The Instigator
KaleBevilacqua
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
thederper
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Feminism is relevant

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 3 votes the winner is...
KaleBevilacqua
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 944 times Debate No: 45226
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

KaleBevilacqua

Pro

In this debate, I will be defining feminism as a philosophy/ideology/belief that believes that women should be liberated from their specific faced prejudices and social injustices to therefore become equal to the folks who are not facing such prejudices and social injustices. Note that this debate is about feminism in itself, not the modern feminist movement.

I look forward to hearing your arguments.
thederper

Con

thank you for your challenge
Feminism is a supermachist movement as its name implies since otherwise it would be known as "equalism"
feminists of all eras want power not equality.
therefore feminism belongs on the same category as aryanism
Debate Round No. 1
KaleBevilacqua

Pro

"If the anti racism movement were about equality, it would be called equalism."
"If the disability rights community wanted equality, it would be called equalism."
"If gay rights activists wanted equality, they would call themselves equalists."

Can you see how vapid those sound? Yes, those activists want equality at the core, but the name of their activism (gay rights, disability rights, anti racism, feminism) tell specifically which group they fight for. Feminism is an ideology of women's injustices being dissolved.

So here's the main biggies on why feminism is relevant:
Slut shaming: a woman who sucks off four guys at a party is ridiculed and seen as disrespecting herself, whereas a guy who gets sucked off by four girls get respect by default. Sex is assumed to be for the pleasure of a man. Male sexual desire is considred normal, whereas a girl's is taboo, naughty, filthy. This world needs to know that nothing is wrong with being a slut, and that it doesn't negate intelligence or worthiness of respect.

Hyperattractivization - Beauty is considered the main aspect of a woman's worth. While an actor can be ugly (like Danny DeVito) and still be popular and respected, female actresses tend to be selected for their attractiveness toward straight men and are always made to be prettied-up. Media outlets comment on women's looks, but not on men's. Living in the Las Vegas metro area, I've seen billboards for male attorneys making them look respectable and typical (and it's okay if they're ugly or old), but billboards for female attorneys put a bunch of makeup and stylish-looking skirts and high heels on them, putting them in stereotypically attractive poses. Despite Hillary Clinton's high-profile achievements, articles still spring up about her clothes and hari--never happens to her male equivalents. Female Supreme Court justices are called ugly hags--never happens to their male equivalents. I've found that my attractiveness speaks louder than my voice, and while it's not considered weird for a "hot" guy to be also smart, it strikes people quite oddly when they see me (conventionally attractive) getting high academic achievement awards and having a higher IQ than that of Einstein.

That's why I feel we need feminism. Women aren't viewed equally. Their gender is considered a defining, categorizing aspect, not just another ancillary aspect such as height or eye color.

Saying that feminism is female supremacism just because of the title is as facile as assuming Libertarians are fetishists of the Statue of Liberty.
thederper

Con

first of all the disabillity rights community doesn't want equallity. they want special rights and that's fair because they were born with a disadvantage that, unlike people of color and women, cant overcome on their own

i would say that the anti-racist and the gay rights movements were not about equality too but that would spawn onther debate

on slut-shaming:
males(in human race) are biologically programmed to compete with each other to get as most females as possible and to aknowledge as their leader the one who does it better.

females on the other hand are programmed to mate with the best male possible and thats why sluts are looked down to.
the funny thing is that the ones who actually dislike sluts more are other females

on hyperattractivization:

again its mostly womens fault. in their attempt to reverse the roles and they compete with each other

Nature is sexist but on women's side. men are more intelligent, stronger and better hunters but they are also very expendable compared to women meaning that only the best of men "survive"

based on this i can say that while men and women arent equal in terms of"being the same" but on terms of"having equal amount of advantages and disadvantages over each other"
Debate Round No. 2
KaleBevilacqua

Pro

It's not quite relevant to the point of this debate, but as a disability rights community member, I can assure you that it regards equality--equality to read the same books as sighted people, equality to access the same buildings as able-bodied people, equality for an autistic person to clap their hands and jiggle their leg to calm themself in the same socially acceptable waythatsomeone would be viewed, say,reading a book to calm themself.

Anyway, onto your points:

males(in human race) are biologically programmed to compete with each other to get as most females as possible and to aknowledge as their leader the one who does it better.

You've lost credibility the moment you said "biologically programmed." That's meaningless. Humans have a highly-evolved cerebral cortex that enables them to think beyond their instinct. (Plus, it's worth mentioning that chimpanzees have their own structured societies and have instances of prioritizing social cohesion over physical urges. Not even some animals are animalistic.)

If humans were really slaves to our biological urge to view sex this way, nobody would need to point this out. It would be as obvious as feeling thirsty after taking a grueling run. Under your assertions, I as a woman would instinctively not want to have sex with a lot of guys and try to find the one who is the "best," as if that were objective. Nobody would need to enforce it, nobody would want to fight against it only to earn a counter-argument of "but biology!", because it would already be certain for us due to nature. But I (and practically all girls) don't think that way, and I'm made of nature!

Also, early humans killed people whom they saw as territorial threats. Though we haven't changed drastically in genetics, we know not to do this. So it's absurd to look at us, members of civilized human society who use unnatural medicine and eat food that we did not hunt, and claim that sex is where we have to be uncontrollable slaves to biology.


the funny thing is that the ones who actually dislike sluts more are other females

So? I'm aware of this. I get mocked and shamed by being called a "skank" by both guys and girls, usually girls. But just because it's woman-against-woman doesn't make it right. Feminism is not directed specifically toward men, but toward society as a whole.


again its mostly womens fault. in their attempt to reverse the roles and they compete with each other

I don't have a witty simile for you here, but that's not right. As a woman, I don't see myself as a sexual being, meant to be judged by my attractiveness and usefulness to men. I don't see my beauty as the defining factor of my role, identity, or worth. Women in our society are viewed mainly for their looks, men being viewed for their character. That's not fair, and as a woman, I (and the rest of my half of the population) feel hurt by this mindset daily, being hypersexualized daily without my consent. This doesn't happen to men. How could this be "role reversal" by any way you interpet it?


As for your disheartening conclusion, it's time we stop judging folks by how the "best" can "survive." We don't hunt. We have advanced medical strides that allow better living. Just because there tends to be a correlation with intelligence, strength, and (irrelevant) hunting doesn't mean that an entire half of a population should be limited to a categorizing role.

Women and men should be viewed in an ethically fair way. We are all people, defined foremost by our agency and right to respect. They may tend to be different in the majority of cases, but making hasty assumptions about everyone in that group and judging them based solely on that is prejudice and stereotyping. We are all fundamentally equal and deserve to be viewed on equal terms.
thederper

Con

thederper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
KaleBevilacqua

Pro

My opponent has forfeited. That really sucks. I'll be willing to keep debating if you'll come back.
thederper

Con

thederper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
KaleBevilacqua

Pro

My opponent has forfeited yet again. I extend all contentions.
thederper

Con

thederper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KaleBevilacqua 3 years ago
KaleBevilacqua
Oh, yes, those prison sentences and family courts are awful. I did a persuasive speech on men's rights. But the pro choice and deadbeat dad analogy doesn't work. It would be cruel to force a woman into keeping a child that could strain her body for months against her will. If the guy wants the child,.adoption is.always an option. Nobody has a right to infringe on another person's bodily autonomy like that. If a mother were to give birth, leave it with the father, and run off, she'd be a deadbeat mom and an equally sick monster.
Posted by vekoma123 3 years ago
vekoma123
Here's my two cents.

I am all for equality of genders, regardless. Whether or not you are male, female, *trans, genderqueer, whatever gender you wish to identify as, you are socially equal to me. The only difference I see is how you present yourself, whether you choose to dress/act/talk/etc like one gender in particular, or the other.

Historically, men have always had advantages in society before women did. Men only had the rights of voting, serving your country, the list goes on. Through protest, proposals, and public voice, women have many of these rights and are fully allowed to practice them. Will I agree that there still are issues that women face in protecting their rights? Sure, look at abortion. Wanna solve this 'wage gap'? Good, study mechanical engineering instead of early childhood education like a good percentage of women in college are studying and working in such fields with.

Nowadays, certain women appear to have put on a more radically biased stance with 'gender equality'. These women want masculinity to basically be destroyed, they want women to run the entire world now, These 'feminists' are a bunch of whiny, hypocritical cunts who seem to have absolutely no clue clue what gender equality truly is. They have rights, but they seem to not want to hold responsibility with such rights.

Examples, women are more favorable in child custody battles, women serve less prison time for the same crimes under the same circumstances than men, women who wish to not parent are 'pro-choice' where-as men who wish to not parent are 'deadbeat fathers'.

Checkmate.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
I would debate you on modern feminism.
Posted by KnightArtorias 3 years ago
KnightArtorias
"Nazism is not about racial equality because the opposite is a fundamental core tenet of it."

Not according to some modern nazis.

As for the rest of your post, yes, it IS the fault of the ideology, because THAT is their ideology. If there is a group that claims their ideology is X, but does Y...well, quite clearly, their ideology is NOT X, but Y. Unless you're claiming that ideologies exist independent of human will (which they don't), what your saying simply doesn't making coherent sense. You want to have a debate about ideologies. In order to have that, we HAVE to be able to look at what the actual ideologies being acted upon are. And we see that based on how followers of such an ideology behave, because frankly, words are cheap. Again, words do not determine an ideology, but behavior.
Posted by KaleBevilacqua 3 years ago
KaleBevilacqua
Nazism is not about racial equality because the opposite is a fundamental core tenet of it, not just something its followers do that just happens to be associated with it, whereas on the other hand, there's nothing written in the definition of liberalism that says to protest against vaccines and anyone who eats animal products, and there's nothing in the holy doctrine of Christianity that says to protest gay people's funerals and demand intelligent design be taught in school. That is the fault of the followers, not the ideology in itself. If I were to debate "liberalism in itself, not the modern liberal movement," I would be talking about the political philosophy of changing today's system for liberty and equality, not about today's liberals.
Posted by KnightArtorias 3 years ago
KnightArtorias
Yes, I know. THE ideology is determined by their behavior. The core philosophy of a movement is seen by the actions of it's followers.

No one would believe you, for instance, if you said that Nazism was about racial equality. Words and stated definitions don't functionally determine what an ideology is about. How the followers of it act is what determines it. That determines what they believe, and in turn, what the label means for that era.
Posted by KaleBevilacqua 3 years ago
KaleBevilacqua
I don't mean THEIR ideology. I mean THE ideology, the core philosophy.
Posted by KnightArtorias 3 years ago
KnightArtorias
Well, actually, yes and no. The Westboro Baptist church certainly is representative of it's branch of Christianity (I think they are Calvanist?), and so we can certainly define their ideology by their actions.

Now, you claim it would be inaccurate to judge all of Christianity based on their behaviors. But, how did you come to this conclusion? Oh, right. By looking at the behavior of modern Christians from around the world and defining the ideology based on the common behavior. If you didn't, you would have no basis to say, "Well, Westboro is a minority and doesn't speak for the whole." You've just done the very thing I've said is necessary. In order to understand an ideology in the modern era, you have to look at the behavior of it's modern followers.

So, actually, yes. The practices of self-identifying liberals do determine their ideology. Actions determine ideology, not words.
Posted by KaleBevilacqua 3 years ago
KaleBevilacqua
@KnightArtorias - If a sizable number of Christians act like the Westboro Baptists, I can make a judgment about the practices of modern followers, but that doesn't say crap about Christianity in itself. Similarly, the actions and protests of today's self-identifying left-wing liberals don't define the political ideology of liberalism.
Posted by KnightArtorias 3 years ago
KnightArtorias
"Note that this debate is about feminism in itself, not the modern feminist movement."

An ideological movement is defined by the actions of it's followers and their stated beliefs. If you want to know whether or not Feminism is relevant to the modern era, you have to look at the beliefs and practices of it's modern proponents. What are we left to discuss other than ancient history? In which case, be more specific. If you're not interested in talking about modern Feminism, but older Feminism, be specific about what era we're talking about. 1st wave, 2nd wave, pre-voting rights era, ect.

I'm interested, but at this point in time, you've made the resolution very vague, and seem to have set things up as to give yourself a distinct advantage in argument. That's not very appealing to many.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 2 years ago
jamccartney
KaleBevilacquathederperTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: They are tied on conduct. As of spelling and grammar, Con made many mistakes, so the points go to Pro. Pro made more convincing arguments and Con forfeited, so those points go to Pro. Neither used sources, do those points are tied.
Vote Placed by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
KaleBevilacquathederperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: 2 FF's by con, arguments irrelevant due to lack thereof
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
KaleBevilacquathederperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Excellent job Pro. Concise, insightful, witty--great debate...on your side. Minus conduct on Con because of offensive sexist statements.