args

The feminism movement should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts

Con dedicates half his argument to the ridiculous idea that feminism is about convincing the World that women are as strong as men. This suggestion is a straw man argument designed to undermind both feminism and, to a degree, women. I am offended on their behalf. Let's deconstruct Con's argument: 1. Women have the "grandiose delusion" that they are as strong as men. 2. Feminism has pushed this agenda and "left a delusion on society" 3. Men are stronger than women. 4. Men are stronger than women. 5. Con "wouldn't even patronise a young child by insinuating they did not know such a self-evident fact" 6. Men are stronger than women. 7. Men are stronger than women. 8. Men are stronger than women. It seems that Con really does believe that he must fight this insidious straw man that feminism is apparantly foisting upon society; so much so, in fact, that despite not wanting to patronise a young child, he is happy to patronise both the gentle voter and me! Calm down, Con, calm down; don't worry, that scarecrow is dead. You killied it already. Stop kicking it! Don't worry, the scary straw man won't hurt you. Con asks "does my opponent believe there is any literature whatsoever that has a right to impede feminism?" and my answer can only be "no"; I am not familiar with the practice of extending rights to literature. But hey, Con, if you're really passionate, perhaps you could make up a banner and go protest "rights for books" alongside all those weak women campaigning for "Women are as strong as men". "Does the age of literature automatically void their worth?" - no. "Therefore, the pro resolution is essentially flawed." - no. We finally get, as Con says, to the crux. "One example I would like to give as to how Biblical text should unquestionably impede feminism, is in the matter of abortion rights" This is exactly the sort of nonsense that I expected to have to address when I created the debate. Let's talk about that, then. I think that I've demonstrated enough of a positive argument in R2 to accept the proposition from a World-wide perspective and Con offers no objection, apparantly, to the idea of educating and empowering women in poor countries far beyond their status in the middle east in the late Bronze Age. Now, then, we seem to be focusing on one particular aspect of life in the developed World. Let's roll. In the Bronze Age, people had sticks and stones (and bronze swords). Bronze Age Man had to protect his womenfolk, for fear of wasting his effort bringing up somebody else's kid. Women were virtually property of their fathers until they were married, then they were virtually property of their husbands... and their "purpose" was really very clear: they were glorified incubators. In Con's bible passage, we have two men fighting, one inducing labour by punching the other man's wife in the stomach. Welcome to the Bronze Age. I imagine that Bronze Age Man would have been concerned not by the complex emotional response of Bronze Age Woman in the passage Con cites but, rather, by the fact that "Ug broke my incubator". This kind of thinking may (that's for another debate) have been acceptable at the time, but it's the sort of thing that may still go on in some places in the World today and I can't see any place for it. I wonder, when I see Con thumping his chest and flexing his big manly muscles how far we've really come from the Bronze Age. I have a question for you, Con: Do you think that Bronze Age philosophy, spiritualism and morality might have been different if they had access to modern medicine? You know, contraceptives, morning-after-pills, scans, tech to assist in complicated births (infant mortality 0.5% not 50%), tech to predict illnesses, tech to tell if a woman has been raped, tech to tell who is who's father, tech to perform low pain, low risk abortions? Not to mention the cultural changes: liberated women who are allowed to vote, own property and choose where they go. I propose that whatever thoughts Bronze Age Man had on abortion (and I assure you that the passage cited is not talking about abortion), we should not unthinkingly adopt them. I simply fail to see the point that Con is making. I'll end by repeating Exodus 21:22-24 [1]: If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. [1] https://www.biblegateway.com...