization of abortion isn't an issue of female superiority. The lukewarm rape exception completely spits on the rest of the anti-abortion arguments. You say killing an unborn child is murder? Well, what aspect of rape makes it non-murder? Abortion is immoral? How does the pregnancy's origin somehow make it moral? Nobody ever says why abortion is a must in those cases and not others. The anti-abortioners just don't want to see someone getting off (ha) scot-free. But really, a rape victim gets an abortion for the same reason as the girl whose condom broke: they don't want a child. "Take responsibility" is purely an emotional opinion. Should we restrict treatment for smokers' lungs because "they knew there was a risk of it physically happening"? Sure, keeping it may seem more humble and responsible, but the fact that abortion is lazy isn't enough of a reason to illegalize it. 2) Well, yes, the feminist movement needs a major overhaul. But, in case you weren't able to tell for the entirety of the debate, I have been referring to the philosophy of But really, a rape victim gets an abortion for the same reason as the girl whose condom broke: they don't want a child. "Take responsibility" is purely an emotional opinion. Should we restrict treatment for smokers' lungs because "they knew there was a risk of it physically happening"? Sure, keeping it may seem more humble and responsible, but the fact that abortion is lazy isn't enough of a reason to illegalize it. 2) Well, yes, the feminist movement needs a major overhaul. But, in case you weren't able to tell for the entirety of the debate, I have been referring to the philosophy of feminism, not its visibly notorious practices of some current members. I don't know where feminism has insisted its problems are worse than others, and the facts you've shown to "prove" feminism is awry aren't even the faults of feminism. You never specified how Jodi Arias, lazy servicewomen who don't want to combat, and women making their husbands lose their property are products of feminism. They appear to be merely products of anti-man sexism. And of course it's not necessary to start a national protest when a woman is wronged, but when women at large are systematically wronged for an injustice directly related to being a woman, there's a problem that needs to be addressed. 3) "Prove the stereotypes wrong" is an utterly problematic argument. It's still unequal--under this approach, a man can act how he wants and not have that impact how he's viewed as a gender, but a woman will have to conform to specific ideals in order to look "respectable." It also shifts the blame--instead of answering accusations of sexism with "Oh, I have a really crappy view of women as a gender, I should change," it's changed to "Well, your group has a crappy view, YOU should change." Um, what were the women doing wrong in the first place? If anything, the prejudiced folks are the lazy ones demanding respect without changing themselves. It also stereotypes women and puts them into a limiting, defining box--under this approach, if some women are prominent and successful, then all of them have the potential to be viewed that way. The right to equality is determined by society's impression of women, not from merely being a human like everyone else. If that's not prejudiced, I don't know what is. The point? By being people, we're all entitled to the basic birthright of respect. There's no "working for" something deserved by default. Let's quit the bizarre justifications and start being decent human beings.