args

The feminism movement should not be impeded by Bronze Age texts

Thanks for accepting; let's get started! Short version: 1. Equal rights for women; that sounds good. 2. Bronze Age writings; they sound old. 3. Hard to see why anybody would think it a good idea for the latter to impede the former. Long version: 1. Equal rights for women; that sounds good. Let's start with quotations from the World Bank [1]: "Empowering women and girls is not only the right thing to do: It’s also smart economics and vital to ending poverty and boosting shared prosperity" "evidence shows that resources in the hands of women boost household spending in areas that benefit children". Or we might turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [2]: "Closing gender gaps benefits countries as a whole, not just women and girls" Or perhaps you would accept the verdict of the UN [3]: "When more women work, economies grow" "increasing the share of household income controlled by women changes spending in ways that benefit children" "Increasing women and girls’ education contributes to higher economic growth" "A study using data from 219 countries from 1970 to 2009 found that, for every one additional year of education for women of reproductive age, child mortality decreased by 9.5 per cent" Poverty and gender inequality seem to be strongly correlated. Societies in which men have most of the power and women are seen as second class citizens are often the poorest; we must be careful not to fall foul of the "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy, but it seems to be a universal message from all the World's organisations who have seriously tried to tackle poverty: empowering women is one of the most powerful ways to help a region out of abject poverty. I am firmly behind the feminist cause (both in the poorest and richest nations). I am partly proud to call myself a feminist because ensuring equal rights for women is the right thing to do, but also because it is the sensible thing to do. 2. Bronze Age writings; they sound old. Much of the bible was written about 3,500 years ago, in the Bronze Age; times were, as one might imagine, very different from today. Gender inequality was a way of life; women were considered virtually the property of their fathers until they were married, then they were considered virtually the property of their husbands - and it was absolutely clear what their "purpose" was, to provide their masters with offspring. Things were so different than today; by way of example, I suggest that the gentle reader consider the situation of a married man sleeping with his neighbour's wife. How would we respond to this situation today? I imagine that the sympathies of the modern reader are foursquare behind the man's wife and the man's neighbour, who have both been cheated on. The view at the time was very different, seeing the woman as property whose offence was not to be considered (indeed, I don't think that the Bronze Age man would think that the wife would be offended that he'd slept about)... the biggest sin in Bronze Age eyes, of course, being that the man who was cheated on would not know whether any children produced by his wife were actually his. It is important to understand this World view when one reads Job 31:9-10 [4] 9 If my heart has been enticed by a woman, or if I have lurked at my neighbor’s door, 10 then may my wife grind another man’s grain, and may other men sleep with her. It strikes me, at least, that there is very little sympathy for the wife in this meditation of Job's. It seems that the wife must perform acts to atone for the Husband's misdemeanors (because this would hurt the husband). Now, it wouldn't be right to sit in judgement of morals from one hundred and seventy five generations ago, of course, but neither would it be right to adopt them today. 3. Hard to see why anybody would think it a good idea for the latter to impede the former. So, this is what I want to know (I feel confident Con is about to explain): Why would anybody think that it is a good idea to allow what may well have been the pinnacle of philosophical, spiritual and moral thinking from over 3000 years ago in a small region in the Middle East to govern how we structure our modern societies today? Please understand that I am not averse to taking the good bits from this World view, of course, where they can be suitably ported to a modern setting; and yet I cannot conceive of any aspect of this ancient traditional view that could impede the progress of Or we might turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [2]: "Closing gender gaps benefits countries as a whole, not just women and girls" Or perhaps you would accept the verdict of the UN [3]: "When more women work, economies grow" "increasing the share of household income controlled by women changes spending in ways that benefit children" "Increasing women and girls’ education contributes to higher economic growth" "A study using data from 219 countries from 1970 to 2009 found that, for every one additional year of education for women of reproductive age, child mortality decreased by 9.5 per cent" Poverty and gender inequality seem to be strongly correlated. Societies in which men have most of the power and women are seen as second class citizens are often the poorest; we must be careful not to fall foul of the "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy, but it seems to be a universal message from all the World's organisations who have seriously tried to tackle poverty: empowering women is one of the most powerful ways to help a region out of abject poverty. I am firmly behind the feminist cause (both in the poorest and richest nations). I am partly proud to call myself a feminist because ensuring equal rights for women is the right thing to do, but also because it is the sensible thing to do. 2. Bronze Age writings; they sound old. Much of the bible was written about 3,500 years ago, in the Bronze Age; times were, as one might imagine, very different from today. Gender inequality was a way of life; women were considered virtually the property of their fathers until they were married, then they were considered virtually the property of their husbands - and it was absolutely clear what their "purpose" was, to provide their masters with offspring. Things were so different than today; by way of example, I suggest that the gentle reader consider the situation of a married man sleeping with his neighbour's wife. How would we respond to this situation today? I imagine that the sympathies of the modern reader are foursquare behind the man's wife and the man's neighbour, who have both been cheated on. The view at the time was very different, seeing the woman as property whose offence was not to be considered (indeed, I don't think that the Bronze Age man would think that the wife would be offended that he'd slept about)... the biggest sin in Bronze Age eyes, of course, being that the man who was cheated on would not know whether any children produced by his wife were actually his. It is important to understand this World view when one reads Job 31:9-10 [4] 9 If my heart has been enticed by a woman, or if I have lurked at my neighbor’s door, 10 then may my wife grind another man’s grain, and may other men sleep with her. It strikes me, at least, that there is very little sympathy for the wife in this meditation of Job's. It seems that the wife must perform acts to atone for the Husband's misdemeanors (because this would hurt the husband). Now, it wouldn't be right to sit in judgement of morals from one hundred and seventy five generations ago, of course, but neither would it be right to adopt them today. 3. Hard to see why anybody would think it a good idea for the latter to impede the former. So, this is what I want to know (I feel confident Con is about to explain): Why would anybody think that it is a good idea to allow what may well have been the pinnacle of philosophical, spiritual and moral thinking from over 3000 years ago in a small region in the Middle East to govern how we structure our modern societies today? Please understand that I am not averse to taking the good bits from this World view, of course, where they can be suitably ported to a modern setting; and yet I cannot conceive of any aspect of this ancient traditional view that could impede the progress of feminism and still be considered a good bit. Over to you, Con! [1] http://www.worldbank.org... [2] https://www.imf.org... [3] http://www.unwomen.org... [4] https://www.biblegateway.com...

Feminism is a poisonous belief system that needs to be done away with.

This is my first Debate and first time on this website. I appologize in advance if I place something in the wrong category or mess up the format. I will write this in a research paper style complete with works cited. Patriarchy The word patriarchy is thrown around left and right in newsrooms, college campuses, and coffee shops across the world. But what is the patriarchy exactly? Well, that depends on who is asked and when. Merriam Webster defines it simply as "a family, group, or government controlled by a man or a group of men." Whereas feminists seem to attribute every single terrible thing to ever happen to women to this mystical all powerful force. According to modern feminists, and pseudo pop culture feminist bloggers the patriarchy is the reason that women have eating disorders, earn lower wages than men, and are shamed for being obese. (Herrin, and Matsumoto). (Hodge). (Bedelia). At the end of the day, anything that causes problems for women can and will be blamed on the patriarchy by someone. The patriarchy is the boogey man of old. The always available scapegoat, and whatever modern day feminists want it to be to prove whatever point they are trying to make at the time. The very idea of patriarchy is harmful to women on two fronts. First, it encourages victimhood and discourage women from seeking solutions to problems or working through them. This creates a destructive cycle of some women experiencing a problem, then instead of meeting it head on, blaming it on an entity outside of their control. Which, in turn causes the problem to get bigger, or causes other problems which then are also blamed on the patriarchy. Secondly, because of the acidity of the attacks on men by many modern day feminists they aren"t being taken seriously. While some complaints are indeed rooted in victimhood, or unwarranted blaming, some grievances are legitimate. Even so, when the men who would have acted to solve an issue hear nothing but waspish attacks they are far less likely to do anything to help solve the problem. This can be especially harmful in relationships where the man in question feels unloved or unwanted. Rape Culture is the belief that in the world today, we live in a society that perpetuates rape and views it as a social normalcy. The idea is that rapes and sexual assaults are so common in today"s world that they are pretty much to be expected. The numbers thrown around by most modern day feminists and women studies groups are that one in four women will be victims of rape or sexual assault in their lifetimes. This number is of course staggering, and should raise serious causes for concern if it were not for one tiny detail. It is a completely bogus statistic. The one in four myth came from a study conducted in 1985 by a young lady named Mary Koss whom at the time was a professor of Psychology at Kent State University. In this study published by Ms. Magazine Mary Koss interviewed over three thousand female college students nationwide asking them a series of ten questions about sexual violence. Here is the interesting part of this survey. Mary Koss never actually asked any of the students if they believed they had been raped. Miss Koss used her own criteria, and because of this she decided that 15.4 percent had been raped and 12.1 percent had been victims of attempted rape. (Sommers, Pg 210-211). Another interesting side note to this already shaky statistic is that 73 percent of these women who were already surveyed stated that they did not believe they had been raped when asked directly. An astounding 35 percent had sexual relations with their alleged rapist again. (Sommers, Pg 211). Even if this faulty statistic is taken away, the term "rape culture" still does not hold much water. Nowhere is rape cited as normal or romanticized in today"s modern society. However, other crimes are. Movies frequently glamorize bank robbers, drug dealers, and even sometimes murderers in many popular gangster films. Movies such as Oceans Eleven and Now You See Me show the glitz and glamor of professional thieves, but nowhere will you find the story of the cocky, cheerful rapist. Rape, when it is used in film or elsewhere is generally used for its shock value or to bring pity upon the main character. Sometimes it is used simply to demonize the villain of the story. Simply put, nowhere in the modern world is rape considered an acceptable form of procreation. And to suggest otherwise is an entirely incorrect and harmful statement to make Domestic Violence The myth widely embraced about Domestic Violence is simple, and designed for simple people. The myth states that domestic violence is almost solely perpetrated by men against women. And occasionally that is true. However, this does not even come close to defining the problem. The Center for Disease and Control out of Atlanta Georgia had some shocking statistics on the matter. First, almost 24 percent of relationships had some level of violence, and in about 49.7 percent of those relationships the violence was reciprocal. Of the relationships that were not reciprocal more than 70 percent of the perpetrators were female. The study did find that in relationships where there was reciprocal violence injury most often occurred to the woman. (Whitaker, Haileyesus, and et al, 941-947). That women were the most likely to be injured in a domestic violence dispute should not come as a surprise, because generally men are larger and stronger than women. What should be surprising is that over 70 percent of the nonreciprocal violence was initiated by the woman. Put simply, in many domestic violence situations the man who was doing the injuring was, more often than not simply defending himself. This throws a startling revelation on the domestic violence issue, and brings up serious questions that cannot be ignored. Dr. Gelles is an internationally known expert in domestic violence and child welfare, as well as the dean of Penn State University. He also holds The Joanne and Raymond Welsh Chair of Child Welfare and Family Violence in the School of Social Policy & Practice. He, along with Suzanne Steinmetz and Dr. Murray A. Straus conducted a survey with nearly identical findings. After their research was published Dr. Gelles was quoted as saying, "The response to our finding that the rate of female to male violence was equal to the rate of male to female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism but intense and long-lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned into conference centres [sic] and buildings where we were scheduled to present." (Gelles). Obviously, this myth is so deep rooted that modern educated feminists would rather ignore facts and empirical data than even consider that they might have been wrong about who domestic violence victims actually were all these years. If feminism is not the harbinger of equality that it appears to be than what is? What is the correct way to bring forth a true system of equality in today"s world? The answer to both of these questions is the egalitarian movement. But where to begin? A few ideas posed by scholars on the subject might have some insight. Dr. Farrell Proposes an "Equal Rights and Responsibilities Amendment." According to Dr. Farrell this amendment would outlaw the current males only draft policy. It would only permit community property with group responsibility. It would also help to give incentives to schools to teach young women to take sexual initiative and risk being rejected by the other party instead of just teaching men how to do it correctly. Sexual harassment in this bill would be taught in the workplace, however it would be seen and taught to both genders as possible instigators instead of the myth that only men make sexual advances. A bill like this would allow for affirmative action in the workplace. However it would protect employers from hiring nonqualified, or underqualified workers simply to meet a quota. It would also deprive district courts of funding if the children in disputed custody cases were given to the mother more than sixty percent of the time. It would lower funding for colleges which are saturated with Women"s studies groups and have no Men"s Studies groups. Finally, it would revoke federal licensing if the Federal Communications Commissions found a consistent pattern of Man bashing or constant attention to women"s issues with the neglect of men"s. According to Dr. Farrell it would be a new era of shared rights and responsibilities in our world. (Farrell 367). Work Cited 1.Bedelia, Jennifer. "Don"t Be Silent!." Life In The Patriarchal Matrix. Wordpress.com, 04 Oct 2012. Web. 26 Nov 2013. <http://lifeinthepatriarchalmatrix.wordpress.com...;. 2.Farrell, Warren. The Myth Of Male Power. New York: Simon & Schuster , 1993. Print. 3.Gelles, Richard. "The Missing Persons of Domestic Violence: Battered Men." Women. (1999): n. page. Print. <http://breakingthescience.org...;. 4.Herrin, Marcia, and Nancy Matsumoto. "Gloria Steinem on patriarchy and eating disorders." Eating Disorder News. Gurze Books, 13 Dec 2010. Web. 26 Nov 2013. <http://www.eatingdisordersblogs.com...;. 5.Summers, Christina. Who Stole Feminism?. New York: Touchstone, 1995. Print. 6.Whitaker, Daniel, Tadesse Haileyesus, et al. "Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence." American Journal of Public Health. 97.5 (2007): 941-947. Print. <http://ajph.aphapublications.org...

Feminism Is No Longer Relevant

Many feminist campaigns, on issues such as positive discrimination in employment, actually damage th...

Feminism Should not be Encouraged

I accept.