The Instigator
VoiceOfEqaulity
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Feminism is for equal rights for all genders not just women.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 909 times Debate No: 70036
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

VoiceOfEqaulity

Pro

Feminism is about gender equality and the reason it is called feminism is because even though it's about gender equality it's women who are underprivileged.

I want to grow up in a world were women don't get judged if they wear makeup or if they don't wear makeup. I want to grow up in a world were if a boy wants to were makeup he can without fear of being bullied or judged. I want to grown up in a world were if a girl has short hair she isn't stereotyped as a lesbian and if a boy is flamboyant he isn't stereotyped as gay.

Feminism isn't about hating men and I have to admit there are some people who use the word feminist wrong and think its about women being superior but it's not about that it's about that equality for all genders.
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, VoiceofEquality, for instigating this debate.

Since my opponent is Pro in this debate, he/she has the burden of proof to show that “feminism is for equal rights for all genders not just for women”. In the event that feminism is shown to be for unequal rights in certain circumstances, or in the alternate event wherein my opponent fails to provide arguments to affirm the resolution, the resolution is negated and I win.

Negative Case


Premise: The myth of gender equality

At the biological level, prima facie, it is clear that women, who are anatomically very different to men (e.g. genitals), are not equal in this sense. But the differences run deeper. At the University of Pennsylvania, there was found to be striking differences in the neurological wiring of men’s and women’s brains. Specifically, neurological connection is found to be mostly forward and back with men, whilst women have connections left to right [1]. These differences manifest in ability, such as men being “better at learning and performing single tasks, such as cycling or navigating, whilst women tend to be better at multitasking and problem-solving in group situations.

These differing abilities also manifest in preferences. In his book Gender, Nature, and nurture, and as spoken in the documentary ‘Brainwash: The Gender Equality Paradox’, Richard Lippa talks of his survey that collaborated answers from over 200,000 people in 53 counties. They were all asked what they wanted to work with. He found that, “men [were] much more orientated in the thing orientated occupations. Women, relatively, are much more orientated to the people professions… This is consistent across all the countries… Something biological is going on.” [2] [3].

Also found within this documentary is Trond Diseth of the Oslo Univeristy Hospital Research. Trond specifically works with “children with deformed genitals” and tries to work out which sex the children are. He does with the methodology of placing male, female and neutral toys in front of the child. He found that there are “clear differences between what the two gender gravitate towards… Children are born with a clear biological disposition” [3].


A1: Unequal rights in STEM fields

Now that it is very clear that there are differences between the genders, why is feminism’s pursuit of equality harmful (i.e. what is the impact?). Programs and organisations that push women towards certain professions, such as the ‘Steminist’ organisation, are a waste of time and money because for the large majority of women, they are not interested in the ‘thing’ orientated professions. But it gets worse. There exists ‘gender quotas’ so that there is a push towards ‘gender equality’ in the workforce. These quotas mean that a certain number of women are required to be accepted into the STEM fields, or else the college will get into trouble [4], of which was backed by U.S President Barrack Obama [5]. BUT IT GETS EVEN WORSE. In 2012, there was serious talk (involving Barrack Obama) of ‘limiting male enrolment into science fields’ [6]. Such blatant misandry is the final stage of feminist rhetoric and is clearly fighting for unequal rights between the genders.

The conception of feminist’s equal rights for all genders is plagued by the incorrect premise that the genders are equal (i.e. that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCES between the genders). Such a premise is wholly fallacious and results in feminism fighting for UNEQUAL RIGHTS, due to trying to correct for nonsense like the patriarchy. A1’s example is a clear demonstration of feminism not understanding the inherent differences between the genders, labelling these differences as sexist against women, and thus trying to correct by being sexist against men. Hence, in reality, feminism is for unequal rights between the genders, even though feminists think it is about equal rights.


Counter-arguments


“Feminism is about gender equality and the reason it is called feminism is because even though it's about gender equality it's women who are underprivileged."

As demonstrated under Premise and A1, it is the fallacious presumption that women are “underprivileged” that creates a false premise. When feminists work with the premise that the world is inherently sexist against them, instead of recognising the real, biological inequalities between the genders, policies aimed at correcting this non-existent problem (in the form of gender quotas) are inherently sexist against men.



“I want to grow up in a world were women don't get judged if they wear makeup or if they don't wear makeup. I want to grow up in a world were if a boy wants to were makeup he can without fear of being bullied or judged. I want to grown up in a world were if a girl has short hair she isn't stereotyped as a lesbian and if a boy is flamboyant he isn't stereotyped as gay.

Your wants are pure abstraction that do not fit reality, much like feminism does not fight for equal gender rights.

A collaborative study by Viktoria R. Mileva (Univeristy of Stirling, Scotland), Alex Jones (University of Bangor, Wales) and Richard Russell (Gettysburg College, USA), showed that women who do not wear make-up are, generally, less attractive [7]. At the biologically level (i.e. the subconscious), women are judged regardless of whether you want them to be, as this is mate selection at play.


The reasons for women wearing make-up and not encouraging men to do it, is because make-up was invented to make women look more fertile and or healthy. For example, from roughly 1500-1600 AD, “European women often attempt to lighten their skin using a variety of products, including white lead paint. Queen Elizabeth I of England was one well-known user of white lead, with which she created a look known as "the Mask of Youth”. There is not a reason for men to apply make-up in day-to-day life, hence the stigma against it.

A poll, reported in The Telegraph, showed that “men prefer women with long wavy hair” [9]. When women cut their hair short, it is insanity to think that people will not think that there is something wrong with her. Take a look at the following photos and tell me which version looks better and which version is more likely to be considered a lesbian:






Likewise, flamboyancy in boys is attributed to homosexuals because homosexuals are, on average, more flamboyant than heterosexual men. It would be like wearing a t-shirt that says “Abortion is murder” but also holding the opinion that abortion is acceptable. Sure, your shirt does not necessarily reflect your opinion, but you cannot blame people for assuming that you are against abortion when you give cues to say that you are.


So, the point of addressing each of these points is to show how feminism, in fighting for equal gender rights, fails to recognise or understand the important context in which these gender differences are inspired by, hence the ridiculous conclusions that feminism comes to (women are wholly oppressed by white, straight men; there is absolutely no inherent difference between the genders).



“Feminism isn't about hating men and I have to admit there are some people who use the word feminist wrong and think its about women being superior but it's not about that it's about that equality for all genders.”

In practice, feminism advocates for unequal rights, as demonstrated with A1.


References

[1] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...

[2] http://books.google.com.au...

[3] https://www.youtube.com...

[4] http://dailycaller.com...

[5] http://www.human.cornell.edu...

[6] http://www.amnation.com...

[7] http://www.ehbea2013.com...

[8] http://cosmeticsinfo.org...

[9] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Debate Round No. 1
VoiceOfEqaulity

Pro



"The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

This is the definition of feminism, which states it is about equality of the sexes.

Counter Arguments.

"A poll, reported in The Telegraph, showed that “men prefer women with long wavy hair” [9]. When women cut their hair short, it is insanity to think that people will not think that there is something wrong with her."

This is exactly the thing we want to eliminate. Stereotypes can be harmful and can reduce self confidence.

"The devastating effect that negative stereotyping can have on people’s sense of themselves and their abilities has been known for decades now. One world famous study was carried out in 1968 by Jane Elliott who had been greatly affected by the assassination of Martin Luther King. She wanted to teach her 8 and 9 year olds about the damaging effects of stereotypes. She told them that scientists had discovered that blue-eyed people were much more intelligent and hard-working than brown-eyed people who were lazier and tended to be stupid. She then divided the class into the two eye colours and gave more praise and attention to the blue-eyed children. Within hours she could see that this classification was affecting performance in class. The blue-eye children were working harder and achieving higher grades of work; for brown eyes the opposite was true. There were also effects out of the classroom. The blue eyed youngsters adopted superior ways and were taunting their brown-eyed peers. Jane Elliott then told the class that she had made a mistake – it was brown eyed people who were clever and hard-working. The effects on the children then reversed in line with the stereotypes she had given them."

This experiment proves that stereotypes can be harmful. So when people stereotype girls to be stupid and boys to be smarter it can reduce their self confidence and they may start conforming to these stereotypes.



"Your wants are pure abstraction that do not fit reality"

Society has told us who to be and how to fit in , this is another thing we are trying to battle. The reason why people believe things like boys wearing makeup is wrong and girls having short hair is wrong is because the views that society has placed and opinions that have been passed down through generations. However equally we don't want people being shamed for wanting to be what society calls the perfect girl/boy.




"In practice, feminism advocates for unequal rights, "

Like i stated in my previous argument feminism is about equality and i think this image describes what feminism is all about.
s://41.media.tumblr.com...; alt="" width="180" height="810" data-pin-url="http://loganl517.tumblr.com...; data-pin-description="🔊Loganl517🔊" />

I am going to end my argument with ways feminism has helped both men and women today:
Feminism brought women out of the household — if they so chose.
Feminism broke barriers for little girls with presidential aspirations.

Feminism triggered the FBI to change the definition of rape to include men.
Feminism enabled men to spend more time with their children.

Feminism demanded that the media change its representation of men.


Sources:
http://mic.com...
http://mic.com...
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...


Zarroette

Con

Thank you, VoiceforEquality. I will first continue my Negative Case, then I will address my opponent’s arguments.

Negative Case


Premise: The myth of gender equality

Wholly untouched, thus it stands.

A1: Unequal rights in STEM fields

My argument that shows clear inequality forced by the hand of feminism is wholly uncontested.

A2: Pay Gap Theory is inherently sexist against men

One of the most common arguments espoused by feminists is that there is a roughly 0.75:1 ratio in pay between women and men. This is fallacious argument that relies on dishonest manipulation of statistics, which includes ignoring the varying factors in the gap (things like hours worked, types of jobs worked etc.) [5].


Mark Perry and Andrew Biggs, two scholars at the American Enterprise Institute, found that the differences could be explained in a similar fashion, “men were almost twice as likely as women tow work more than 40 hours a week, and women almost twice as likely to work only 35 to 39 hours per week. Once that is taken into consideration, the pay gap begins to shrink… 88% of male earnings” [6]. They continued, taking similar factors that would affect pay, and effectively reduced the gap to a negligible amount.


An OECD report, The Price of Prejudice: Labour Market Discrimination of the Grounds of Gender and Ethinicity, found that when examining UK data, merely “differences in motivation, expectations and field of study can explain up to 70% of the observed wage gap” [7] [8].



When all factors are controlled for, the pay gap vanishes in the U.S. It is only through feminist’s blatant ignorance and/or manipulation of statistics is there an unjust pay gap between the sexes. Thus, once again, feminism pushes towards inequality by arguing that the “patriarchy” discriminates aganst women when it does no such thing here.


A3: Feminists show unbridled hatred for men


Let me show you what some famous feminists have treated us to, in terms of quotes involving “equal rights for all genders”:


“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class is oppressing them” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor


“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo” – Valeria Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM (Society for Cutting up Men) Manifesto


“Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex” – Valerie Solanas


“The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness…can be trained to do most things” – Jilly Cooper, SCUM


“I want to see a man beaten to a blood pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig” – Andrea Dworkin


“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men” – Sharon Stone; Actress


“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race” – Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future – If There Is One – Is Female


If feminism is about “equal rights for all genders”, then these proclaimed and celebrated feminists advocate man-hating as “equal rights for all genders”, which is clearly contradictory.



Counter-arguments


The faulty definition of feminism: equality of the sexes.

I completely reject this definition on this basis that I have shown it is not reality. We are debating whether feminism is about equal rights of the sexes, so my opponent’s appeal to definition is fallacious in that it is purely a ploy at semantics, rather than a sustained argument as to why the definition should be that way.


Eliminating of stereotypes because we do not understand human psychology


Short-hair: My opponent declares that this is merely a “stereo-type” without providing a shred of evidence, thus making this argument a logical fallacy as it is a bare assertion [1].

Hair-length is one of the many facets that rated in terms of sexual attractiveness, according to evolutionary psychology. In his book The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, which collaborates research on the topic, David M. Buss describes how multiple studies have found hair-length is highly correlated with female attractiveness, due to long hair indicating good health [2, page 309]. “Starvation causes loss of hair, nutritional deficiencies in vitamins and minerals cause damaged hair… hair, therefore, provides an observable record of an individual’s recent health and nutrition”. This is why, as Etcoff (1999) found that long-hair is attractive across ALL cultures, despite the wild differences in cultures [3].

Once again, feminism has the incorrect context of “stereotypes”, instead of the correct context of “evolutionary psychology”, thus feminism, in reality, feminism ignores our instincts rather than pursuing any notion of “equal rights for genders” by fixing “stereotypes”.


Make-up: The notion that women put make-up on purely because society tells them is to ignore the context in which inspired women to put it on in the first place. Again, have a look at evolutionary psychology. David M. Buss’ book elaborates on why skin quality is another facet in which human males looked for sexual partners. In ages where insect bites, diseases, infections and a host of other ailments brought ill health, men would choose for women with the least blemished skin as that was the healthiest (and thus, most likely to continue the lineage) [2]. As Grammer et al. (2002) found in his research involving men rating the attractiveness of naked women, he found that there was a large positive correlation between skin “homogeneity” (a symmetrical face without blemishes) and general attractiveness [2].

Similar findings were found in Fink et al. (2001): “[when subjects were presented] with faces whose shapes were standardized… [it was] found that skin texture significantly influenced attractiveness ratings” [2].

Finally, in another article published by Fink and Pento-Voak called Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Attractiveness, which summarised the findings of researcher’s work into the field, it was concluded that “these mechanisms [involving evolutionary psychology] are presumed to be highly resistant to cultural modification” [4]. As you can see, make-up use has its origins in wanting to be more attractive to the opposite sex, rather than merely being “stereotypes”.


My opponent’s list of bare assertions

“Feminism brought women out of the household — if they so chose. Feminism broke barriers for little girls with presidential aspirations. Feminism triggered the FBI to change the definition of rape to include men. Feminism enabled men to spend more time with their children. Feminism demanded that the media change its representation of men.

My opponent provides no sustained reasoning as to why you should believe these claims. Thus, they are bare assertions, which is the second time my opponent has applied this logical fallacy [1]. Even if any of these are true, my opponent gives you no reason as to why to believe that, hence these are insufficient as arguments in a debate.



References

[1] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...

[2] http://books.google.com.au...

[3] Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the prettiest. New York: Doubleday.

[4] https://www.uni-muenster.de...

[5] http://www.marketwatch.com...

[6] http://billmoyers.com...

[7] http://www.avoiceformen.com...

[8] http://www.oecd.org...

Debate Round No. 2
VoiceOfEqaulity

Pro

I have to admit my arguments are not as well worded as yours.

You stated: "My opponent provides no sustained reasoning as to why you should believe these claims. Thus, they are bare assertions"
So i am going to give some evidence:
"A: The old definition was "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will."
Many agencies interpreted this definition as excluding a long list of sex offenses that are criminal in
most jurisdictions,
such as offenses involving oral or anal penetration, penetration with objects,
and rapes of males.
The new Summary definition of Rape is: "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or
anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex
organ of another person, without
the consent of the victim." " - taken from http://www.fbi.gov...
which backs my point that FBI changed their definition of rape to include men.

"Employed new fathers in the UK are now entitled to at least two weeks' paternity leave on the birth of their child."
- See more at: http://www.dad.info...

The reason we had these things take place is because people spoke up and wanted these things. These people wanted equal rights to others (wanting time of to look after their child just like women get).

You have stated numerous times that women do things to become more attractive to men but this is exactly what we are trying to stop: women being told they have to wear makeup to impress men. This doesn't mean women can't wear makeup to impress men if they want but it also means if a women wants to wear makeup they can do so without people assuming they are trying to impress a man it also means women don't have to wear makeup either. Why does everything need to be for men? Society is changing. You also reference many surveys. Despite surveys giving a rough estimate of views and opinions of society it also isn't 100% accurate. It's like surveying 5 people in a class of 50 and stating it is was most people think.

Evidence for stereotypes:
http://www.algbtical.org...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, VoiceofEquality; wording things like this just takes practise :)

I will use this last round to summarise the contentions and respond to what my opponent wrote.

Negative Case


Premise: The myth of gender equality

My opponent has entirely ignored this, despite it being very relevant to the arguments being made in other areas. The fact is that women and men are different; they can never be equal in a real sense, hence attempts for gender equality are often sexist and ignore the real biological states of both or one of the sexes.


A1: Unequal rights in STEM fields

Completely dropped. This argument shows clear evidence of feminism being sexist against men.


A2: Pay Gap Theory is inherently sexist against men

Completely dropped. Again, this argument shows clear evidence of feminism being sexist against men.


A3: Feminists show unbridled hatred for men

Dropped, in the complete sense. I quoted half-a-dozen feminists espousing hatred for men; this is a clear example of feminists wanting nothing to do with equal rights for all genders, ESPECIALY none for men.



Counter-arguments

The faulty definition of feminism: equality of the sexes

Since my opponent did not respond to this, it appears that we agree this definition should not be used.


Eliminating stereotypes because we do not understand human psychology

Short-hair: The objections of short-hair and make-up seem to be roughly the same, so I will address them at once.

Make-up: The fact is, as explained next to this title in my last round, that men are attracted to women with clear skin more so than women with less-than-clear skin. Again, my opponent’s feminist argument fails to realise that societal recognition cannot change the biological imperatives. In other words, men will always be attracted to women with clear skin, regardless of what society or any external influence says.

My opponent then continues to make the ridiculous assertion that women do not have to wear make-up to impress men. Well, as shown in my studies, which reference biological imperatives, yes, women do need to do that. If she wants to be less attractive, then by all means she does not have to wear make-up. But to say that she can be as attractive without at least modest make-up is to completely ignore the science of evolutionary psychology. As I underlined from my research: mechanisms involving evolutionary psychology are highly resistant to cultural modification, AND in regards to long-hair, long-hair is attractive across ALL cultures, despite the wild differences in cultures. Society cannot change evolutionary psychology by simply telling people to stop doing things, much like heart will not stop beating simply by wishing it would.

Finally, my opponent runs a mitigation argument against my surveys. Whilst my surveys are not the absolute ideal in terms of research, they are far better than the zero research my opponent has given to support his/her theory that it is purely society dictating these trends (men liking long-hair and unblemished faces on women). In conjunction with the other references to evolutionary psychologists concluding upon research done in field, there is not simply my surveys that I rely upon to make my argument, too.

Evidence for stereotypes: My opponent simply cites a few sources without explaining as to why they are relevant to this debate. Voters should not be required to read through sources in order to have an educated guess as to what the debater intended as argument. The debate happens on DDO, so everything should be explained on DDO, elsewise I could reference 250 sources and say “read these to understand why I have won”. Via reductio ad absurdum, I shown why my opponent’s conduct with source referencing is illogical [1].

But even if you were to take whatever argument made with these sources, my contention was never that stereotypes do not exist, rather that in the context of feminism, feminism often gets the fact wrong in blaming things on stereotypes, rather than evolutionary psychology. For example, women with short-hair are not stigmatised because of the patriarchy, rather because men find women more attractive with long-hair.


My opponent’s list of bare assertions

My opponent has decided to defend some of the bare assertions made last round. I will address those.

Feminism changed the definition of rape: My opponent has provided evidence to show that the definition of rape has indeed changed. However, there is no link to this being a feminist initiative. Control+f the FBI document for “feminism” or something that is directly related to feminism, and you will see that whilst a change in terms did occur, there is simply no link to feminism.

Employed fathers now entitled to at least two weeks’ paternity leave on the birth of their child: Again, whilst this did indeed occur, there is simply no link to feminism. Just because there are equal rights, it does not necessarily mean that feminism has pushed for this, and we certainly cannot say if there is no reference or mention of feminism.


Conclusion: Why you should vote for me

My opponent
completely drops every aspect of my negative case. Since my arguments there clearly show that feminism is not about equal rights for the genders, and is rather about hatred or unequal rights for men, my opponent loses due to all of these contentions.

In terms of negation from my end, I provided numerous scholarly work to show that it is evolutionary psychology largely at play, in regards to women with make-up and long-hair, not patriarchy or society being mean to women. My opponent could only run a mitigation argument against my surveys, dropping the rest of my scholarly work on this point.

My opponent also tried to link some of his/her bare assertions to ways in which feminism has helped both men and women, but he/she failed to link this feminism.

Thank you, VoiceofEquality, for this debate. Thank you, Mr/Ms reader for reading our debate =)


Reference:

[1] http://rationalwiki.org...

Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
@ArgentStorm

"I'm not aware of any serious feminist thinker who would argue that a sexual preference (long hair, clear skin) is objectification at all."

You're using the No True Scotsman fallacy by using qualifiers such as "serious". The fact is that some feminists do think this, and the more relevant fact was that my opponent argued this.

"Objectification is never acceptable because it denies the agency and subjectivity of the person objectified and implies interchangeability."

Well yes and no. It depends on the degree to which objectification is used. For example, when the post-man comes to my door to deliver mail, I will view him in terms of his job, rather than a middle-aged man who likes to go fishing on Saturdays. The fact is that everybody objectifies people, to some degree, a lot of the time.

"A preference for an attractive partner is one thing, seeking an attractive partner to the exclusion of all other factors is another."

Let's face it. A woman who cuts her hair short and never bothers to wear make-up isn't going to get much attention from men. The physical attraction has to be there for men or else they won't be interested, and no amount of "objectification is wrong" rhetoric will change that.

"Feminism argues that people should not be judged exclusively on sexual attractiveness...They don't want to be seen as sexual objects"

Unfortunately, we don't live in this ideal world where that is possible. Men are programmed to treat women differently purely based on evolutionary psychology. The faster we stop trying to force abstract follies upon people, the faster we learn to deal with the reality that, at least for the moment, cannot be changed.
Posted by ArgentStorm 2 years ago
ArgentStorm
*Disingenuous. Apologies, it cut me off at the end. It's been a pleasure, but it's nearly midnight here, so I'm out for the night. Cheers!
Posted by ArgentStorm 2 years ago
ArgentStorm
"That the objectification of women, via judgements of their hair, is a perfectly acceptable process, given the biological imperatives. ... " (shortened for char. use)

I'm not aware of any serious feminist thinker who would argue that a sexual preference (long hair, clear skin) is objectification at all. What is objectifying is the reduction of a person to a sexual preference. Objectification is never acceptable because it denies the agency and subjectivity of the person objectified and implies interchangeability. Biological imperatives toward certain traits are not objectification per se because they do not exist in isolation. A preference for an attractive partner is one thing, seeking an attractive partner to the exclusion of all other factors is another. It's also context specific. Limited objectification may be appropriate in certain circumstances, but those are the exception to the rule. There's nuance, most particularly agency and the signalling of appropriateness involved.

"However, if they want sexual approval ..."

Do they want sexual approval in all circumstances, situations, and contexts (ex. at work, walking down the street), or only certain ones, where, for example, they indicate that they are seeking sexual approval through the application of makeup and attendance at, say, a club? Is physical attraction the be-all and end-all of sexual approval? Again, there's nuance involved. Feminism argues that people should not be judged exclusively on sexual attractiveness, or at all on sexual attractiveness in situations where sexual attractiveness is not relevant (ex. a job interview). They don't want to be seen as sexual objects, they want to be seen as full people possessing agency and subjectivity; but that doesn't by necessity exclude seeking sexual approval when it suits them.

Equality may not have been expressly defined, but to ignore the feminist definition of equality in the context of a debate about feminism and equal rights is simply disinge
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
"Again, what is the point you're trying to make here vis-"-vis social inequality?"

That the objectification of women, via judgements of their hair, is a perfectly acceptable process, given the biological imperatives. Feminism, on the other hand, would you like to believe that these are societal constructs that exist to keep women down, that these are sources of social inequality. My counter-argument was that in Feminism trying to defy biological imperatives, Feminism was not at all, in reality, fighting for equal rights, rather fighting for complete ignorance in regards to our true natures. You cannot make 1+1=2 not true by covering your eyes.

"...she doesn't *prioritize the sexual approval of men* over whatever other concern led her to crop her hair, or abstain from makeup."

I agreed, in the later rounds, that women do not have to prioritise the sexual approval of men. However, if they want sexual approval (and I think you'd have to be dishonest to argue that the vast majority of women do not want the sexual attention of attraction men), then they should be putting make-up on and growing their hair. Therefore, the actual assumption I made was legitimate and represents the vast majority of women's sexual wants.

"Equality is a terribly nebulous concept which you seem to have reduced to "identical treatment"..."

Before the actual debate, equality was not defined, so I was well within my rights arguing with this interpretation of equality. As to your latter explanation of what is essentially: equality in result (Marxist theory) versus equality in opportunity ("Capitalist"), I am well aware of this conception. However, this distinction was never mentioned within this debate, thus I needed not address it.
Posted by ArgentStorm 2 years ago
ArgentStorm
Your response is a perfect illustration of my point. You cannot force a heterosexual to be attracted to their own sex. So what? Is that an example of social inequality? Men and women *tend to* weigh different factors in considering a mate. Again, what is the point you're trying to make here vis-"-vis social inequality? So there's a bio-psychological reason men *generally tend to* prefer long, wavey hair, or an even skin tone. Again, so what? The implicit assumption here is that the woman in question should care what men think of her, and act in a way that accords with their preferences, and that failure to do so logically leads to the conclusion that she isn't sexually attracted to men. It doesn't, and that's what Pro was (inarticulately) trying to say. What it does mean is that, whatever her sexual preferences, she doesn't *prioritize the sexual approval of men* over whatever other concern led her to crop her hair, or abstain from makeup. The assumption you made, in leaping from a to c, is exactly what feminists use to justify the continued relevance of feminism in the contemporary Western context. I would also suggest you consider the legal concept of substantive equality. The essential argument is that equal rights don't necessarily mean identical rights, but rather rights that result in equal outcomes. Equality is a terribly nebulous concept which you seem to have reduced to "identical treatment". I would also invite you to consider the different ways equality is construed in the contexts of capitalism and communism. In the former, the focus is on equal opportunity. In the latter, it's equal condition. Both are forms of equality, but they have very different results. Feminism, in the contemporary Western context, is strongly informed by Marxist ideals. Equal rights in the feminist context, are artifacts of this Marxist legacy, and are more closely related to the legal concept of substantive equality (which also shares a Marxist root) than to identical treatment
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
"biological differences do not, by themselves, necessitate nor justify social inequality"

Well they actually do. You cannot force heterosexual men or women to be attracted to their sex, much like you cannot dictate what men find attractive in women. Men and women are different, and definitely do have differing tastes in what they find attractive in the opposite sex. It just so happens, via evolution and biological preferences, men weight the physical traits of women more heavily than women weight the physical traits of men.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
"Feminism is *for all genders and not just women*"

This isn't the resolution. The resolution is: "Feminism is for ----equal rights---- for all genders not just women."I think you'll find that the extra clause makes my arguments relevant (seeing as the Wage Pay gap myth discriminates against men).
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ArgentStorm 2 years ago
ArgentStorm
VoiceOfEqaulityZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: A lot of non sequiturs on both sides (ex. biological differences do not, by themselves, necessitate nor justify social inequality). Con's arguments were better fleshed out, and Con provided proper sourcing.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
VoiceOfEqaulityZarroetteTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: A lot of irrelevant arguments from both sides here, especially Con. The resolution is "Feminism is *for all genders and not just women*", thus attacking feminism as a general harm isn't going to negate. Pro's entire R1 was a waste, and nothing was supported, Con's negating argument, from unfair policy in STEM was cogent. A2 was unnecessary mitigation and didn't help negate at all, and A3 seemed to be a clear hasty generalisation fallacy. A3 did have positive weight however, and Pro completely drops it and A1. Pro had a decent point regarding harm inflicted by stereotypes.... But this is not relevant to the resolution!!!!! I cannot weigh this argument even if 100% valid. Even taking it as mitigation for A1, Con does enough to establish causation, while Pro only asserts stereotypes as the causal influence. Thus on both grounds, this argument/defence is dismissed. Thus with no arguments for Pro to stand on, clear Con win.