Pro vs. con view
1031 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

CON

  • CON

    And since we have no control over social attitudes, then...

    The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

    Oh man, have I been barking up the wrong tree. It seems my opponents premise was referring to society as a whole, and so free will has no real place in this debate, boy is my face red!!!!! Ya, because society is made up of a mass of preprogrammed mandroids who have no control over social attitudes. And since we have no control over social attitudes, then we must not have control over how social attitudes affect our individual relationships (assuming we have individual relationships, because my opponent has proven that all of our relationships are a public matter and we have no control over it on an individual basis). I should have read his premise more thoroughly, then I would have noticed the word "society" was clearly present. Sorry for the misunderstanding!!! Just in case you didn't realize, this entire paragraph is sarcasm! All of a sudden, this debate is meaningless on an individual basis and only refers to society as a whole!?! If I may quote my opponent here "my opinion has been formed over an eight year relationship with marriage and two children and I think its hard for anyone to have a legitimate opinion on these matters without such an experience; not that this experience gives you the right opinion, I am not suggesting I am right because of my experience. My relationship experience has taught me however, to get back on track, that women are better suited to childcare and housekeeping. My partner takes far more pride in appearance than I do, and this is common across the board, she loves furnishings, decoration and patterns, to make the house look attractive: she will dress the kids smartly and always dislikes how I dress them: she will sit for ages and clean their ears, pick spots, etc and has the patience to play for prolonged periods and be comforting." ***************Ummm, this all sounds like some very personal information and my opponent admits that it is his personal experience that has formed his opinion. My opponent began his argument from the basis of his relationship, but out of nowhere claims that this debate has nothing to do with individual relationships and it only pertains to society as a whole. I remain categorically unconvinced. You need to try harder to convince me that social attitudes affect my relationship more so than I am able to!! I fail to see what point my opponent is trying to make when he talks about "the influence of technological, social and interlectual factors. He claims that these factors take place outside of the individuals control. Of course they do! Beside our bodily functions, ALL factors take place outside of our control. As individuals, we choose to react to these factors. Our choice is still the defining factor here!! What technological factors is my opponent talking about anyway? Is he trying to claim that we are being controlled by our phones and tablets and laptops? It is our CHOICE to engage in technology, it is our choice to let certain information influence us on our additudes. I don't know of any technology that physically drills ideas and attitudes into our head without our consent, and if this technology does exist, I would recommend not using it. Just a suggestion though, it's your choice in the end! I question my opponents idea on the "natural order of things" concept, and I question how "relationship satisfaction" has anything to do with egalitarian attitudes. Is my opponent suggesting that what society thinks about our relationship is the dominant factor for "relationship satisfaction"? If consenting adults enter into a relationship, then the feelings they have or do not have for each other is the dominant factor. If these adults are affected by egalitarian additudes, then it's their choice to let these things affect their relationship. My opponents acceptance of a "natural order" seems to be a more disruptive additude than egalitarian or feminist additudes. When people use phrases like "natural order", what they're really doing is denying that social attitudes change or progress at all, and they label any shifts in additudes as deviance. They deny progress is a real thing, all it is to them is deviation, but denying progress is like denying that the wind blows. Whether you accept it or not, it's still going to happen. Like my opponent pointed out, we've changed from a farm based society to an industrial society, that's progress! I get the sense that my opponent thinks that womens new found sense of self is unprecedented and goes against the natural order of society. If that were true, we would not have the word matriarch. There have been societies where women were held in high regard and some claim they were dominant. Even in European and African cultures women could be queen, they were not specifically barred from that, and in light of this, it makes me wonder what my opponent means by the "natural order of things". I challenge my opponent to clarify his view of the "natural order" of society.

  • CON

    If every other couple on earth, broke -up with each...

    The rise of feminism has negatively impacted relationships

    My opponents entire argument is based on shallow, generalizations on the difference between men and women, however there's no scientific evidence or statistics to back his claims. All the reader is left with are relative, cliche "observations" based solely from the point of view of my opponent. My opponent makes no attempt to provide evidence, and even admits his entire argument is based on his view (notice the first two words in the second paragraph of his argument). HIS VIEW is of no value to the readers and judges of this debate!!! I call on my opponent to clarify his use of the phrase "driving seat". Does my opponent believe men should always have the final say on every single matter in the household? I call that megalomania. So does that mean my opponent believes that women shouldn't have the right to leave such a ridiculous situation, or be able to defend herself mentally or physically (if need be) from that kind of circumstance? If so, that would mean my opponent IS against legal equality of women, even though he claims he is not. So far, I'm fairly underwhelmed by my opponents entire argument. Even if my opponent could prove that women are "less stable then men", or "people are less happy than ever in relationships", it would be of no consequence within this debate because our relationships are not publicly influenced or owned, they are a private matter between two consenting adults. My opponent so far has failed to show how public attitudes can effect private relationships. If every other couple on earth, broke -up with each other, that should mean nothing to you and your spouse because your relationship is personal to you and your spouse ONLY, it is owned by you and your spouse only. When will we stop letting these socialistic attitudes toward relationships stop effecting our personal space? If you let public opinion adversely effect your private relationship, then you deserve all the unwanted consequences of your actions (and I hope it never stops stinging for you!!!). Stop tacking my relationship onto you barely coherent "observations" of relationships!!! My spouse and I are quite happy with our shared responsibility based relationship, and if yours didn't work out for you, too bad, so sad! It doesn't affect my relationship with my spouse. As far as women being the houskeeping unit of the relationship, that is a matter that's decided between two consenting adults. Although, even if most households wanted to have the woman stay at home and maintain the household, that's no longer a viable option for most couples. Unfortunately, because of these socialistic attitudes that have infected our society in the past century, minimum wages have gone up. When minimum wages go up, so do prices (cost of living). When the cost of living goes up, then regular households need to rely on women to make a living as well. My opponent seems to suffer from a "ninteen-fiftees hallucination". His assertions are based on nonsensical, outdated economics and public opinions. I wouldn't be surprised if my opponents opinions stem from a bad relationship experience he had, and he's still seething with rage, and this is some kind of attempt at a philosophical temper tantrum as an outlet for his anger (or he has some deep seated "mommy issues") nevertheless, his arguments are baseless, illogical, and rather unflattering. I'm embarrassed AT him!

  • CON

    This is how this "problem" came into being in the first...

    The hypersexualization of little girls is a step backwards for feminism.

    "Women face injustice all around the world" While this may be true for Middle Eastern and Chinese culture, this holds no truth for the Western world (the place where this hypersexualization is taking place). I see no relevance in this to the topic at hand. "This unfairness may thus lead to a conscious or unconscious feeling of inferiority." This is an unwarranted and untrue claim. All throughout history woman have been treated in the most respectful matter, and this holds true today. Today, woman have more rights more rights, better education, and more opportunities than ever before(1). Part of this is the ability to choose how they represent themselves. This is how this "problem" came into being in the first place. The media has no power unless the watcher willingly chooses to do what it says. "Today, both victims of and partially leading to the hypersexualization phenomena, women are, even though they get the illusion that they are making their own choices, for most influenced by existing authorities." My opponent makes this (arguably) drastic claim yet does not back it up with reasoning or argumentation of any kind. My opponent goes on to make many similar claims with the same lack of justification. Pro does not even state which "authorities" are oppressing women! Voters can disregard these due to lack of evidence. My opponent has not even rebutted how the hypersexulization of the girls is somehow limiting women's rights in any way. Since Pro has not challenged my definitions I must assume that they agree with them. Again looking at the definition, my opponent has not related to it. Instead they just went on a rant about how woman are oppressed in society which I have rebutted. As for the argument on the age, the parents should be held more responsible more than the media. My opponent even says that young girls look to their mothers more than anything else, so that would include the media. By that logic my opponent has created a self defeating argument. While I thank everyone for an excellent debate I see nothing but a Con vote. Sources: (1) http://www.avoiceformen.com...

  • CON

    I believe the thought of a rape culture in first world...

    Is rape culture promoted by feminism to be taken seriously

    I believe the thought of a rape culture in first world countries such as Canada, the U.S.A, the U.K and New Zealand malarkey. Why is it that some people say rape is promoted in these countries that I just mentioned exists in mass. Rape is major crime punishable by life in prison. Surely you can't believe there are people who gives awards for most people raped in 1 month. Nearly everyone discourages rape in these countries and say they would never think of committing such an act. Proved rapists are put in prison and there is no denying that.

  • CON

    This freedom issue is particularly important to women,...

    To attempt to dress cosmetic surgery in the flag of feminism is absurd.

    This freedom issue is particularly important to women, who have historically been subjugated by men, their bodies regarded as owned and for the use of men. Cosmetic surgery – the ultimate control over one’s body, perhaps – is the latest stage in the emancipation of women and their ability to decide what happens to their bodies. Cosmetic surgery is empowering.

  • CON

    PRO: "Would you want to treat a fresh out of medical...

    Feminism and Catholicism: The Church is not Misogynistic, in fact the polar opposite

    PRO:"Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Catholicism does not hate women or girls." CON:That is Pro"s thesis but there has been little evidence yet provided to support that position. PRO: "You make a fallacy here in your next statement".Discrimination was not the definition, but merely one of many possible manifestations of misogyny." CON: If discrimination is one possible manifestation of misogyny and discrimination against women can be discovered in Church policy, then at least some misogyny has been demonstrated. Where"s the fallacy? PRO: "The church does not preach violence against women"" CON: January, 2016: "The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Toledo, Braulio Rodriguez, told his congregation that wives could avoid being hit by doing what they are told. Women could also escape being physically abused by not asking their husbands for a divorce , Rodriguez said. He told churchgoers in his sermon: "The majority of cases of domestic violence happen because the woman"s partner does not accept them, or rejects them for not accepting their demands."[1] PRO: "The sexual objectification of women happens a lot in the secular world though, through one of the largest and most profitable businesses in our world today: Pornography. Which is outright condemned by the Church CON: In fact, Church policy condemns most sex and sexuality outside the precincts of connubial baby-making but pornography is not the only way to objectify a woman. When women are denied access to birth control, they are reduced to make-defined function. Men are encouraged to follow their callings while women are the machines that bear and raise the children of men. When women say they are called to the priesthood and the Vatican refuses to acknowledge that calling, that is another kind of objectification: by the happenstance of gender, men carry on the dignity and responsibilities of the apostles but, quoting Aquinas, women are "defective and misbegotten." PRO: "Treating things that are UNEQUAL as EQUAL is as unjust as treating EQUAL things UNEQUALLY. The role of women in the Church is not equal to men, nor is men's to women" CON: I think we are finally getting some insight into PRO"s perspective here. PRO: "Would you want to treat a fresh out of medical school surgeon the same as a seasoned veteran and specialist for a life or death decision?" CON: So, by this analogy all men are the seasoned veterans and all women neophytes? PRO: "You are obviously not well learned in scripture and Catholic teaching." CON: Ad hominem. PRO: "Genesis tells us that woman was made from man's SIDE. For your spouse is to walk next to you and beside you as an equal, not behind you or in front of you. Eve was not made from his FOOT or his nether regions or his head." CON: You are paraphrasing Matthew Henry here, not Genesis. [2] Henry was a 19th century Puritan minister, not particularly feminist in outlook and decidedly anti-catholic. PRO: Furthermore, God punishes man just as well as women by forcing him to labor and toil and die. CON: Women are not exempt from toil or death, obviously. Eve and by her all women are subject to additional curses. PRO: "Men also have submission" CON: Yes, but again women have the greater burden: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." [3] PRO: "All of the Bishops were men, and their teaching authority and tradition continued that practice." CON:Yes, the exclusion of women from the bishopric is traditional but how does that support Pro"s case? PRO: "Paul also spends about 95% of his writings in the Bible correcting, yelling at, and scolding MEN." CON: Not surprising. Literacy in 1st century Anatolia was roughly 10% and very few women were taught to read. Common social restrictions discouraged Romans and Jews from interacting with woman very often. Although Paul likely spent more time in the company of women then the average man, he would not have perceived much dividend in addressing women in letters. PRO: "The first, and GREATEST CHRISTIAN, was Mary. Mother of Jesus." CON: An odd conception since Mary is generally thought to supersede Christianity, unencumbered by sin or death. The Catholic Church teaches that the church was founded the moment Jesus said "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." Which would make Peter the first Christian and through whom all popes assert their primacy. Paul was the figure who truly defined Christianity. However, I doubt the apostles would have approved of ranking Christians hierarchically. As Pro states, Mary is a complicated figure, a relatively spare portrait on which misogynists and feminists each paint fraught ideologies. Many feminists point out that before Christianity, goddesses commanded men with autonomy (Dionysus, Cybele, Isis, etc.), but there is no discretely feminine power in the Trinity. As Simone de Beauvoir wrote: "For the first time in history the mother kneels before her son; she freely accepts her inferiority. This is the supreme masculine victory, consummated in the cult of the Virgin " it is the rehabilitation of woman through the accomplishment of her defeat." Irregardless, the veneration of Mary does not necessarily indicate a lack of misogyny. The veneration of Moses in Islam may suggest that Muslims should not be anti-semitic, but does that serve as proof that Muslim institutions are not anti-semitic? PRO: " [Women] are inherently better Christians and People." CON: A fairly sexist generalization. PRO: "I have personally seen women make decisions effecting Church life and function".great and transparent contributions women make on a daily basis DESPITE not being able to function as priests." CON: The fact is that women are excluded from positions of autonomous power. That women are also the more essential gender to Church continuity only makes their disenfranchisement more misogynist. Slaves were the lifeblood of early American cotton plantations, given every manner of responsibility in the function of that institution. Would we say then that those plantations were not inherently racist? Of course not, because blacks could not control their own destinies. Until women, as a majority of the Church, control their own destinies within that institution, the Church remains guilty of misogyny. PRO: Nuns vs Priests CON: We agree that monks and nuns submit to similar vows of poverty. The argument is that men may choose the more comfortable and exalted vocation of priesthood while women may not. PRO: "The Catholic Church does not kidnap women and make them be nuns." CON: No, and this is not question of civil rights. A church may order its membership as it sees fit. The question is whether that order reflects a misogynist outlook and the exclusion of women from the ranks of authority suggests that it is so. PRO: So, while the world sees being opposed to birth control as oppression, we see it as preserving the natural femininity of females. CON: Precisely my point. A woman who wishes to delay or abstain from motherhood is perceived as unnatural and unfeminine. Femininity is a quality essential to all of humanity"s missions of which baby-making is but a piece. PRO: I hardly see how when the Pope says, "women are the most beautiful thing God has made" as misogynistic. CON: People are not things. Beauty is subjective, superficial, and ephemeral. A beautiful thing suggests no authority or autonomy that needs to be acknowledged. A beautiful thing is nonessential. I look forward to Pro"s concluding remarks. [1]http://churchandstate.org.uk... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org...= [3]https://www.biblega...

  • CON

    after Christ] [2] PRO: "Never said that, but thanks for...

    Feminism and Catholicism: The Church is not Misogynistic, in fact the polar opposite

    PRO: "You go on to say that since there is SOME discrimination against women, there must be some level of misogyny." CON: Correct PRO:[Analogy of black & white] CON: White is a mixture of all the colors on the visible spectrum and by refraction can project any hue, black is the absence of light and cannot change. White has options, black does not. Or extended a different way: imagine any book, or painting, or film composed of only undifferentiated white or black, how dull and uninspiring would such work be! PRO: "You cite a bishop. One bishop. Judas was a bishop, too." CON: Pro offered an absolute: "The Church does not preach violence against women." Con offered a recent example of a high-ranking member of the Church (The Archbishop of Toledo) preaching violence against women from the pulpit during mass. A single exception is all that"s necessary to refute an absolute. A more accurate statement might be that the Church seldom preaches violence against women anymore. PRO: Quoting Margaret Sanger, etc. CON: A potentially useful quote in a debate about Planned Parenthood. Readers will note that Con raised abortion as one example by which the Church is demonstrably out of sync with the mainstream ideology of that institution"s female constituency. No defense of abortion is required in support of Con"s argument or need be inferred. PRO: Men are called to the same limits as women, thus totally destroying the discrimination aspect. But I did not see you mention that. CON: Con did note the disparity in excommunications for pedophile priests vs. feminist activists. That is, talking about sexual liberation for women is greater cause for punishment than outright rape by men: a fairly glaring example of gender discrimination. PRO: "meant to illustrate that there are CERTAIN circumstances where we treat unequal people (unequal in certain aspects) unequally" CON: Pro affirms that women are treated unequally within the Church. PRO: "Actually, I was paraphrasing my girlfriend. I don't know who that guy is you quoted." CON: Originally, Pro cited Genesis. Ouch. PRO: "... but Christianity started with Christ's resurrection." CON: From the official Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock" This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation...." [1] No women are mentioned. PRO: Paul is NOT the figure who defined Christianity. CON: The Encyclopedia Britannica describes Paul as: "often considered to be the second most important person in the history of Christianity." [after Christ] [2] PRO: "Never said that, but thanks for making something up." CON: Pro stated, "Please read on Mariology, which again is a very complex and intricate subject." Pro echoed the sentiment, "As Pro states, Mary is a complicated figure." PRO: " [Women] are inherently better Christians and People." [is not misogynistic.] CON: Yes it is, by lumping women into some different ideal than men, by placing women on a special pedestal, women are objectified, unlike other Christians and people. SUMMATION As stated in the first round, Pro"s contention that the Catholic Church is the opposite of misogynistic was and remains rather fuzzy. Con suggested that the term feminist might serve, but Pro has neither accepted or refuted that offering. Pro"s main argument seems to be that feminist critique must be in error because the Church celebrates women, but celebration of some group of people does not preclude bigotry against the same. Maine Governor Paul LePage celebrates Martin Luther King"s birthday but is nevertheless demonstrably racist in his public remarks. The NFL enthusiastically promotes breast cancer awareness but its players have an appalling record of domestic violence against women. Pro has also argued that some of the first and greatest Christians were women, which is indisputably true. Again, that fact does not preclude the possibility of bigotry any more than did the fact that the first Christians were Jewish preclude spectacular acts of anti-semitism throughout history. Pro points to the Catholic adoration of Mary as proof against misogyny but this hardly definitive as many misogynist cultures have worshipped female divinities. The Roman Republic worshipped many female deities and the Virgins of Vesta were deemed supremely sacred, but the Romans were markedly misogynistic. Prominent Sister Simone Campbell said of Pope Francis in an interview today: ""One thing I find rather annoying is that [Francis] doesn"t see us as "Eve-temptress," but more like Mary. That"s putting women on a pedestal. That"s as confining a cage." [3] In the absence of a framework establishing the opposite of misogyny, Con provided a definition that noted sexual discrimination, hostility, male supremacist ideas, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women as some examples of misogyny. Con argued that if the Church could be shown to exhibit some of these habits, then the Church could not be properly characterized as "the opposite of misogynistic" and Pro"s case proven false. Con offered traditional Church doctrine that inculpated and subordinated women for original sin. The cited doctrines were not specifically refuted, but Pro suggests the quotes were taken out of context insofar as God also punished men and that Paul also encouraged men to love their wives. But the burdens of guilt and submission were clearly unequal and more onerous on women. Con argued that the absence of women in the Vatican and ordained vocations constitutes discrimination. Pro agreed that men and women had unequal roles, but argued that women were not less important, only different. Pro applies several analogies- doctors vs. interns, child-raising, etc that don"t improve Pro"s case. Con maintains that if the positions of authority, autonomy, and even luxury are exclusively reserved for men, women are clearly afforded the less important role and discrimination demonstrated. Some men are promoted to positions where they can live in castles and wear velvet slippers at Church expense, no women are permitted such aspirations. Con also argued that Church politics are out of sync with women"s issues even to the point of harming the Church"s continuity. Pro defended Church policy at length as a protection of natural femininity but neither refuted the point nor demonstrated policies that reflect women"s values (there are certainly some). Con pointed to Pope Francis" remarks as an example of objectification, but really all these points contain some element- the focus on women as virgins and mothers and temptresses, the predominance of nuns in teaching and nursing, etc. Pro argued that the Church is anti-pornography and that pornography is the worst kind of female objectification. But opposing one type of objectification (particularly within the context of non prescribed sex) does not refute all objectification. In any case, Pro is not buying Con"s definition, so we"ll have to leave that up to readers. To the extent that evidence of some misogyny has been shown, Pro"s contention that the Catholic Church is the opposite of misogynist must be false -not necessarily irredeemable, certainly better than the past, but also certainly misogynist to some degree. Lastly, Con would ask readers to consider Pro"s reliance on ad hominem and the continuation of arguments in notes when evaluating conduct. Thanks again to Pro for instigating this debate and thanks in advance to readers for voting.

  • CON

    Thomas Jefferson loved some slaves, for example, but that...

    Feminism and Catholicism: The Church is not Misogynistic, in fact the polar opposite

    Thanks to Pro for instigating this debate. Pro has muddled the central contention a bit by failing to simply state that the Roman Catholic Church is a particularly feminist organization, although that would be what's implied by claiming the Church to be the polar opposite of misogynist. Nor does arguing that the Church demonstrates love for women contradict accusations of misogyny. Thomas Jefferson loved some slaves, for example, but that does not absolve him of racism. For guidance, Wikipedia offers the following: "Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, hostility, male supremacist ideas, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women." [1] Building on this definition, if Con can offer evidence that the Catholic Church discriminates against women, Pro"s thesis will be proven false. If Con can show that the Church supports male supremacist ideologies, belittles or objectifies women, then Pro"s thesis will be proven false. There are certainly also some questions of hostility and violence and Pro leaves open the consideration of the Church"s historical record but I think we can look past witch burnings of old to focus on the modern Church for the sake of relevancy. Which is not to say the modern Church does not still embrace some pretty archaic prejudices. DOCTRINE When the Pope was asked in 2014 if he detected an underlying misogyny within the Church, Francis replied, "The fact is that woman was taken from a rib." [2] Although intended as a joke, the Pope"s response well reflects the Church"s traditional outlook on women as an inferior class. Genesis depicts the first woman as a subset of the first man and the instrument of Adam"s fall from grace and God acknowledges Eve"s culpability by punishing all women with two additional curses: the pain of childbirth and the submission of women to the lordship of men. In the New Testament, Paul instructs Timothy that women: "should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." [3] In the 2nd century Tertullian, the father of Latin Christianity, directly blamed all women for human mortality and suffering: "Do you not realize that Eve is you? You are the devil's gateway, you desecrated that fatal tree; you first betrayed the law of God, you who softened up with your cajoling words the man against whom the devil could not prevail by force. The image of God, the man Adam, you broke him, it was child's play to you. You deserved death, and it was the son of God who had to die!" [4] Augustine questioned the value of any woman in light of Eve"s transmission of original sin: "What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman" I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children" [5] The Church still teaches that Mary"s submission had to be sexless in order to inoculate Jesus from the transmission of the stain of Eve"s disobedience. [6] In Catholic doctrine, women are not merely inferior, but by their inferiority the source of man"s corruption, the cause of all death and suffering. INEQUITY These core doctrines help explain the profound inequities within church institution. The majority of Catholics are women and probably always have been. Catholic women attend church more often and pray more often. There are more women called to religious life than men. Women dominate most Catholic funded educational and health services. Nevertheless, the church hierarchy is dominated by ordained roles and women have been excluded from ordination since about the third century. Of 572 Vatican City passport holders, only one is a woman. Women are not permitted to vote in papal elections. Where the church sets priorities, makes policy, plans budgets, women are absent. Although Francis has begun preaching equal pay for women, the inequity of the church is evident in the disparity of compensation among Catholic religious. A parish priest is usually paid a modest salary, is permitted savings and investment and is typically fed and housed by the church. Nuns, on the other hand, are expected to support themselves beyond their ecclesiastical responsibilities, often as nurses or teachers. Their vow of poverty requires them to turn over compensation to their order and each order is responsible for their own upkeep. POLITICS So it is with little wonder that the Church opposes the ordination of women, opposes birth control and abortion, encourages large families that perpetuate cycles of poverty, opposes marriage equality and LGBT adoption because these are policies initiated by women in leadership roles. When sex abuse scandals threatened the integrity of the church, the male dominated Vatican focused on hiding the perpetrators rather than aiding the victims or reform precisely because they lacked a female perspective on rape. Although the Church considered sex abuse accusations concerning roughly 3,000 priests from 2001-10, only one of those priests received the condemnation of excommunication. During the same period, multiple priests, parish boards, even some whole community organizations were excommunicated for promoting feminist issues. In 2012, the Vatican called for a major investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which represents roughly 80% of religious women in the US, immediately after that group voiced support for Obamacare. Investigating bishops threatened to suppress the LCWR if it did not reform what bishops perceived as a radical feminist agenda, including calls for female ordination and support of LGBT issues. Fortunately, the investigation was abruptly shut down after Francis became pope. OBJECTIFICATION Indeed, Francis seems to steering the Church away from some of its most misogynist policies and has promised to increase the presence of women in Vatican City. But Francis could hardly be called a feminist. During the same interview with the rib joke, Francis sought to compliment women by calling women "the most beautiful thing God has made." That"s a telling remark. Women are seen, not as fellow souls in a world of suffering, not as partners in faith in search of salvation, not from the inside as just another human in need but from the outside, observed as beautiful, but apart. Until the Vatican acknowledges that its membership, its history, its lifeblood is predominately female and gives empowered expression to that female essence, the Catholic Church will remain as it is, misogynist at heart. To the extent that these few examples demonstrate discrimination against women, male supremacy, belittlement and objectification of women, the Church has been shown to exhibit qualities of misogyny and so Pro"s contention must be refused. I look forward to Pro"s response. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.theguardian.com... [3]https://www.biblegateway.com... [4]http://www.academia.edu... [5]http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net... [6]http://www.vatican.va...

  • CON

    First, to answer your questions. ... I do not understand...

    modern day feminism does more good than harm

    Hello, my name is Ben. First, to answer your questions. 1: Democratic, and Bernie. 2: United States of America. 3: I am a white male. I do not understand the second round.. Do I not refute until the third round?