The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
34 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
44 Points

There's nothing wrong with being a bit sexist sometimes.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,723 times Debate No: 4027
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (18)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

We are not talking about sex discrimination, misogyny or chauvinism here - just a little bit of harmless, light-hearted recognition that men are different to women - surely that that fact should be celebrated rather than disguised?

Sexism is a relatively recent concept, brought to the public's attention by the feminist movement towards the end of the last century, and which has only really received general acceptance in certain Western societies.

I contend that men and women should not be afraid to highlight the distinctions between one another's genders, provided that this is done humorously rather than offensively.

I welcome all-comers, of course, but if a female member of this forum chooses to accept this debate, please be advised that I may be liable to employ politically incorrect language in my arguments!
Logical-Master

Con

I thank my opponent for starting the debate and ask the voters to vote for the side who won. With that said, let us proceed.

Okay, I'm gonna make this rebuttal swift.

First, let us define sexism: http://www.askoxford.com...

sexism

• noun prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Onto my case:

Basically, my opponent is advocating that there's nothing wrong being kinda sexist towards the opposite sex. To justify this, by claiming that there is nothing wrong with it provided it is done humorously rather than offensively. First, the resolution does not exclude purposely offensive sexism, but even neglecting that, my opponent cannot ignore the fact that people are often insulted even when the opposing individual's intention is not to insult.

For instance, Joe walks into his home, sits at the table, and tells his wife Betty to get him some grape juice since activities such as that are what she is good at doing (in a humorous tone no doubt). Betty is immediately offended calls Joe a stupid sexist son of a b-tch, since he apparently thinks that the only thing she can do is get grape juice; she took Joe's remark as an insult to her intelligence. Now, although it was made quite clear that joe didn't mean to suggest any of what Betty pointed out, the fact of the matter was that there came about a negative effect through Joe being even slightly sexist, and in a humorous light no doubt). Ladies and gentleman, this anecdote just serves to illustrate teh idea that people DO get offended regardless of intentions (which as my opponent suggest, should be intended humorously). The best way to avoid this wrong (this negative effect) is simply to avoid even using that kind of humor in the first place.

Now lets look at a better way for Joe to handle the situation with his wife. Joe walks into his home, sits at the table, and asks his wife Betty to get him some grape juice since he has been working all day and is thirstier than a whale. Betty laughs noting the humorous metaphor (as there is no way he could be as thirsty as a whale) and gets the grape juice for her husband. See there? There is still humor present and without a confrontation. How did Joe avoid pissing off his wife? He avoided suggesting anything about her as a persor; he made a remark which would unlikely piss her off; in the context of this debate, he avoided making any remark which is even bordenline sexist.

I'll agree that men and women should not be afraid to highlight ACTUAL gender distinctions (physical features) (though I won't agree to the EVILS of PREJUDICE or DISCRIMANTION), but when it comes to mental distinctions, it's a whole different ball game that typically relies on inane stereotypes. What many seem to neglect is that tehre are in fact masculine women and feminine men. In fact, individuals typically have traits from both sides, hence less point at justifying sexism. What my opponent wishes to uphold is prejudice and discrimnation on the basis of gender. And as we've seen in our society, this should creates plenty of uproars (feminists movements as well as many legal battles concerning sexism even to degree which my opponent advocates).

Under my opponent's philosophy, you may as well advocate that there is nothing wrong with being a bit RACIST as long as it is done humorously. That's right. So if you go up to a Mexican individual with the intent of providing humor through saying something along the lines of "What do you get when you breed a black and a mexican? A theif who's too lazy to steal!", it's A-Okay according to my opponent's philosophy.

In short, just like there's something wrong with being a kind of racist, there is something wrong with being kind of sexist (a fallacy? Nope!). Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent for joining the debate and with no further ado I would like to address his rebuttals as follows:

While my opponent's anecdote about Joe and his wife is amusing, it doesn't hold water. Unless they had only just met and had come back to Joe's place via a drive-thru wedding chapel in Vegas, his wife would know when he was joking and when he wasn't and, if she was offended by his sense of humour she wouldn't have married him.

Then my opponent wrote:

"I'll agree that men and women should not be afraid to highlight ACTUAL gender distinctions (physical features) (though I won't agree to the EVILS of PREJUDICE or DISCRIMANTION), but when it comes to mental distinctions, it's a whole different ball game that typically relies on inane stereotypes."

I don't think it is just physical features that separate men and women, it is priorities too. The following examples are familiar to us all:

Houses

Him / Her
Kitchen / Garage
Bathroom / Garden
Located near to shops / Located near to pub

Cars

Him / Her
Vanity mirror / Rear wheel drive
Stain-resistant seats / V8 engine
Front, side and curtain air bags / Babe-magnet convertible roof

Films

Him / Her
Romantic plot / Car chases
Exquisite costumes / Fight scenes
Beautifully-filmed landscape shots / Hardcore "think-of-the-money" shots

Hotels

Him / Her
Cordless hairdryer in room / Games console in room
Hotel spa / Hotel bar
Ocean view room / Free-view porn

Restaurants

Him / Her
Elegantly-presented dishes / Big portions
Romantic ambience / Cheap food
Pleasant company / Cheap food
Attentive, yet discreet service / Cheap food
He picks up the bill / Bloody hell, this is bigger than Hitler's gas bill! She'd better not turn out to be a non-starter!

My opponent, rightly, hints that some lesbians may be more masculine than some gay men (that's true, in my experience, lesbians in real life are never remotely like the ones you see on the adult channel in hotel rooms) but, for the most part, men and women do conform to type.

My opponent continued:

"Under my opponent's philosophy, you may as well advocate that there is nothing wrong with being a bit RACIST as long as it is done humorously. That's right. So if you go up to a Mexican individual with the intent of providing humor through saying something along the lines of "What do you get when you breed a black and a mexican? A theif who's too lazy to steal!", it's A-Okay according to my opponent's philosophy."

I haven't that one before, but I wouldn't repeat it, as it would be offensive because Mexicans and blacks are generally under-privileged in society, unlike women.

For example, here are some privileges accorded to solely women:

1 Women-only airport lounges, like the one at Dubai Airport
2 Women first into the lifeboats policy onboard ships
3 Women-only carriages on the Tokyo metro
4 Women get seats on crowded buses and trains while men stand
5 Women-only spas, like the Sanctuary in Covent Garden, London
6 Women don't pay for food or drinks on a date
7 Women-only car insurance firms like Sheila's Wheels

I could go on, but you get the idea. Having said that, there are downsides:

1 Women don't get to attend prayers in Mosques
2 …er…
3 that's it.

You see, women have it cushy and, therefore, don't (or shouldn't) mind if a bloke has a bit of a laugh when he watches a girl trying to parallel park her car.

With this in mind I urge you to vote Pro for a more light-hearted, less uptight society.
Logical-Master

Con

------------------
Re Definitions
------------------
My opponent dropped therefore conceded to my definitions of sexist. I believe this shall negatively effect his case.

-----------------
Re Anecdote
-----------------

Ladies and gentleman, the only problem my opponent has with my anecdote is that it is supposedly unrealistic. Thus, if I am able to demonstrate as to how my anecdote can be considered realistic, this point will no doubt be considered legitimate for my case, and you will have no choice but to vote in favor of it.

Essentially, my opponent is claiming that the anecdote doesn't hold water because Joe's wife should know when he is joking. Well, who said Joe's wife didn't know that he was attempting some humor? Often times, we understand that someone is joking and yet we are still offended. For instance, take the racist Mexican/afro American joke I submitted earlier. If someone were to walk up and tell a Mexican American and/or an African American and tell the joke only to say that they were kidding afterwards, do you think the African American or Mexican American would be obligated to just stand by and laugh with the individual who just told such a racist joke, only to reveal that he was joking at the end? Of course not. The fact that humor was being attempted wasn't the problem; the KIND OF humor used would be the problem.
As for being offended by Joe's sense of humor, people often marry people whom they shouldn't. There is a reason the divorce rate in America is so high and that is mostly because people don't take the time to consider how well their personalities mesh with their partner's. Furthermore, who is to say that Joe's wife had just tried to overlook his humor for a long time, only eventually not being able to take it anymore?
Given the above points, my anecdote is no doubt realistic, thus it is legitimate for my case.

------------------
Re Priorities
------------------
Next, my opponent attempts to advocate that men and women differ when it comes to priorities. Ladies and gentleman, his reasoning behind this statement is PURELY based on gender stereotypes.
Not all women prefer to stay in the kitchen all day, not all women are neat freaks, not all women have an obsession with shopping, not all women prefer vanity mirror, not all women prefer stain resistant seats, not all women prefer curtain air bags, not all women obsess over romantic plots in films, etc; basically, not all women fall into the laundry list of stereotypes which my opponent comes up with.

Next, I don't just hint to lesbians when I bring up masculine women. To be a lesbian, a female individual has to be sexually attracted to solely women, but just because her personality possesses masculine traits, it does not automatically fit her to possessing the role of a lesbian. In fact, there are indeed many men who serve the position of "house wife" whereas their wife is the "MAN" bringing him the moolah within today's society. Again, these traits are not what determine sexuality. Rather, they are just typically associated.

-------------------------
Re Racist Justification
-------------------------

My opponent's only defense against my "racist justification" contention is that making jokes about blacks/Mexicans is different as they are usually under-privileged in society, yet this claim is clearly fallacious. Throughout most of the world, women are vastly underprivileged. Whether it be in the middle east where women are essentially considered second class citizens (not to mention that they are often allowed to be charged with a death penalty if they are merely SUSPECTED of cheating on their husbands) or India where EDUCATION OF WOMEN IS VASTLY DISCOURAGED it is a serious issue ( it is as serious as the treatment of blacks and Mexicans). Basically, my opponent's response simply doesn't hold water.

Not only that, but to take it one step further, his argument is clearly resorting to the fallacy of ad misericordiam (appeal to pity).

Syllogism format:
1) Blacks and Mexicans are under-privileged in society.
2) It's only not okay to make jokes about people who are under privileged.
3) Therefore, it is not okay to make jokes about blacks and Mexicans.
In short, his just doesn't fly.

---------------------------------------------
Re Privileges accorded solely to women
----------------------------------------------

As for these privileges, all of them are indeed sexist. Sexism does exist and is practiced (no question about that, just as racism exist and is practiced as well) If my opponent is suggesting that since these privileges are allowed, sexism should be A-Okay, then I'm afraid I'll have to inform him that this line of reason is usage of none other than the appeal to tradition fallacy. Given that this argument is being justified with this fallacy, one could very well use my opponent's logic to suggest something along the lines of "Sure I believe in God. People have believed in God for thousands of years so it seems clear that God must exist. After all, why else would the belief last so long?" or "Of course this mode of government is the best. We have had this government for over 200 years and no one has talked about changing it in all that time. So, it has got to be good. " (1)

-----------------------------------
Re Women have it cushy cushy
-----------------------------------

Uh, no. As I pointed out above, many women suffer due to sexism. All of which is conveniently ignored by my opponent's case.

--------------------------
Reason to Vote CON
--------------------------

I believe that my opponent and I have exhausted all avenues of the subject at hand. I maintain my position that "There is something wrong with being a bit sexist sometimes" is correct and that my opponent has failed to demonstrate how his position overcomes the following:

#1. My definitions were conceded to when my opponent dropped them. Thus, my opponent agreed that we ARE talking about discrimination, prejudice, stereotyping, and such (contrary to what he said in his opening statement). One must note that he insinuated the aforementioned terms were bad (hence why he said we weren't talking about them in his opening statement).

#2. My anecdote was only charged as being fallacious due to lack of realism, but as I was easily able to demonstrate in this round, it was realistic. Thus, my conclusion regarding the anecdote would have to be accepted.

#3. My opponent's priority argument was based on nothing more than stereotypes (thus, no real substance to it).

#4. My opponents rebuttal to my "racist justification" consisted of an obvious appeal to pity, which as I've pointed out, is absurd and that women do in fact suffer from the same degree of underpriviledgeness (if not, then worse) that blacks and Mexican do.

#5. His "privileges" argument basically consisted of a fallacious appeal to tradition.

All in all, sexism (regardless of what degree it is presented in) is indeed harmful. As my opponent conceded to, to any degree, it is still considered discrimination, prejudice and stereotyping. Given that this is the case, his position can easily be used to fuel so-called "funny" racism (especially the manner which I had cited earlier). Thus, for great justice, you must vote CON.

Thank you.

-----------
Sources
-----------

#1. http://www.nizkor.org...

With this in mind I urge you to vote Pro for a more light-hearted, less uptight society.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by bananaskater1017 8 years ago
bananaskater1017
I didn't read the ENTIRE debate so far, but I did skim through it, and I'd like to point out another difference men and women have regarding sports.

Now, I'm not going to say men are awesome at sports and women suck. I just want to point out some physical differences.

I'm a skater. As in skateboarding. And I've noticed it's a lot more difficult for women to learn how to skateboard. This all stems from their center-of-gravity I assume. It's like, when you balance a bat on the tip of your finger. It is a lot easier to have the skinny end down and the fatter end up. While when it's flipped the other way it is much harder to balance.

I'm not comparing a woman's body to the shape of a bat, it was just an example.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
If it wouldn't be too much trouble, I'd like some RFD so that I could . . . eh forget it. Keep voting, and make sure to leave no reason as to why you voted! ;)

. . . oh no, i've expressed some level of interest in the votes. Now the voters who had voted for me will revise their votes to PRO. What have I done?!?!?!?! :o
Posted by snicker_911 9 years ago
snicker_911
The world was not meant to be perfect. If it were, it'd be called Heaven.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
I'll try to post a rebuttal tomorrow.
Posted by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
I've got the feeling I've lost this one already - oh well, hey-ho, it still might be some fun!
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
brian_egglestonLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Marvel 8 years ago
Marvel
brian_egglestonLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
brian_egglestonLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
brian_egglestonLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
brian_egglestonLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
brian_egglestonLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Josh 9 years ago
Josh
brian_egglestonLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 9 years ago
bexy_kelly
brian_egglestonLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
brian_egglestonLogical-MasterTied
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 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
brian_egglestonLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30