• PRO

    The hypersexualization of women and young girls is a...

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

    The hypersexualization of women and young girls is a major issue that gets widespread media attention and concerns us all.

  • PRO

    This unfairness may thus lead to a conscious or...

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

    Con, thank you for your contribution. Women face injustice all around the world; in many cultures, even today, a male baby is preferable to a female baby to give you an example. Starting before their birth, women have to continuously deal with inequality. This unfairness may thus lead to a conscious or unconscious feeling of inferiority. Women have been told how to act, what to say, what to wear, more than men and so we can notice that a little girl is, more often, perfectly aware of her gender role, of the role of the feminine in the society than a little boy is of his. Imitating her mother, learning from her entourage, the little girl faces a stricter education. To reaffirm their existence, women started the feminist movement in the 1960s (women's fight against sexism can not be limited to this movement of course). 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. Buying a simple item of clothing because they want to doesn't mean that they are fully in control of their actions. We are surrounded by media messages,that offer women 'role models' they should look up to. Prejudices and the existing system in our societies push women to try pleasing men's expectations too. Even though it looks like it is getting better (and it is) and that women are in power, they are under pressure and unconsciously our consciously guided by authorities and media above mentioned. In addition to this, since we are debating on the hypersexualization of young girls, we should take in consideration their age, and the fact that they are, at their age (8-13) too young to make that kind of decisions without any guidance.

  • 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.

  • PRO

    I don't think it's possible to debate the fact that rape...

    Is rape culture promoted by feminism to be taken seriously

    I don't think it's possible to debate the fact that rape is a very serious crime. That being said, I want to request we shift this argument more towards all of these rape allegations. I do not believe the feminist movement promotes or discourages rape culture, or has any impact on legitimate rapes. However, I am skeptical about a lot of these recent allegations that have come out against influential members of our society, as you know famous people will always have a group of people that hate them, and considering the amount of recent cases that have come up, I do think we should have the right to ask to see evidence of these very serious crimes. Even murders need clear and convincing evidence to convict the defendant. Best of luck to you!

  • 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...

  • PRO

    It simply means you are able to see the difference in...

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

    You really are coming off as a charlatan. "CON:That is Pro"s thesis but there has been little evidence yet provided to support that position." No, that was not my thesis, it was a COUNTER to your point in R1. My thesis was this (which oddly enough is usually found near the start of someone's argument): "The church celebrates women, celebrates their femininity, celebrates their ability to bring life into a world of death, and in fact holds that the FIRST and perhaps GREATEST Christians in history were in fact, women! There is a biblical and historical foundation for all of these ideas." You go on to say that since there is SOME discrimination against women, there must be some level of misogyny. No, this is a logical fallacy, I can tell you are going to have trouble on the LSAT. Further more, discrimination is not always a bad thing, as seen in the second entry of the definition I previously provided. It simply means you are able to see the difference in something. An Analogy, we celebrate the beauty of the color white, and the color black by themselves, but we do not always need to make them exactly the same or mix them together to make gray. I'm just going to generally sum up some of your points instead of being systematic, because debates are not about convincing the opponent, but getting your side out there for the audience. So you say in the beginning that I provide no evidence for my thesis. Now that we have established that you cannot even find where my thesis is, and I have provided it, I will tell you that I did provide examples and evidence for it in everything I refuted and countered in R1. While it is obvious that you can make a nice presentation, do research, and cite well...you really just cherry pick what you want. I mean that's what debating is though, in the competitive sense, but I can tell you really don't have a desire to see the other side. You cite a bishop. One bishop. Judas was a bishop, too. Here let me do a quote mining experiment: From Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder, "[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." ^http://www.lifenews.com... Well that must represent the whole view of the organization. Eugenics is great, how can anyone be opposed to it! So now let's move onto the subject of pornography, which you countered clumsily by saying, "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." Let me correct you there...it's not MOST SEX and sexuality, it is ALL sex. Men and women are both called to celibate lives. And no, we are not confined to "baby-making", but rather challenged to practice self-denial, mutual love and respect, and not put pills in our body. You are seriously undercutting how Catholics view sex. Men are called to the same limits as women, thus totally destroying the discrimination aspect. But I did not see you mention that. You are a skilled writer, you are only letting the audience see what you want them to. Secondly, this does nothing to counter that the secular world, which you are in support of, has it's largest industries profit off of objectifying women, e.g. Pornography and advertisements. Go watch an hour of TV and tell if you DONT see something that objectifies women, sells sex, or spurs on racism. Thirdly, I cannot be a priest either. It's a supernatural calling, and I'm not going to spell out the Sacraments of Vocation for you because this is not an RCIA class. If you really have interest you can start another debate, message me personally, attend an RCIA class, or bring this up on Catholic Answers. No one is forced to do anything in the Catholic Church. The vast majority of Catholics are not clerical, and the vast majority of the lay people live lives contrary to all of the Church's teachings. This is what Jesus showed us from His ministry on Earth. He hung around tax collectors, prostitutes, poor people, sinners, etc. Any seriously practicing Catholic will tell you they fall short on some of the church's teachings, let's just say in the realm of sexuality, but they are not kicked out nor are they forced to go. Women can be CEO's of fortune 500 companies and be fully functioning members of the Catholic Church. They can have sex, or not. They can use NFP, or not. They can follow the rules or not. They aren't kicked out, nor forced to do anything by anyone. Women are also able to follow their callings within the church, and women are capable of doing things that men are not. So now onto your counter to my "medical student" analogy. You're misusing the analogy. It was simply meant to illustrate that there are CERTAIN circumstances where we treat unequal people (unequal in certain aspects) unequally, and that is not injustice. You make ANOTHER LOGICAL FALLACY (covered up by decent rhetoric) by making it into a false analogy. "Taken from the side, and you are not well learned..." Actually, I was paraphrasing my girlfriend. I don't know who that guy is you quoted. But kudos for you for knowing that. I like how you totally did not address how that verse and story can be taken to mean something other than you clumsily showed it to me. Once again, letting the audience see what you want it to and ignoring any detractors. Here is another example: "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." That is when the church was founded (or at Pentecost when they received more Holy Orders), but Christianity started with Christ's resurrection. And who were the first believers? Women. Who doubted? Men. Paul is NOT the figure who defined Christianity. And the Church totally does have a hierarchy and ranks Christians. Why do you think we have Papal Primacy, Canonization, the God Head, choirs of angels, levels in heaven, etc. So yes, you are not well versed in actual Catholic teaching. Sorry if it bad rhetoric for me to point our when you quote mine, say objectively false things, and play fast and loose with history. "As Pro states, Mary is a complicated figure, a relatively spare portrait on which misogynists and feminists each paint fraught ideologies" Never said that, but thanks for making something up. Seriously, you are just putting words in my mouth at this point. Desperate much? PRO: " [Women] are inherently better Christians and People." CON: A fairly sexist generalization. ^If it is, it certainly is not misogynistic. "CON: People are not things. Beauty is subjective, superficial, and ephemeral." Well, if you look at how we view God, everything in the physical universe is a thing. God is "Ipsum Esse" and outside of "thing"-dom for lack of a better word. He has no genus or classification. He is the uncaused caused. We are in the genus "human" if you will, but God is not. So what the Pope is saying, is that women are the most beautiful of all creation, i.e. out of everything in the world. We have different perspectives. Out of space.

  • PRO

    The church celebrates women, celebrates their femininity,...

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

    There are a large number of misconceptions about the Roman Catholic Church, it's history, it's teachings, and it's nature. I hope to combat those misconceptions, one of which is how the Church views women. The church celebrates women, celebrates their femininity, celebrates their ability to bring life into a world of death, and in fact holds that the FIRST and perhaps GREATEST Christians in history were in fact, women! There is a biblical and historical foundation for all of these ideas. This is in contrast to popular misconceptions about how women are viewed in the church, in that the are "subservient" to men and not as important. This is a gross over simplification, and I have never come across an institution that wants to protect, cherish, and celebrate women more than the Catholic Church.

  • 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.