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...

Feminism Needs to die out

Feminism is a waste of human air, it used to be there for a reason, now its just plain out useless, boys get raped too you know, they just cant open up due to the fact almost no one believes them. And no, you CANT like boys and be a feminist, because you are trying to replace them, if you are "friends" with a feminist, then that's a downright lie, all she cares about is herself, so your "friendship" with her is FAKE. they also get offended by EVERYTHING, they just wont shut up! they hate male protagonists, they think saying hi is sexual abuse, they also claim to "hate racism" when in fact they are the ones sexualizing black men, making them uncomfortable. And don't say that they are helping either, hate crimes against women have skyrocketed thanks to them, they also SEND DEATH THREATS to writers who don't give them what they want, they are like spoiled little children. why are they spoiled? Because politics threat them like they are a religion, women have won a majority of custody battles (and no, men almost never agree with it), women are treated like they are the most oppressed minority, but they are not. What did black people get stereotyped for? being dumb, being objects, being oversensitive. What did women get stereotyped for? cooking, I rest my case

The feminism movement should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts

Gentle voter, when Con repeats "Feminism is not irreproachable", I think it is only fair to ask that he go into more specific detail: Con, we'd like to know (we shouldn't really have to ask) what you find reproachable about feminism. I do not claim that it is above scrutiny or criticism, I just think that you waving a stick around poking me with "feminism isn't perfect" doesn't serve to achieve much; were you to tell us exactly what was so reproachable about feminism, we'd be able to decide whether we agreed with you or not. Con said "However, the referenced segment of my argument, which he deemed to be a straw-man, was simply evidence for feminism not being infallible"; wow; you're going to go with that, are you? Do you honestly believe that feminism is responsible for causing society to become deluded into believing that women are as strong as men? Because, I have to say, if that's what feminism was (or, rather, what it did) then I'd be the first person to want to rid society of any delusions; right now, though, it's you that seems to be delusional and I'd like to help you rid yourself of your own delusions! Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. (a Feminist is one who supports this overall movement). Feminism is not an attempt to persuade right-thinking rational people that women are as strong as men. Con says the following: "My opponent asks me this question, of whether or not I think that the existence of modern medicine would have made a difference to Bronze Age philosophy, spiritualism and morality, to which all I can say is, most probably. However, I do not believe that modern medicine would have made a difference to the philosophy, spirituality or morality of the Bible. This is because I believe in the that the Bible is from God [link to bible quotation], and as such do not believe that the societal factors would change the core truths within the texts." One may believe that the Bible is from God if one likes, but citing the Bible as justification for this belief seems as farcical to me as the image of somebody pulling themselves out of quicksand by tugging on their own hair! If I was guilty of imagining without providing sufficient evidence of the gender inequalities of the times (here are some links about gender inequality over the ages [1],[2],[3]), how much more is Con guilty of taking an idea on faith without providing evidence to support it. The claim being made is that the Bible is from God; different Christians believe that idea with different levels of force... most theologians allow for a very less-than-literal interpretation of much of what the bible says; I suggest that for Con's argument (that the philosophy, spirituality and morality of the Bible is independent of the state of science and culture at the time of its writing) is to take the idea of God as a literal writer of the Bible quite seriously. In the light of Con's belief and because it seems that this belief is critical to Con's argument, I'd like to take a little bit of time to understand how Con manages to explain away some of the worse moral ideas contained in the Bible: Leviticus 25:44-46 [4] Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life. Exodus 21:20-21 [5] Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. 1 Peter 2:18-20 [6] Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. So, Con, are these the words of a perfect moral being or must we sometimes assume that ideas in the bible may come from the minds of men living in the Middle East during the Bronze Age? Do you not allow for any element at all in the Bible to be not directly from God? Might the state of culture, science and medicine at the time have had some effect on what we find today in the Bible? Because I think that the cultural realities at the time informed the writings in the Bible and I hope that the gentle reader will agree with me at least that there is some element of truth in this. "Judaism in the first century had emerged from the oriental patriarchal tradition in which women were considered the property of men with no rights, no role in society except childbearing, and no education." [1] Even if the bible spoke directly about abortion (which it doesn't, thank goodness) I propose that it would behove us to consider the issue to a greater depth than simply "the bible says this"; otherwise, I suggest, we'd be left in the unenviable position of having to adopt a pro-slavery stance. Con suggests that we should think that "thou shalt not kill" should apply to abortion - but this is patently false, since this commandment only ever meant "thou shalt not murder" and has arguably been mistranslated [7]. Thus we find ourselves in a worse position than women's rights today being limited by Bronze Age texts - we find that women's rights are potentially being affected by mistranslations of Bronze Age texts! [1] http://www.womenpriests.org... [2] https://www.psychologytoday.com... [3] http://www.adva.org... [4] https://www.biblegateway.com... [5] https://www.biblegateway.com... [6] https://www.biblegateway.com... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Feminism! Hooray!

Thank you once again for producing a full and considered reply. I hope that my own responses are similarly appreciated. Rape Culture & Victim Blaming I would suggest that there is truth to both sides of the argument. On the one hand, we do not live in a perfect world when it comes to gender issues (hence my continued belief in the necessity for a feminist movement), and that the argument about women not taking some elements of self-protection into their own hands is dangerous " but only because society has yet to sufficiently instill into a sufficiently large number of men that rape is unacceptable. On the other hand, I entirely agree with the feminist narrative that there is something inherently wrong in society that women have to take such measures to feel secure. There is also a serious element of victim blaming in suggesting that women should not, for fear of being accosted by a violent misogynist man, walk on her own after dark; that she should not be able to wear what she likes; and that she should mediate her behavior in some other way, lest she become a target. Of course, much of the conservatism in the arguments regarding how women should behave are covertly sexist " they are backdoor means of controlling women"s ability to express themselves through their own actions. Many of them are also outright fallacious. It is an opportunity to "sl*t shame" and to place the blame back on women. In reality, rape cannot be prevented by, to use your example, suggesting that women dress differently. The vast majority of rapists target women they know. [1] In fact, because rape is actually about power " the subjugation of one person by another, then modifying one"s dress to appear, for instance, less "sl*tty" may have the opposite consequence to that intended: "If, as studies of rapists suggest, harassers look for more passive or submissive women, women who are provocatively dressed may appear more confident and are therefore less likely to be considered appropriate targets by potential harassers. Indeed, the cases involving requests that women dress more professionally or tone down their sexy attire suggest that people are generally uncomfortable with women who dress provocatively in the workplace. The power dynamic involved in telling women to dress less provocatively (essentially trying to control their attire) is also interesting. It suggests that there is power in dressing provocatively, and that employers are uncomfortable by such assertions of this power by women." [2] Finally, it is no merely feminists on the internet who contend that a big part of the problem regarding rape is how elements of society tend to depict and codify femininity. Hard headed research, studying convicted rapists shows the same thing: "While admitters and deniers present an essentially contrasting view of men who rape, there were some shared characteristics. Justifications particularly, but also excuses, are buttressed by the cultural view of women as sexual commodities, dehumanized and devoid of autonomy and dignity. In this sense, the sexual objectification of women must be understood as an important factor contributing to an environment that trivializes, neutralizes, and, perhaps, facilitates rape." [3] This suggests to me that the feminist project to re-codify social conceptions of, and attitudes towards, gender and gender roles is essential. It is not asking for a special privilege " it is asking for the privilege not to be raped and for people to stop passing the buck back onto women as opposed to the real problem: the rapists. The kind of thing I am talking about above is at the center of the issue of victim blaming. Your personal example is a false comparison, and I"m afraid that you are slightly misrepresenting the issue and the arguments of feminists on this. Affirmative Action I entirely agree that affirmative action is dangerous nonsense. As a man who teaches and researches on gender, I find that plenty of the jobs I"ve applied for have gone to women. In some cases this is because they were indeed more qualified or performed better on the interview day. In others, however, I strongly suspect that the universities did not want to be seen to fill courses on women"s history and gender studies with a man. That aside, while there might be some well-meaning feminists who argue for affirmative action, I would suggest that they are not representative and there are excellent feminist arguments against it. [4] Indeed, I would say that feminists have actually been more effective than their opponents in calling out this kind of nonsense. Peer Pressure I don"t think that it is fair to straw man feminism via focusing on the flaws of Anita Sarkeesian " who is indeed, at least in my view, easily deconstructed through serious methodological flaws in her analysis. However, you are wrong to reduce her actions to mere complaining. While her videos lack the academic rigor and intellectual insight to convince me, her overriding point is correct: that the gaming industry is a male dominated sphere, that game development targets [5] [6] a dwindling demographic of gamers (and developers have yet to catch up) and that elements of the gaming community are openly hostile to female participation or the development of games that might facilitate that.[7] So, while I disagree with Anita Sarkeesian on plenty of what she say"s (in terms of specific content " nearly all of it) her overarching message is a necessary one. Setting up a dialogue, of sorts, it isn't just complaining " moreover, it seems to be having some effect on the industry.[8] What she is doing is simply bringing public attention to points actual academics have already made. [8] Objectification & Female Nudes You suggest that I haven"t shown how this is a bad thing. Well, to re-quote an academic analysis already posted above: "sexual objectification of women must be understood as an important factor contributing to an environment that trivializes, neutralizes, and, perhaps, facilitates rape."[3] The issue of female nudes, is, of course, implicitly and explicitly tied into this. The point is that feminism continues to be important in pointing out why the continued sexual objectification of women (in this instance unsolicited sexual objectification through the public airing of private property) is harmful and should be combated. Steubenville Well, you"re right that I took a particularly egregious example for its rhetorical value. However, the point was not that this case was entirely representative, but rather to highlight how the mass media, which is of course merely reflective of wider social norms in this instance, presents women and questions of gender through precisely the socially constructed gendered prism I have been discussing. Actual discourse analysis on the news media (though indicating that things are improving (hooray, third wave feminism)) continue to corroborate. [10] Pay Gap At least one of the links I provided did supply statistical evidence, as examples: "women supervisors of retail sales workers earn 79 percent of what their male counterparts make; women nurses earn 88 percent of what male nurses make; and male elementary and middle school teachers earn 9 percent more than their female colleagues." Unfortunately, I do not have access to the raw data, the time to analyse and reproduce it here " nor the characters remaining. However, it is, I feel, fairly safe to assume that the assertions made in this popular scientific publication are accurate as they mirror what the US Department of Labor says on the matter: "The pay gap cannot be fully explained by a set of measurable variables " when controlling for factors such as experience, education, industry, and hours, among others, the wage gap still persists to a large extent. Over the course of her lifetime this gap will cost a woman and her family lost wages, reduced pensions and reduced Social Security benefits. American families are relying now, more than ever, on the wages of women. Lower pay for women not only means less economic security for women but also for the families that depend on them, during their years in the workplace and in retirement." [11] [1] http://www.d.umn.edu... [2] http://scholarship.law.duke.edu... (p. 150) [3] https://www.d.umn.edu... [4] http://tech.mit.edu... [5] http://link.springer.com... [6] http://venturebeat.com... [7] http://dangolding.tumblr.com... [8] http://www.polygon.com... [9] http://eprints.soton.ac.uk... [10] http://www.scirp.org... [11] http://www.dol.gov...

feminism NEEDS to be stopped

I should rename the debate "Feminism is Bad" lets just consider that the title, ok. first off women have achieved equality in every way 1. equal pay https://www.eeoc.gov... and https://www.forbes.com... 2. feminists will bring up "catcalling" but catcallers are looked down upon. 3. more men die in war then women 4. we do not live in a rape culture, men who are even FALSELY accused of rape will have their reputation and lives ruined, and men who DID rape women go to prison and are looked down upon by society, and their fellow inmates (hope he doesnt drop the soap) 5. 38% of rape victims are men https://www.forbes.com... and men are less likely to report it 6. when a man says he was raped by a women everyone thinks it is ridiculous 7. if you really want gender equality then why cant a man hit a women back? men cant in our society, and if a man hits another man they will get the living sh*t beat out of him. give me some proof that women ARENT treated equaly (in america) also i know that you will most likely forfeit this debate, a feminist tactic, when feminists are proven wrong they just run away and are offended

American Feminism is Going too Far

"I love that example of Henry VIII because it is so completely ignorant of the fact that one cannot simply kill a king. Yes technically his wives could have murdered him in his sleep, but they would have been executed for it." I hope you know they would have been executed regardless. Catherine Howard and Anne Boleyn were beheaded. Out of all six wives only Catherine Parr made it out alive. Your argument is invalid as everyone, not just women, should and must fight for what they want. Every culture, individual, etc, has and will continue to do so as unfortunate as that is, that's life and if you can't take a good beating in this society that's on you to fight back and get what you believe you deserve. Things are not simply "given". Good morals is not a language everyone speaks, unfortunately. As far as your cute sexual harassment summary, carry some pepper spray, a taser, and a mobile phone. If they didn't want to be "harassed" they should have stopped it right away, not lead it on. This would be a lovely time to bring up Bill Cosby and his sexual encounters. Did these grad students really think a seventy year old man inviting them to a hotel room was going to give them a jigsaw puzzle? It's extremely easy to turn a man down, if that's what you want. Abortion, contraceptive use, discrimination in academia, and sexual harassment are issues on their own. I too am one hundred percent on-board with these rights given to everyone, however, this is not feminism going too far. Feminism going too far is when groups of women ask for too much, too soon, and all at once, when in the not-so-distant past they didn't try very hard for their rights, which is horrible, because it effects all of us women, myself included. Abortion is legal in a number of states and if a woman did not want to conceive she should have abstained or used contraceptives. Discrimination in academia is illegal, you can't get turned down or fall behind men because you are a woman, it just doesn't work that way. If a woman does not like how the education system is run, file a report, and give those in question a reason not to turn you away from anything. The reason I say feminism is going too far also, is that I know as individuals us women can get what we want if we work for it. If we keep asking for everything, that automatically makes us the weaker class, the second class. Being an angry feminist using only your words for equality is going to get you nowhere fast. Making children cuss in commercials for equality (https://youtu.be...) is absurd. Women asking for society to change their view points on topics they have already established is ridiculous. If you want a change, do that change for yourself. There's no reason why someone can't. To me, I think it's unfortunate how much attention these kinds of women get when the real attention should be going to somewhere much more beneficial. Women want a double standard that ceases to exist. They want to be treated like "ladies" but undermine the male race. If you want to be completely independent, by all means go ahead. However, you can't ask to be treated like men but also be treated like women if you want to erase the line between genders. http://time.com...