The Instigator
Spectacular
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
rross
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

If it was "men first" instead of "ladies first" would feminism call it Misogny?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
rross
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 982 times Debate No: 51980
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Spectacular

Pro

Looking forward to debate this topic.
rross

Con

Thank you to Spectacular for initiating this debate.

He has chosen a very difficult resolution, taking burden of proof on himself, and I am curious to see how he will go about defending it.

The following aspects of the resolution are particularly intriguing to me.

feminism

Pro could have argued that "most feminists" or even that "many women" would call the system misogyny. Instead, he is arguing that feminism itself would make the call.

Pro has chosen not to define terms in round 1, and perhaps will make some comments about them in the body of the debate. In the meantime, I will use the Oxford Dictionary.

Feminism: the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. (1)

Pro will be arguing that feminist advocacy itself will be calling a "men first" system misogyny. I wonder how such a thing can happen, and I look forward to Pro's explanation.

"men first" instead of "ladies first"

Instead of: As a substitute or alternative to; in place of (2)

Pro will be taking the situations that currently exist of "ladies first" and replacing them with "men first" in his imaginary system. But where is there "ladies first" in our current society? I honestly can't think of a single example in my experience, except maybe sometimes on dates for things like making song requests, sitting down at a restaurant or getting into a taxi. So I'm very curious to read Pro's description of where he thinks this occurs.

misogyny

Interestingly, Pro anticipates a call of misogyny rather than sexism.

misogyny: Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women (3)
sexism: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex (4)

Misogyny is a much more difficult concept for him to defend. If there is a system that prefers men to women, then one might expect it to be described as sexist, since it discriminates on the basis of sex. However, does the system stem from a dislike or contempt for women? It's much harder to know.

Summary

If men started getting into taxis first or sitting down first at restaurants, would feminism itself call this misogyny? I think not. It's more difficult getting into a taxi first because you have to wriggle across, which is sometimes awkward in a skirt. I don't think anyone would mind getting in second near the door. And, really, who cares who sits down first at a restaurant? In any case, what does this have to do with despising women?

There are lots of questions here, and I'm looking forward to answers in Pro's next round.



(1) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
(2) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;
(3) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
(4) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Spectacular

Pro

"Pro could have argued that "most feminists" or even that "many women" would call the system misogyny. Instead, he is arguing that feminism itself would make the call."

Maybe I should have titled this "would feminists call it misogyny". In any case, I didn't, and I don't believe it's necessary to acknowledge such a small issue.

"Pro has chosen not to define terms in round 1, and perhaps will make some comments about them in the body of the debate. In the meantime, I will use the Oxford Dictionary.

Feminism: the advocacy of women"s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. (1)"

Though that is the definition of feminism, I do not believe that definition is relevant to the modern feminism we see today. As we've seen over the past decade, feminism has not been calling for equality between the genders. It has been calling for female advantage at the expense of males. It has been an excuse for Misandry.

Example 1: Feminists attempt to ban the word "bossy", claiming that it suppresses a female's potential to become a leader. Also, implying that the word bossy is only targeted at females.

Example 2: Feminists suggest the shut-down of female prisons, claiming that females always have a fair reason to commit a crime.

Example 3: Men receive longer prison sentences than women. Men have to pay more child support than women. They "cannot be raped" according to some definitions of "rape" in some countries. Men are expected to "man up" and internalize their problems. Men's suicide rates are dramatically higher than women's.

Feminists fight for the rights of women, not the rights of both men and women. Only a fool would deny such an assertion when there is so much evidence available to verify it.

"Pro will be arguing that feminist advocacy itself will be calling a "men first" system misogyny. I wonder how such a thing can happen, and I look forward to Pro's explanation."

I'm saying that if we replaced "ladies first" with "men first", feminists would speak out against such an inequality. The evidence lies in most of the things they've spoken out against in recent years.

"Pro will be taking the situations that currently exist of "ladies first" and replacing them with "men first" in his imaginary system. But where is there "ladies first" in our current society? I honestly can't think of a single example in my experience, except maybe sometimes on dates for things like making song requests, sitting down at a restaurant or getting into a taxi. So I'm very curious to read Pro's description of where he thinks this occurs."

You've really never heard someone say "ladies first" when walking out of a house, entering a building or sitting down? Either your social life is very dull or you're a very good liar.

"Misogyny is a much more difficult concept for him to defend. If there is a system that prefers men to women, then one might expect it to be described as sexist, since it discriminates on the basis of sex. However, does the system stem from a dislike or contempt for women? It's much harder to know."

That's the thing. If "ladies" first was replaced with "men first", feminists would call it misogyny. I know this is an illogical and irrational thing to do, so we're on the same page here. But wherever a feminist sees an "inequality against women", they would likely label it misogynistic and not sexist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://psychcentral.com...
rross

Con

Feminism vs feminists

Pro argues that "feminists" and "feminism" are interchangeable and that he doesn't "believe it's necessary to acknowledge such a small issue."

But the issue isn't small at all, and I will try to explain why with an analogy. Consider the following statements:

1. Some muslims murder children.
2. Islam murders children.

The first statement is unquestionably true (1,2) (Of course, children are killed by people of all types of religious beliefs, including Muslims). The second is not obviously true at all. In fact, it is a quite different and more offensive sort of statement.

Similarly, saying that some feminists would act in a certain way is very different from saying that feminism itself would do so.

For instance, Pro claims that some feminists are trying to ban the word "bossy". He provides no references for this, but even if it's true, it is not representative of the feminist movement itself. It's the same problem with his example about female prisons.

To prove that feminism itself would act in a certain way, Pro needs to show that the act would be a logical and inevitable consequence of the basic tenets of feminism. He has not done so.

Men vs women

Pro complains that men receive longer prison sentences than women and have to pay more child support. Neither of these claims is referenced, but even if they are true, I can't see what relevance they have for the current debate. These are not examples of "ladies first".

"ladies first"

Pro argues that men are likely to say "ladies first" to a woman "when walking out of a house, entering a building or sitting down." He seems to think that these actions are of great consequence and that if I have not experienced them then my social life must be very dull. Not only that, but if these gestures of "ladies first" were removed, and men were to barge through doors first or plonk themselves down in a chair without saying "ladies first" that feminists would be outraged and screaming misogyny.

I disagree. Firstly, because these actions are trivial, and secondly because feminists have been consistently and rather infamously arguing against such courtesies, although there has always been disagreement about it.

For example, feminism online says:

"However, for me, the door-opening requirement for men is a nuisance. It doesn’t make me feel like a queen. Instead, it makes me feel dependent and small. Since I’m not a child, I don’t like to feel dependent or small. I don’t use the action of door opening to determine the manners of a man. In fact, if I happen to pass through the door first and the guy has the guts to let me hold the door for him, that is the sign of a man who can handle my non-traditional and independent spirit. It is the sign of a man who isn’t easily intimidated by a woman who can take care of herself. To me, it is the sign of a real man." (3)

This feminist writer, at least, would not mind if the "ladies first" rule was abolished.

Other feminists judge the issue to be trivial. Here is a quote from the feminist media collective, for example:

"I don’t see it as a big problem...I’d take having someone awkwardly hold the door open or try to give me their seat on transit over being sexually propositioned or harassed on the street any day. It’s not malicious or ill-intentioned, and while it does carry the implication that I am a weaker female, I can live with it." (4)

misogyny vs sexism

Pro argues that feminists are more likely to label inequality as misogynist rather than sexist. However, often feminists take extra care to differentiate between the two ideas. For example, in the feminist media collective:

"I do not mind if a guy holds the door open for me, I don’t look at it as gendered. However, if a guy won’t walk through a door I hold open for him, then that’s a problem, and is the point at which chivalry or “politeness” becomes sexism. What I mean when I use the term sexism, is not misogyny/hatred of women, but a perception that some action or exchange is to take place with the male or female in set roles; in this instance, a man opening the door for a woman." My emphasis. (4)

Pro has conceded that it would be irrational to label an instance of sexist behavior as "misogyny". Nevertheless, without any explanation, he wants us to believe that feminism would do so. It doesn't make sense.




(1) http://www.nairaland.com...
(2) http://www.frontpagemag.com...
(3) http://feminismonline.wordpress.com...;
(4) http://www.feminisms.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
Spectacular

Pro

"Pro argues that "feminists" and "feminism" are interchangeable and that he doesn't "believe it's necessary to acknowledge such a small issue."

But the issue isn't small at all, and I will try to explain why with an analogy. Consider the following statements:

1. Some muslims murder children.
2. Islam murders children."

I'd just like to point out, first of all, that I'm not offended by your "analogy". I'm more offended by your ignorance than your petty attempts at getting me to throw a hissy fit at you and derail the actual point of the topic.

For the sake of us both moving forward in this debate, lets just say that I meant "some feminists". Even though I would think it would be fairly obvious that I didn't mean every feminist, since feminists don't always agree with each other in certain aspects.

"For instance, Pro claims that some feminists are trying to ban the word "bossy". He provides no references for this, but even if it's true, it is not representative of the feminist movement itself. It's the same problem with his example about female prisons."

My apologies, I did realize that right after I posted the previous argument. I will leave the references at the end of my argument.

As I've stated, we're referring to "some feminists" from now on during this debate.

"Pro complains that men receive longer prison sentences than women and have to pay more child support. Neither of these claims is referenced, but even if they are true, I can't see what relevance they have for the current debate. These are not examples of "ladies first"."

References at the end. No, they're not examples of "ladies first", but if you didn't realize, I was still refuting the current definition of "feminism" and proving how that definition was completely false.

"Pro argues that men are likely to say "ladies first" to a woman "when walking out of a house, entering a building or sitting down." He seems to think that these actions are of great consequence and that if I have not experienced them then my social life must be very dull. Not only that, but if these gestures of "ladies first" were removed, and men were to barge through doors first or plonk themselves down in a chair without saying "ladies first" that feminists would be outraged and screaming misogyny."

When did I ever say that men would be the first to say "ladies first"? It's generally the female. Even my mother and my sister have both said this to me multiple times in my life. You act as if this "ladies first" thing is alien to your culture.

Nobody said anything about gestures of "ladies first" being removed. The question is, if the gesture was replaced with "men first", would SOME FEMINISTS call it misogyny? Then you go on to portray men as though they are some sort of wild beasts who barge through doors and cannot be civil, which again, is a common straw man and feminist ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org... - Rape cannot happen against men in Israel
http://banbossy.com... - Ban bossy > https://www.youtube.com...
http://www.law.umich.edu... - Men receive longer prison sentences
rross

Con

Thank you to Spectacular for this debate. It's the first one I've done for a while, and it has reminded me why I like debating so much.

the definition of feminism

Pro argues that feminism is concerned with advancing the rights of women rather than with achieving equality of the sexes. I agree. I have never understood why it is always defined in terms of equality - and only included that definition because the Oxford Dictionary is my goto resource. I accept Pro's modification of the definition of feminism. I don't think it makes any difference to the failure of his arguments, however.

Feminism vs feminists


In the final round, Pro tried to change the resolution. In place of feminism, he says "let's just say that I meant 'some feminists'". This is really unacceptable. I wouldn't have accepted the debate if it had been worded that way, because of course it's true. No doubt there are some feminists out there somewhere who would label reverse chivalry as misogyny. This is very different from saying that the feminist movement would advocate for such a response, however.

There are millions of feminists in the world, and some of them are fat, some of them are irrational, and no doubt some of them torture small animals. But it is not true that feminism is fat, or irrational, or that it tortures small animals.

Pro says that "it would be fairly obvious that I didn't mean every feminist...". I agree with this statement. To go back to the Islam analogy - it might be true to say that Islam advocates for peace, even though it's not true that every Muslim does so. To prove the former, you would need to look at the stated goals of the organization, and maybe its history. Alternately, you could look at tendencies within the relevant population and compare them with the population as a whole. Pro has done nothing like that in the current debate, though.

I reject Pro's last-round modification of the resolution.

Ladies first

Pro said, "When did I ever say that men would be the first to say "ladies first"? It's generally the female. Even my mother and my sister have both said this to me multiple times in my life."

I find this argument confusing. If women are the ones who say "ladies first", then they would be the ones saying "men first" if the one was replaced with the other. So would they be accusing themselves of misogyny? Or perhaps Pro means that his mother and sister are not feminists, but that feminists would come and accuse them of misogyny.

But that makes no sense at all. If women are inviting men to go first, then that's their own choice, and who could object? Unfortunately, this is the final round, and so Pro will not be able to clear this up. As it stands, his argument is unconvincing.

Further, Pro argues that, "[n]obody said anything about gestures of "ladies first" being removed. The question is, if the gesture was replaced with "men first", would SOME FEMINISTS call it misogyny?"

However, the resolution is clear: if it was "men first" instead of "ladies first"... Pro did not question my round 1 definition of "instead of" as meaning "in place of". When something is in the place of something else, it means that the somthing else has been removed to make place for the first thing. If it is "men first" instead of "ladies first" it means that "ladies first" has been removed to make place for "men first". Otherwise everyone would be first, which, although desirable in terms of equality, doesn't really make sense.

Dropped arguments

Pro has dropped the following arguments, and so we can assume he accepts them.

1. Feminists have commonly and consistently spoken against "ladies first" actions such as men opening doors for women and offering them seats on public transport. Therefore, we can assume feminists would not widely object if "ladies first" chivalry actions were removed and if men went through doors and onto chairs first.

2. Feminists are often careful to distinguish between the concepts of sexism and misogyny, and are therefore not likely to label inequality as "misogyny" by mistake.

Conclusion

Pro accepted the full burden of proof to show that Feminism would call it Misogyny if it was "men first" instead of "ladies first".

He has conceded that it would be irrational to call a "men first" system misogyny. He argues that he didn't really mean "feminism" at all, but rather "some feminists". He did not respond to my evidence that feminism has consistently been outspoken against "ladies first" systems of chivalry.

In short, he has failed to defend the resolution.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
Correction - the "bossy" point works against PRO, apologies.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
RFD:

https://docs.google.com...

Conclusion

This debate was closer than I thought it would be. I think CON let PRO off the hook a bit and did not fully engage with his arguments, and took a generally dismissive stance.

PRO made what I consider to be an egregious conduct violation, citing a "hissy fit" when none was evident and calling his opponent "ignorant" when it was PRO that misinterpreted CON"s statements.

Overall, I think the overarching point of "feminism" vs "feminists" can"t be ignored, and I agree it does wholly recharacterize the debate and makes it something other than what it was stated. To that extent, I consider PRO to be arguing for something other than the resolution. Mitigating factors to this generality would be that CON did not engage with PRO"s points about "bossy" and the prison time, and I found those to be quite convincing in that there are some gender-related disparities that would suggest misandry. PRO"s resolution would then attempt a reversal, asking whether or not the reversal would be misogyny.

In the end, would "feminism" call it misogyny? CON convincingly demonstrated no, so I am compelled to score arguments CON, even though I found that PRO had some very good points that CON failed to address.

I no longer score debates excepting conduct, and only when the winner deserved conduct as well, as is the case in this debate. Had I fully scored this, I would have scored it arguments/S&G/conduct CON, sources PRO, S&G mainly because of the title.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
SpectacularrrossTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments. Overall, I think the overarching point of "feminism" vs "feminists" can"t be ignored, and I agree it does wholly recharacterize the debate and makes it something other than what it was stated. To that extent, I consider PRO to be arguing for something other than the resolution.