Modern Feminism Is Pointless
Debate Rounds (5)
I believe in feminism as a women's liberation movement is still necessary. It's common that men are portrayed as the "default" and that women are a token variation, that stuff regarding men is the mainstream and women's stuff is segregated off as "chick stuff." Though any reasonable person will say that men and women are equals, few (if any) dare to claim that femininity is masculinity's equal. But nonetheless, it doesn't matter who's more oppressed by gender injustices. We just need to focus on the fact that they unfairly exist. So feminism could be a great tool to dissolve the issue of women being viewed differently.
Onto your points:
1) That's totally unfair that women can get away with things solely for being women. It's gender roles--implying that a woman is innocent and weak, saying that she couldn't possibly hurt someone and that hurting a woman is intolerable. Those are terrible mindsets that limit women's potential, and while some sects of feminism unfortunately perpetuate this (which just makes the genders further imbalanced), I think responsible feminism should pave the path to women being treated the same as men, even if it means that things will be tough.
2) Onto rape. People tend to think of rape as a stranger jumping out of the bushes to assault a revealingly dressed woman. Wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong.
73% of rapes were committed by a non-stranger, and 50% of them occurred at home. From anecdotal EMT experience, those victims were in sweatpants, yoga pants, hoodies, even footie pajamas with Elmo on them. All this "rape prevention" advice falls flat on its face when you realize that the perpetrators were boyfriends, stepdads, uncles, etc.
If you're talking about stranger rape discourse, you're also wrong about revealing clothes causing rape! http://www.ripleycounty.com... According to the Ripley County Sheriff's Department, rapists don't look for revealing clothes. They look for passiveness, easy-to-remove clothes (such as overalls--they cut the straps off easily). Also, rapes occur more in countries where women wear veiled burqas than where they're strutting around in bikinis.
Yet people say revealing clothes cause rape. It's a horrible anti-woman mindset, claiming that consent to look at a woman is also consent to do more than look. It's sex-negative, claiming that a woman's sexiness negates her right to respectable personhood. That's far from the truth. She's still a thinking human being with feelings and bodily autonomy; consent to look is not consent to touch. You have no more right to ravish a slut's body than to a woman in baggy sweatpants.
Men aren't animals; they're civilized members of society. I get turned on by toned biceps and abs, but I don't go around ravishing buff strangers. Why? Because I have a smidge of human decency. Everyone has the potential for that same self restraint, so it wasn't the victim acting a certain way--it was the fault of a jerk. Men are people who make decisions. Let's stop talking about "he couldn't stop himself" and start talking about "he decided not to stop." Men deserve that dignity, and the responsibility that comes with it. By framing their actions as a force of nature, you're excusing them.
So, women can't "take responsibility" for the actions of someone else that they didn't ask for. They did not provoke it; it was the societal attitudes and gender roles that excused the rapist's acts, and it's time to take a stand against such unfair cruelty. Sure, if my rack and butt are hanging out, I may certainly want to bang. Come flirt with me. But when you take it as a given, acting like horniness is consent to everyone and you don't need to ask, and going ahead and banging me without me even speaking up, that's a violation. I didn't consent to be in that position. If I say I'm hungry, that doesn't mean you can shove food down my throat.
Sure, men can be horny "idiots," as you call them. Horniness is fine; it's a natural feeling. But their horniness doesn't excuse them from politeness and certainly doesn't excuse them from violating or making people uncomfortable. And "proper women" just sickens me. Why is it that sex degrades a woman's character, but enhances a man's character? Unfair, to say the least.
As a woman, I believe we need to take a stand against societal attitudes that could hurt us.
Now I will respond to your points. People don't think women are innocent right from the first glance, but women try to act like they are in an effort to get what they want. My uncle is fighting for the custody of his son against his wife who is throwing a lot of false accusations at him even though he has documents that prove those accusations wrong. Not once has the Judge asked proof that these accusations are true. He is taking her side because she is playing the role of the innocent woman. I am not saying all women do this, but whenever I see a woman in court she almost always tries to pull something like this. The reason people have the mindset that women are innocent most of the time is because women try and give them this mindset. A lot of good and caring fathers lose any custody of their children because in the divorce hearings the woman is almost ALWAYS favored. You may think this as a stereotype, but I see it happening a lot more as the years go by. My parents are divorced so I have experienced this first-hand. You say that most women who are raped are wearing sweatpants, yoga pants, or pajama pants. These are also considered revealing clothing to some and are not allowed at many schools in America. I also see a lot of women wearing these so they are either wearing the clothing I mentioned or the clothing you mentioned. Either way it doesn't help them in a rape situation yet they continue to wear these types of clothing. The clothing you mentioned reveals a lot because I can usually see underwear lines from those pants. Another thing is the suggestion that rape is only associated with women which is false. Males are also raped yet there is no mention of this in a feminist's rape argument.
In the comments you said there is no reason for women to dress modestly. Believe it or not there are standards for men too as to what clothing is appropriate. There is a reason why men have to wear shirts in stores. There is a reason a guy sagging his pants is frowned upon in respected society. Women AND men are expected to dress appropriately in a social situation. Once again the "same treatment as men" argument comes into play in this situation.
1) I already did counter the one about the Armed Forces, saying that it's not fair that women are exempt from anything that can cause harm. It limits women's potential.
2) The breast/prostate cancer inequality is due to two reasons: one, a woman named Susan G. Komen actually took it upon herself to start a widespread awareness foundation; two, the hypersexualization of women. Breasts are considered pretty and valuable by society, viewing women through the third person lens and men through the first person lens. This is an inequality to both men and women for different reasons, so it's pointless to argue who's more oppressed by it. It seems more productive to just focus on the face that it unfairly exists.
3) As for your clothing argument, no, the clothes often weren't revealing. I'm not talking booty-displaying panty-showing yoga pants; I mean baggy, taco-sauce-stained, at-home pants. People of all styles get raped, and if a rapist wants to rape (and if society excuses it due to the woman's circumstances), the clothes won't matter.
4) When you say it "doesn't help in a rape situation," you're saying that a man's horniness is uncontrollable, that he's an animalistic slave to his desires rather than a civilized member of society. If a guy wears a tight shirt that outlines his abs, I'll become a drooly horny idiot on the inside, but I have a smidge of human decency and self-restraint. Even worse, you're treating the situation like a missing stair--what if someone's staircase had a missing stair and you were told to jump over it? Wouldn't that strike you as odd, because after all, why don't they fix it? We need to redefine consent and bodily autonomy in the public discourse, telling people clearly that you have no more right to a slut's body than to a girl in a sweatshirt and jeans.
We should also redefine sex if we want to "help in a rape situation." What is sex, really? It's not necessarily a penis going into a vagina, nor is it the touching of sexual organs. Sex is the pleasure obtained from arousal and intimacy. Without that, it's a gynecologist appointment. So sticking a penis in someone means nothing. Gets you nothing. Absent the arousal and intimacy, it's just an unhygienic gynecologist appointment. Not only is sticking yourself in someone not right to do without their enthusiastic participation, it's not even sex. Most of things a person would really want from sex that they couldn't get from masturbation--emotional comfort, ego reinforcement, social status, physical closeness--are not things you can take by force. I would like to spread the meme that rape isn't getting laid by unethical means, it's not getting laid at all.
5) Where did I suggest that women are the only one who get raped? Rape happens among all genders and sexualities. However, I only brought up male-on-female cases because that's what you mentioned. There are horrific anti-woman sex-negative mindsets that enable and excuse rape, and a modern feminism movement should ideally work to get rid of them. However, there's also a need for a men's movement, because some mindsets (limiting standards of masculinity, "men can't possibly refuse sex," a woman could never hurt a man, etc.) that are toxic to male victims. Those definitely need focus. But if feminism (a WOMEN'S movement) is the one talking about them, that's just a fortunate side effect, not a duty.
6) I have radical opinions on clothing and bodies, and nowhere did I mean to suggest that they were female-only. I only mentioned women because that's what the previous commenter was talking about, and specific societal attitudes inhibit the bodily expression of women in particular. If a man wants to sag his pants and go around shirtless, what's the harm in that? There's nothing shameful about bodies, no matter one's gender.
I see you're taking women's issues and asking "but what about the men?" However, not everything has to be about men. Women (and other genders!) can fight for issues that specifically affect women, as can men (and others) for men's issues. They don't have to be against each other. In fact, we'll only reach true gender equality when we fight alongside each other, listening to the other side and legitimately caring about their rights, not when we're silencing each other.
1. So your argument is if someone asks you to own up to what you stand for, you say that saying that limits women's potential. If anything that should motivate women to show this country what they can do. READ YOUR HISTORY!!!!!!!!!! When this country doubted African Americans' ability to fight for America, IT MOTIVATED THEM TO PROVE THEM WRONG AND THEY DID MORE THAN THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! The 54th Massachusetts Regiment (all black) charged Ft. Wagner during the Civil War knowing they would take heavy losses and they earned the respect of a war-weary nation who said they no longer wanted to fight for blacks. President Lincoln said to the people of New York after the NYC draft riots "You say you don't want to fight for Negroes, but they seem to want to fight for you". The Tuskegee Airmen earned the respect of our nation after being one of the most successful bomber escort squadron in the U.S Air Force.
2. Breast cancer awareness has nothing to do with the "hypersexualization" of women. Not only do I find that statement offensive and completely irrelevant, but it makes me think that at this point you are just making excuses based off of practical jokes made by stupid teenagers. I just graduated high school so I have heard a lot of those, but I have never heard them from anyone other than teens.
3. I based that counter-argument on the fact that you said that most rape victims wear sweat pants and yoga pants because they go after women with easily removed clothing. So now you are suggesting that rapists are going to rape no matter what the girls are wearing, but that wasn't what you said in Round 1. Also, society has never excused rape in recent years and the clothes would matter if they were excusing it for that reason.
4. NO WHERE WAS I SUGGESTING THAT MEN ARE ANIMALS!!!!!!!!!!!!! In Round 1 I was merely pointing out that some men cannot control their sexual thoughts which makes them want to rape someone. A man is perfectly in control of his body movements, but our thoughts drive us to do very bad things sometimes. In Round 2 I was saying that continuing to wear baggy clothes like the ones you mentioned are not helping prevent rape. The very problem with acting like a slut is that it puts the idea in people's minds that you want sex or obsessed with it. MEN AND WOMEN!!!!!!!!!
5. NOWHERE DID I BRING UP SEX!!!!!!!!!!! Bringing that up was entirely irrelevant.
6. I was saying that in response to the Feminist Movement's suggestion that rape is always associated with women.
7. It does not matter whether you are a man or woman. Society has decency and modesty standards regarding clothing in EVERY country and civilization in history. One of the main things that separates us from Apes is that we wear clothing and cover ourselves up. THAT IS THE WAY IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND THE WAY IT SHOULD STAY!!!!!!!!!!!!
8. THE WHOLE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IN THIS DEBATE IS THAT THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT IS MAKING MEN OUT TO BE THE BAD GUYS AND THE WOMEN AS THE VICTIMS!!!!!!!!!!!! I would love to have gender equality I really would, but the problem is that the feminist movement is making every issue about THEM and how it affects THEM. Men do care about rights for women, but feminists only see them as the oppressors. I understand that there are still injustices against women in this country, but let us be honest with ourselves. Is there really so much injustice against women that there needs to be a national movement? The answer is most certainly no. There is still injustice against women but the feminist movement is GREATLY exaggerating it. The key to getting respect is earning it not demanding it. Whether you are capable of earning it is entirely up to you.
2) People care about breast cancer and "save the boobies" because breasts are mystical, pretty, valuable in our society. That's why breast cancer gets more attention than other "unsexy" cancers.
3) Two different kinds of rape. Random acts of sexual assault by criminal strangers tends to be clothes that's easy to remove, and rape at home by a non-stranger (the majority of cases) isn't scathed by unglamorous hoodies and pajamas. Society doesn't explicitly tolerate rape, and I never meant to suggest that, but it can excuse cases and make them out to be not a big deal. For example, if a girl is a slut, it's culturally assumed that "she wanted it" and the sexual assault is therefore not as big of a deal. It's unfair. As I said, women get raped more in countries where they're in veiled burqas rather than bikinis--clothes don't provoke rape--but they make ALL the difference in whether a rape is considered excused, justified, or enabled.
Also, girls are told not to wear revealing clothes because they "don't help in a rape situation." If you're concerned about stranger rapes, though, that link shows that rapists like grabbable ponytails. So why is a party girl in a short skirt causing more of a fuss than a late-night jogger in easy-to-pull-down overalls and a ponytail? Because of cultural sex-negative mindsets regarding sluts.
4) If I act extremely hungry, that doesn't mean you can shove food down my throat. Likewise, if I'm flirty and slutted up, that could be interpreted as an OK sign to look and flirt. But that doesn't give anyone the right to violate my bodily autonomy or make me uncomfortable. Even if I'm a slut, sluts have feelings; we're thinking beings. That's a message society needs in the public discourse, because the mindset of "consent to look can be consent to anything" is toxic and leads to assaults and sexual harassment. That's not cool.
5) I wasn't quite bringing up sex either. Rather, I was saying that sex-negative mindsets hurt female victims of rape cases, and that certain societal attitudes are also hurtful to male victims of rape. While I'm on this subject, I want to stress that neither form of sexism is inherently worse. They're just different.
6) Oh, okay. That's understandable. Well, it IS a women's liberation movement, so it would make sense that they'd tackle issues that negatively impact women. Rape to men is worth focus, as I mentioned earlier, but if feminism is focusing on rape to men, that's just a fortunate bonus, not a duty.
7) Yeah, my views are pretty radical. But the "appeal to tradition" fallacy just falls flat on its face--just because it's existed for a long time, how does that make modesty standards inherently good? Some cultures across the world, such as the Nuba, Surma, and Yawalapiti tribes, are often naked. There's nothing wrong with that; there's nothing shameful about the human body.
8) Well, feminism IS a women's liberation movement. It only makes sense that they'd tackle issues that are negatively impacting them. It's not right that feminists should see men as demonized oppressors; men are civilized members of society, and they're not the only ones perpetuating anti-woman mindsets. From my experience, the everyday women who calls herself a feminist is quick to blame things on men, but the scholarly feminists blame things on societal attitudes and gender roles, which is more accurate. It's not fair to blame things on men alone, so I think we should also start discussing society's attitudes and gender roles as the demons.
Does there need to be a national movement? I suppose. It's pointless to tackle the little tangible things, like Barbie dolls or Goldie Blox, when there are broad mindsets against women. For example, it's common that men are portrayed as the "default" and that women are a token variation, that stuff regarding men is the mainstream and women's stuff is segregated off as "chick stuff." Though any reasonable person will say that men and women are equals, few (if any) dare to claim that femininity is masculinity's equal. Girls who do guy stuff are cool, whereas girly stuff is laughable on a guy--implying that femininity is weak and less valuable. But nonetheless, it doesn't matter who's MORE oppressed by gender injustices. We just need to focus on the fact that they unfairly exist. So feminism could be a great tool to dissolve the issue of women being viewed differently.
Also, "you have to earn it." That argument is always, always brought up against sluts. We're all born with the human right to respect, so demanding a woman to conform to a limiting set of archaic sex-negative ideals is just cruel. Society has a terrible idea that sluts aren't worthy of earning respect, and that's awful and needs to be fixed.
Are there issues with some modern feminists? Yeah. I'm not denying that. Feminism might be jacked up in current practice, but it's still important in philosophy. Same with men's rights activism--there are some visibly notorious members, but it's still necessary to dissolve men's injustices.
Gender injustice is far from resolved, so we just need to listen, care, and fight alongside each other.
The Feminist Movement has proven that they have a strict agenda of getting more things that could benefit them and throwing out things that could harm them physically. Stop giving me pointless opinions that I have literally heard from EVERY pro-feminist and give me actual facts and events that suggest that feminism has been good for our society in the last 20 years.
2) "The feminist movement is putting the idea into people's minds that they are the victims." Huh? And later in that paragraph, you accuse ME of propagating a victim complex. Um, no. It is not my inherent womanhood that makes me a victim; I'm merely affected by external societal attitudes and roles imposed on me, and those attitudes and roles need to change.
I wish you'd made it clear to me which subsect of feminism you wanted me to discuss. As for the broad philosophy of feminism, I believe it is important. Whether the movement is changing anything tangible nowadays is a different issue, but just because it isn't changing much doesn't mean that it's "pointless," as you put it. It's an important philosophy to keep in mind to eliminate discrimination. The things feminism opposes are not tangible and can be pretty tough to tackle. Feminists are working to get abortion legalized, provide rights for transgender people, and emphasize sexual consent and anti-rape sentiments in the public discourse. These are all things that improve people's lives. Wendy Davis attempted to block a law that would prohibit women's reproductive rights, a law providing transgender equality is coming to California in 2014, and the SlutWalks broadcasted anti-rape sentiments very clearly.
Is everyone paying attention? Is society truly going to change due to this? Maybe they aren't, but even so, these strides are an improvement to SOME. We still have a way to go if equality is to be reached, and feminism does need a major overhaul after going awry in some ways. But the philosophy of feminism is necessary.
To Viewers and Voters: So to sum this debate up the only thing my opponent has done throughout this entire debate is presented pro-feminist ideals and opinions which do not prove anything. Saying that a movement stands for something does not mean they are actually making a legitimate effort to accomplish their goals. I have presented enough facts and examples to clearly show that even though the feminist movement has some good intentions they show no effort to own up to what they want to achieve, but continue to insist that their problems are more important than others' and always try to show a victim's mentality in the face of an unfavorable outcome. I am not saying there are not injustices against women, but there are not as many as feminists claim there are. Women have the same rights as men according to national law and the constitution of the U.S. The judicial system is fair and will help women if they are suffering injustice if you will let them. It is not necessary to demand a national protest anytime a woman is wronged. Prove the stereotypes wrong, earn respect as individuals rather than as a group, have respect for the legislative and judicial process, and think about how you are affecting others as well as yourself. If you will just realize that this is the real way to win respect for women and that demanding respect and unreasonable privileges and rights is doing more harm than good. That is real feminism and that should be what this movement should be about.
1) This is not a debate regarding the ethics of abortion. But the legalization of abortion isn't an issue of female superiority. The lukewarm rape exception completely spits on the rest of the anti-abortion arguments. You say killing an unborn child is murder? Well, what aspect of rape makes it non-murder? Abortion is immoral? How does the pregnancy's origin somehow make it moral? Nobody ever says why abortion is a must in those cases and not others. The anti-abortioners just don't want to see someone getting off (ha) scot-free. But really, a rape victim gets an abortion for the same reason as the girl whose condom broke: they don't want a child. "Take responsibility" is purely an emotional opinion. Should we restrict treatment for smokers' lungs because "they knew there was a risk of it physically happening"? Sure, keeping it may seem more humble and responsible, but the fact that abortion is lazy isn't enough of a reason to illegalize it.
2) Well, yes, the feminist movement needs a major overhaul. But, in case you weren't able to tell for the entirety of the debate, I have been referring to the philosophy of feminism, not its visibly notorious practices of some current members. I don't know where feminism has insisted its problems are worse than others, and the facts you've shown to "prove" feminism is awry aren't even the faults of feminism. You never specified how Jodi Arias, lazy servicewomen who don't want to combat, and women making their husbands lose their property are products of feminism. They appear to be merely products of anti-man sexism. And of course it's not necessary to start a national protest when a woman is wronged, but when women at large are systematically wronged for an injustice directly related to being a woman, there's a problem that needs to be addressed.
3) "Prove the stereotypes wrong" is an utterly problematic argument. It's still unequal--under this approach, a man can act how he wants and not have that impact how he's viewed as a gender, but a woman will have to conform to specific ideals in order to look "respectable." It also shifts the blame--instead of answering accusations of sexism with "Oh, I have a really crappy view of women as a gender, I should change," it's changed to "Well, your group has a crappy view, YOU should change." Um, what were the women doing wrong in the first place? If anything, the prejudiced folks are the lazy ones demanding respect without changing themselves. It also stereotypes women and puts them into a limiting, defining box--under this approach, if some women are prominent and successful, then all of them have the potential to be viewed that way. The right to equality is determined by society's impression of women, not from merely being a human like everyone else. If that's not prejudiced, I don't know what is.
The point? By being people, we're all entitled to the basic birthright of respect. There's no "working for" something deserved by default. Let's quit the bizarre justifications and start being decent human beings.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument keeps changing, and isn't able to specify any harms of feminism. Con demonstrated that feminism is good for females and males, and is necessary in contemporary society. Pro tended to ramble, and did not offer thorough rebuttals of Con's points. Con wins. Pro was also extremely offensive and insensitive toward issues of rape, so Con wins a conduct point.
Vote Placed by kingcripple 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to resort to yelling in rounds 3 and 5. that justifies conduct points for Con. Con cited one source while Pro made a bunch of claims of things he read, but never actually cited any sources. So again, I am forced to give source points to Con. As I stated in one of my comments, I believe feminism to be more evil than pointless, so I couldn't really agree with either side before the debate. Pro did make an argument for how feminism is evil, several times. If the debate was called "Modern Feminism Is Evil", I would give him argument points. But Con didn't really convince me of anything either. I rarely pay attention to S&G so I leave that as a tie almost always unless there are some GLARING problems. Con gets conduct and source points. Everything else I had to leave to a tie
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.