The Instigator
Chrystahist
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
toughenough
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Are femenists just blowing air through their lips? Are feminists just women who hate men?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
Chrystahist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,548 times Debate No: 57116
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (184)
Votes (10)

 

Chrystahist

Con

No. Just no. When people point out injustices or things they see as unfair, I believe it is completely unfair to just point out and say that they are trying to be victims. I know from personal experience that sexism still exists today in America, and I don't hate men. I proclaim myself as a young feminist, but I don't hate the male gender. And the behavior of some men towards women is appalling.
toughenough

Pro

Let's take the first question first. Women blow air through their lips, I mean sometimes they can drown and blow water through them, or puke and cough up some bile and vomit but overall they are just blowing air through their lips.

The issue of whether or not feminists hate men is really quite ridiculous in my eyes. Of course they hate men, and if I were a feminist, I'd hate men too. That's their motive, the fire in their belly; their drive to succeed at what they do.

You can't really hope to truly understand the discrimination against women without hating men for what they do, this is simply futile.

The only way for someone to have the motivation to go against society's norms and fight valiantly for the rights of women that they see necessary is if they truly understand just how wrong women are being treated and develop a loathing against the men doing it. Sure, they can hate anti-feminist females too and don't have to hate all men, only the ones who discriminated against women but unless there's a deep hatred towards men and what men have done to women throughout history and still today, one can never become a proper feminist because they'd have no emotional drive to do it.

Feminists have to hate men to want to do what they do.
Debate Round No. 1
Chrystahist

Con

That was a very educated argument. It's nice to know that not everyone on here is rude. Anyway, here is where I disagree with you. The basic concept that I got from your argument was that in order for social change, or any change in that matter, to occur, the "victimized" side has hate the "victimizers" (quotes for lack of better words). This, I believe is untrue. I know it's little off point, but it applies here: when Martin Luther King was trying to gain rights for blacks in America, he preached no hate towards those who victimized him. He preached understanding, love, and passive actions. This applies to some feminists today. As a feminist/activist, I don't hate the people who discriminate against women. I don't hate men. Instead, I understand what some men have been through and raised to believe. As children, boys are expected to be tough, emotionless people who shouldn't show feelings. Such displays would make someone feel like a sissy. Girls, on the other hand, as seen to show emotion, to cry, to show that "sissy" side. If you're raised or based on that philosophy, it's only fitting that men will see emotional sides of girls as "inferior." When I see it this way, I can't hate anyone becuase it isn't in their blame.
I believe that feminists/activists have one goal, which is to eliminate that belief that females are weaker than men and that we are items to men. I don't believe that all feminists follow the "hate men" philosophy though. I know I don't.
toughenough

Pro

Martin Luther King Jr. hated white people. He was just politically savvy enough to hide this hatred and give speeches where he shouts from that hatred to white people who he doesn't hate. He bleated like a screaming sheep in every speech he gave because of the hatred he had to the discriminatory whites. He probably considered violence at several points in his life and the fact is that if people like Malcolm X hadn't organized violent outbreaks, no one would have listened to MLK Jr. See, MLK was only seen as the nice alternative to the violent counterparts of his movement. IF there hadn't been the brutal haters of whites, MLK Jr. would never have been listened to in the first place.

He preached indirect hate. By preaching love and dreams to the opposite direction it indirectly indicates hatred of the opposite. If you love someone, you hate their enemies.

I understand that you have compassion for males but that doesn't disprove the resolution.

If you realized that women were being paid less than men for the same difficulty of work, you'd begin to dislike the system, rather than men. However, if you then found out about how men treat women in their homes, how they rape, joke about it, think they are so superior to women, marry 10 year olds to 50 year olds in Pakistan and many other places in the Middle East and throughout history have brutally abused their physical power over women without any repercussions of any kind, you'd hate men too.

Any feminist who doesn't hate men (or at least the majority of men throughout history), is probably a sociopath incapable of emotion and is only using Feminism as a facade to fit into the feminist crowd for the sake of having friends.
Debate Round No. 2
Chrystahist

Con

Again, not entirely true. If Martin Luther King wanted to use violence against the whites, I'm sure he had the influence and power to do so, but his compassion and understanding for the human spirit prevented him from doing that. Martin Luther King preached of equality in a state that was very unbalanced. Although his message may have disagreed with the ideals held back then, I think it's safe to say that his messages weren't hateful. Malcolm X praised the hatred towards the whites and justified it by the whites' actions. His messages could be classified as hateful as he demeaned the other party. Malcolm X is the exact example of the feminists who do hate, and MLK is the exact example of those who don't.
In this situation, I don't believe in the MX fashion. I believe in understanding both parties, and recognizing the potential causes of the other parties' views. I can't hate the other side fore disagreeing with me. I can't hate the other side for doing or acting in a way I don't like. But I can disagree and try to change what might have caused their perception. I personally don't like the system sometimes as you mentioned, but that doesn't lead to a direct hatred of men. I understand what system can cause men to do, and the system may twist both men and women to conform to sexist views and actions. That's what I want to fight. I don't want to fight/hate sexist men because their attitudes are a direct repercussion of a flawed society. People always preach that love conquered hatred, but I think that's not enough. Love, compassion, and understanding of other humans is what combats hate, and when you have all three of those factors, you can make change without hating the other parties. There is something I don't understand. With what you're saying, I'm led to believe that only females can be feminists because they can hate men. What about male feminists? Could you make the same comments about male feminists as being sociopaths who just want friends?
Sociopathy and understanding are two very different things. Just as hating a person as an individual is different than hating their actions. I think that what you're saying is that all feminists just judge men on their actions, not their character or background. I take all three into consideration.
Let me ask you, is it possible to hate the actions of people, but not the people themselves?
Are you saying that in order to "win" this debate, I have to hate you?
toughenough

Pro

If there hadn't been people like Malcolm X, people like MLK Jr. would never have been listened to in the first place. He gained respect by being the passive alternative to the violent rebels, not by his own doing.

Both Martin and Malcolm hated the whites for what they had done but Malcolm X let this hatred devour him and fought purely on it, MLK learned to channel it to specific whites and convert other whites to his way of thinking in order to make the whites fight each other. He was merely more strategic about his hatred than Malcolm X was.

You may not see the militant method to be your favored route to success but that's just because you prefer passive aggression. It doesn't mean that you don't hate men for what they've done to women. In actual fact, I'm not even sure if your viewpoint is even a feminist one. You have an egalitarian viewpoint as opposed to a feminist one.

You question male feminists, I will tell you that male feminists are empathising and connecting to the women that have been trodden upon by men. thus they are taking the standpoint of a hater of men.

In order to win this debate you have to hate me, yes. However, you do not have to hate me outside of the debating arena.

If you do not judge someone by their actions then why send murderers or rapists to prison? Why make any laws in the first place if actions are not the judgement criteria? Actions are the only thing you can ever judge someone on in the end. Personality and intention are illusions based upon a person's actions.
Debate Round No. 3
184 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PlumberGirl123 2 years ago
PlumberGirl123
Some women arnt comfortable reporting them. And women are free to drink alcohol with the right to not get molested or rapes. Stupid bastards these days need their little balls chopped off. Abortion is amazing. It does nothing but help women. Its a lot better than the back alley method. Point blank the woman is not going to get shamed. Yes they should speak up but a lot of boys who get molested dont either. Some people just find it embarressing and shameful. So again pigs need to keep their hands off women. We have every right to drink. Rapists need to get tortured anf feminism helps women be confident and achieve their goals. we are police women, firefighters, construction workers, plumbers, and much MUCH more! life is nothing when you are a pathetic housewife. But its everything when you can provide for your family and are independent. And you cant say murder culture in America. Thats not true. every where there is murder. Abortion is not murder. if you think exterminating a clump of cells is murder then every time you masterbate then thats "murder" too. Get over yourself. Abortion is great and you can believe it or not. but look at all the mistakes that couldve been prevented..
Posted by 1814Username 2 years ago
1814Username
By the way, none of the statistics support a rape culture. In fact, hundreds of articles have been written about this. Just because feminists want there to be a rape culture, that does not make it so. What is happening though is female alcoholism on campus is at epidemic levels. As this has increased, so have the rape claims. It really is simple. Either report the rape or shut up about it. You cant go your whole life saying --- well no one is reporting them. I can say that about anything. We have a murder culture in America. No one is reporting it though. But really, you have to believe me. You really do. We have an arson culture in America. No one is reporting it though. But really, you have to believe me. You really do.

Bottom line is feminists are crazy. Anyone who has ever been to a feminist rally sees this clearly. Even females see this clearly.
Posted by 1814Username 2 years ago
1814Username
I must have told the truth because all The_Immortal_Emris could do was insult. Everything I said has basis in sound facts. Abortions do kill more women than anything else does. 57 MILLION abortions have occurred since Roe vs Wade. I challenge anyone to tell me of more harm done to women than that. It is women killing women, which is the hypocrisy to all of this. Please, don't think I am bitter at all because I am not. Feminists just never look at themselves in the mirror. It is always everyone elses fault but their own. There is always an excuse --- even when they commit abortions and kill other women.

Just look at her comments and how much she reads into what I say. When I say that women have not learned that sometimes things do not go as planned, someone this crazy feminist read into it that I want women to be subservient, that I want sexual power, that I don't women to have equal rights. I said none of that. That is just a feminist reading her own thoughts into things. That is how crazy they are.
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 2 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
"Everything feminists put forth always have the caveat that IF WOMEN would report things"

Another baseless blanket statement from a poster who sounds like a bitter lonely old man who can't keep a woman due to his misogyny.

"well all the ifs in the world doesn't make something true."

You can barely even form a cogent argument, and you think you're speaking the truth? You just said most women who were raped can't even say if they consented or not. Which is utter nonsense. You think anyone believes your opinion on this issue?

"Many feminists just blame men for their own shortcomings and failures."

Another example of projection. You're blaming feminists for your shortcomings, failures and personal insecurities, because you can't show women the respect they deserve, so they won't give you the time of day.

"Those women have not learned that sometimes things do not work out the way you plan. Also, feminists do not understand that you cannot have it all. Men learned that long ago."

Such obvious arrogance. You want it all. You want women to be subservient, you want to have sexual power over them. You want them to stop demanding equality and their fundemental rights, because it would be easier on YOU, if they would just shut up and be demure.

Sorry, you lonely old salt. You're going to have to learn that women are your equals, whether you like it or not.
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 2 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
1814Username, nice throwaway post.

If you're going to say some ridiculous noise, you should have the guts to use your main profile.

"Feminists never..."

Let me stop you right here. This is a blanket statement, which assumes a universality about feminists which cannot be proven by you or anyone else. It is your personal bigotry. What follows is a strawman argument with NO basis in fact. Congratualations on projecting your misogynistic bias.

The fact that rape numbers are low does not change the reality that we have a culture which objectifies women as sexual objects, which is why it is called a "rape" culture. We also have a society which has an unprecedented amount of sexual violence in the media, which lends itself to our collective obsession with violence toward woman.

Abortion has killed a lot of women. Those back alley abortions were deadly. Aren't we all glad women now have safe, clean clinics where they can go? Or were you just begging the question? Either way, you're not using factual data, just an emotional plea based in a convoluted personal faith.

Boys are SUCCESSFUL at suicide more than girls. Girls attempt suicide more than boys. Check your stats son.

Women are more dedicated to their studies on average than men are. Mostly due to men like you who tell them they can't be as good as men, so they try harder.

"Most women cannot even remember details of their rape let alone if they consented."

This is why the internet is a better place for this sort of debate, because I would have hit you in the mouth for this arrogant misogyny were we in person.

Your statement is so off-base, completely factually incorrect, and assumes women cannot experience the traumatic loss of memory from being raped. As to consent, if they called it a rape, they obviously didn't consent. You're living in a deluded fantasy world. I am sickened by you.
Posted by PlumberGirl123 2 years ago
PlumberGirl123
Rapes are always high, a lot of them dont get reported. of course some abortions kill women but accidents happen! you dont think a women giving birth never died? why does everyone say that women make less than men. Everywhereeee it says that. men use women when they are drunk. everyone should realize that no one can have it all but you can stand up and fight to atleast get close to it all. look where we were in 1914, and then look where we are now, 100 years later! us women have come a long way. without feminism we would stay pathetic housewives, depressed and shackled to the home. Feminism rules!
Posted by 1814Username 2 years ago
1814Username
Feminists never address the actual facts about things. For example, none of the rape statistics back up the rape culture myth and in fact, rape is at an all time low. Another example is that feminists fail to acknowledge that abortion killed more women than anything ever. Another example is that boys commit suicide 4 times more than girls. Another example is that women actually make more than men in the same exact jobs with the same exact experience. Another example is that women now make up 60% of college admission enrollments. Another example is that the rise in rapes on college campuses has coincide with the rise in alcoholism among women. Most women cannot even remember details of their rape let alone if they consented. There is a litany of things that feminists will neither address or admit to. Everything feminists put forth always have the caveat that IF WOMEN would report things ...... well all the ifs in the world doesn't make something true. Many feminists just blame men for their own shortcomings and failures. Those women have not learned that sometimes things do not work out the way you plan. Also, feminists do not understand that you cannot have it all. Men learned that long ago.
Posted by The_Immortal_Emris 2 years ago
The_Immortal_Emris
Doesn't seem fake to me.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
fake opponent
Posted by F22Raptor 2 years ago
F22Raptor
Wow the MLK discussion really hit it off for me. The point was well used by the instigator and the contender countered it very very poorly. He showed no proof that MLK was making the whole thing up and he actually hated whites. That must have been false personal beliefs.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
ChrystahisttoughenoughTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ripped Pro to shreds in this debate, especially since Pro resorted to racism and his trainwreck of views in presenting his case. Pro was also highly offensive and claimed MLK Jr. was a racist for championing the Civil Rights Movement and for having a hand in ending legal segregation--knocking away his opportunity at a conduct point. Pro claimed that MLK Jr's successes can be attributed to men that used violence for the cause. What absolute rubbish! The ignorance here is astonishing. Con won this debate easily.
Vote Placed by F22Raptor 2 years ago
F22Raptor
ChrystahisttoughenoughTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: The instigator had very valid points that didn't require any sources and used her own personal experiance as a source as well and her point about MLK really did it for me (and the contender really countered that badly.) Also she (the instigator) had much better conduct.
Vote Placed by Martley 2 years ago
Martley
ChrystahisttoughenoughTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: It was hard for me to award points, though I have strong opinions about this debate topic I do not vote my opinions. Neither side cited any sources for any point or conclusion they made. Neither side made any convincing argument one way or the other... it just devolved into this odd argument on MLK and MalcomX which I still fail to see how it even related to the topic. Perhaps if the debate had more rounds (which it should have) they could have moved on and continued to debate the actual topic. Having said all that, I award Con the points for Conduct, as Pro did not satisfy the BOP which was Pro's responsibility. I guess Con did as good as to be aspected given Pro's lack of Proof and real argument on the issue.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 2 years ago
funwiththoughts
ChrystahisttoughenoughTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate at some point seems to have turned into whether or not MLK hated white people, but either way Con was the clear winner. Since Pro had the BOP, being the one making the claim. He provided no actual evidence to assume that all feminists-or any feminist other than him-hated women. He could have given examples of feminists who hated men, or common feminist behaviours that show a hatred of men, but instead he just ranted about how much he personally hates men.
Vote Placed by PeacefulChaos 2 years ago
PeacefulChaos
ChrystahisttoughenoughTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Having the BOP, Pro failed to prove that feminists as a whole hate men. In Pro's analogy concerning MLK, Pro also failed to demonstrate why or how MLK hated whites, only having bare assertions. Con wins by default.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
ChrystahisttoughenoughTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has BOP, did not prove that all or even a majority of feminists hate men.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
ChrystahisttoughenoughTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to agree with Con on this one and now let me in detail explain why. No where were any sources cited to show either side right, this is especially true when Pro says feminists hate men. This is something that needs to be verified with fact, as I don't believe it even though it may sound plausible. For this reason alone Pro should lose the debate and so I award Con argument points. Regarding the resolution, I would suggest you tidy up your resolution next time Con. Also to both debaters try to be more cordial in the debates, it goes a long way to making a debate enjoyable to read.
Vote Placed by 64bithuman 2 years ago
64bithuman
ChrystahisttoughenoughTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate essentially boiled down to a comparison between MLK Jr. and Malcolm X. Both men fought for the same cause, but the means were very different. There is no doubt that Malcolm X saw the white man as an inherently evil being, incapable of basic human to human understanding, and his goal was a complete separation from the white establishment. MLK Jr. called for a similar thing from time to time, but his main message was: "I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood." Feminists, I think, approach the issue from both angles. There are Malcolm X's and MLK Jr's. I sit pretty well right in the middle, Pro gets a point for spelling/grammar, however.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
ChrystahisttoughenoughTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Unreferenced, disgressed onto MLK for a pretty poor reason and barely addressed the resolution. This debate was a waste of time.
Vote Placed by tylergraham95 2 years ago
tylergraham95
ChrystahisttoughenoughTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: No points awarded. Jesus Christ this is a trainwreck.