Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Feminist Double Standards of Objectification

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 7:31:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Fool: I've been thinking lately, about the problem of the idea of gender equality. I recognize that it' not so clear what should be equalized, or should be the standard of equality. For one may argue that we ought to have the equal gender rights for consenting adults to prostitute themselves or make money by using their bodies. But most feminists would frown and disagree with this and they would argue that this exploits women as opposed to men".

How??

A possible objection would be that men are more likely to want the service, and so there'll be disproportionate amount of women who are of the sex workers, and men who are the sex clients.

But is this an unjust discrimination?

Perhaps they may argue that men more likely to perceive women as objects, to be used for their body, rather than for their mind..

Hmm. But then what is the difference between a general physical laborer who are simply used for their bodies, to shovel a ditch, to lay bricks, to sling rocks, to pick up garbage, etc. etc.

Is not society more likely to use men who are generally stronger, and perhaps more efficient, resistant, and more willing to do such type of mindless, low-paying and physically stressful work? Insofar as this is true, is it then unreasonable that the physical laborer spend his money on the sex worker, and the sex worker, spend her money on the laborer, if they should choose too.

Perhaps a Feminist would claim that society generally sees men more for their intelligence as opposed for sex object, therefore using women for sex is more immoral than using men for labor.

Is this really a justified argument? Isn't it also true that society sees women as more emotionally intelligent and/or nurturing than men as opposed to men as physical objects.

Perhaps Feminist would argue that prostitution puts women at a higher risk of physical risk. But 97%+ of work-related deaths, since the 1st Gulf War (DOD) and 99.99999999999% before that.
http://www.avoiceformen.com...

Are these differences simply due to anything but the fact that society views men as somehow the evil perpetrators and women as somehow that innocent victim which Feminism generally exploits, abuses and perpetuates for the sake of its own agenda, making society view one service as permissible, and the other impermissible.

Perhaps these two workers go out on a date, and instead the man pays for the date, and receive sex at the end of the night. Is this a morally inferior exchange then the direct financial exchange. Does the type of conversation make a difference?

If not what the hell is the difference?

Against The Ideologist

The difference is misandry.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 8:21:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Correction
*97%+ of work-related deaths [ARE MEN], since the 1st Gulf War (DOD) and 99.99999999999% before that.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 9:24:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Correction
*99.999%.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:06:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 7:31:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I've been thinking lately, about the problem of the idea of gender equality. I recognize that it' not so clear what should be equalized, or should be the standard of equality. For one may argue that we ought to have the equal gender rights for consenting adults to prostitute themselves or make money by using their bodies. But most feminists would frown and disagree with this and they would argue that this exploits women as opposed to men".

How??

A possible objection would be that men are more likely to want the service, and so there'll be disproportionate amount of women who are of the sex workers, and men who are the sex clients.

But is this an unjust discrimination?
-------------------------------
Perhaps they may argue that men more likely to perceive women as objects, to be used for their body, rather than for their mind..

Hmm. But then what is the difference between a general physical laborer who are simply used for their bodies, to shovel a ditch, to lay bricks, to sling rocks, to pick up garbage, etc. etc.
------------------------------

Isn't that like... the stuffing of one big strawman?


Is not society more likely to use men who are generally stronger, and perhaps more efficient, resistant, and more willing to do such type of mindless, low-paying and physically stressful work?

'more willing' to do manual labor, I think is a bit of a misnomer. Able to, along with the identifier of having the skill set for, if you catch my drift. Its a rare occasion where some one readily enjoys manual unskilled labor.

Insofar as this is true, is it then unreasonable that the physical laborer spend his money on the sex worker, and the sex worker, spend her money on the laborer, if they should choose too.

Perhaps a Feminist would claim that society generally sees men more for their intelligence as opposed for sex object, therefore using women for sex is more immoral than using men for labor.

... isn't this a nicer set of stuffing for....

Is this really a justified argument? Isn't it also true that society sees women as more emotionally intelligent and/or nurturing than men as opposed to men as physical objects.

Like, silk stuffing... Wouldn't the traditional term 'hunter/gatherer' society put that line of labeling to a halt?. I look around, and when it comes to a gender role now, it seems men are more the 'builder' type than just a physical object. Well, builder, sports entertainers, etc.

Perhaps Feminist would argue that prostitution puts women at a higher risk of physical risk. But 97%+ of work-related deaths, since the 1st Gulf War (DOD) and 99.99999999999% before that.
http://www.avoiceformen.com...

and two eyes made out of coal.... (yeah, lets make it a snow man, tis the season).

Are these differences simply due to anything but the fact that society views men as somehow the evil perpetrators and women as somehow that innocent victim which Feminism generally exploits, abuses and perpetuates for the sake of its own agenda, making society view one service as permissible, and the other impermissible.

No prison stats on sexual assault? Hm. Figured there might be.

Perhaps these two workers go out on a date, and instead the man pays for the date, and receive sex at the end of the night. Is this a morally inferior exchange then the direct financial exchange. Does the type of conversation make a difference?

If not what the hell is the difference?

"The right to refuse service". I think its a safe assumpt that men would prefer a certain... qualification of sex worker, and I think that it would also be true that women would want to culture a certain clientel. I don't think unskilled labor is going to be able to afford it, if we work in the realm of your premise.


Against The Ideologist

The difference is misandry.

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 8:47:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Faustian Just "Is" No questions.Listen and believe

At 12/10/2014 7:31:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I've been thinking lately, about the problem of the idea of gender equality. I recognize that it' not so clear what should be equalized, or should be the standard of equality. For one may argue that we ought to have the equal gender rights for consenting adults to prostitute themselves or make money by using their bodies. But most feminists would frown and disagree with this and they would argue that this exploits women as opposed to men".

How??

A possible objection would be that men are more likely to want the service, and so there'll be disproportionate amount of women who are of the sex workers, and men who are the sex clients.

But is this an unjust discrimination?
-------------------------------
Perhaps they may argue that men more likely to perceive women as objects, to be used for their body, rather than for their mind..

Hmm. But then what is the difference between a general physical laborer who are simply used for their bodies, to shovel a ditch, to lay bricks, to sling rocks, to pick up garbage, etc. etc.
------------------------------

FaustianJustice : Isn't that like... the stuffing of one big strawman?

The Fool:: No, what it is and what it appears like is not the same thing.

A strawman is when you intentionally give, a version of an argument that nobody actually hold, and an attack that version as though it is the one that somebody does hold.

Can you please demonstrate how I've done this?(good luck)

If you felt there was a stronger argument, what you should have done is provided it.


Is not society more likely to use men who are generally stronger, and perhaps more efficient, resistant, and more willing to do such type of mindless, low-paying and physically stressful work?

FaustianJustice : 'more willing' to do manual labor, I think is a bit of a misnomer.

The Fool: No it isn't. A poor man with no other skills then strength on average is more willing to long hours of hard manual labor, compared to a woman, who would on average rather do something more socially related, like a cashier, or waitress, etc.

FaustianJustice:Able to, along with the identifier of having the skill set for, if you catch my drift.

The Fool: Drift debunked.

FaustianJustice: Its a rare occasion where some one readily enjoys manual unskilled labor.

The Fool: Good, so when I argue that men readily enjoy manual labor, you can use the same line, and not be considered so intellectually dishonest.

Insofar as this is true, is it then unreasonable that the physical laborer spend his money on the sex worker, and the sex worker, spend her money on the laborer, if they should choose too.

Perhaps a Feminist would claim that society generally sees men more for their intelligence as opposed for sex object, therefore using women for sex is more immoral than using men for labor.

FaustianJustice:: ... isn't this a nicer set of stuffing for....
(Insert stronger argument here )

The Fool: isn't it not? Keywords is "Perhaps".

"Insert stronger argument here" or stuff it!
<(89)

Is this really a justified argument? Isn't it also true that society sees women as more emotionally intelligent and/or nurturing than men as opposed to men as physical objects.

FaustianJustice: Like, silk stuffing...
(Insert stronger argument here" )

The Fool: Ah, you like that. I like you like that.

FaustianJustice: Wouldn't the traditional term 'hunter/gatherer' society put that line of labeling to a halt?.

The Fool: As much as a traditional term donkey.. Terms are terms.

http://static.fjcdn.com...
<(8D)

"Insert stronger argument here"

FaustianJustice: "I look around, and"

The Fool: Off to a bad start are we?
<(8D)

Aww, Am I minimizing your experiences.
<(XD)

FaustianJustice: when it comes to a gender role now, it seems men are more the 'builder' type than just a physical object.

The Fool: There are white hats, and yellow, Engineers, supervisors and unskilled laborers. Perhaps you have been privileged and have never had to spent long hard hours doing un-skilled labor.

FaustianJustice: Well, builder, sports entertainers, etc.

The Fool: For the most part, the only one calling women are objects is feminist. It doesn't make it more or less true, because they call them that. Which supports my argument that society is more willing to see men as, the evil agent and women as innocent objects which are being acted upon.

Perhaps Feminist would argue that prostitution puts women at a higher risk of physical risk. But 97%+ of work-related deaths are by men, since the 1st Gulf War (DOD) and 99.99999999999% before that.
http://www.avoiceformen.com...

FaustianJustice: : and two eyes made out of coal.... (yeah, lets make it a snow man, tis the season).

The Fool: Don't quit your day job. You might Have no choice but to work a more dangerous job.
<(8D)

Are these differences simply due to anything but the fact that society views men as somehow the evil perpetrators and women as somehow that innocent victim which Feminism generally exploits, abuses and perpetuates for the sake of its own agenda, making society view one service as permissible, and the other impermissible.

FaustianJustice:: No prison stats on sexual assault? Hm. Figured there might be.

The Fool: I'm glad you brought that up, as a supports my argument by virtue of the fact that feminists do nothing about that, because all they care about is violence against women. Supporting my point that, feminism exploits the fact that men are raped in jail, not to help them, but to exploit them for their own cause.


Perhaps these two workers go out on a date, and instead the man pays for the date, and receive sex at the end of the night. Is this a morally inferior exchange then the direct financial exchange. Does the type of conversation make a difference?

If not what the hell is the difference?

FaustianJustice:: "The right to refuse service".

The Fool: This is the difference between, between exchanging one service for another.

Recall:
"For one may argue that we ought to have the equal gender rights for consenting adults to prostitute themselves or make money by using their bodies. "

"FaustianJustice: I think its a safe assumpt that men would prefer a certain... qualifications of sex workers and I think that it would also be true that women would want to culture a certain clientel.

The Fool: I think many things. What about it?

FaustianJustice: I don't think unskilled labor is going to be able to afford it, if we work in the realm of your premise.

The Fool: I believe you believe that, and you are without a shadow of a doubt wrong. Not simply because the fact that men and women come in all shapes and sizes, stronger and weaker, more or less attractive, but because, but the fact that, unskilled laborers often do hire prostitutes.
QED.

Against The Ideologist

For the sake of clarity, if you feel you have a refutation, just quote the key points you want to refute. And make sure to state your position as well...And Good luck. ..You'll need.
<(8D)

And don't take my Foolish Rhetoric Personally, because I don't mean it personally.
<(89)

Check out the original video I posted, for further inquiry.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 8:52:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:18:33 PM, Beginner wrote:
Beginner : Nice. +1.

The Fool: What aspects do you agree with or don't you agree with, AND WHY ?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 10:36:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Fool: I apologize for the bad grammar.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 3:01:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Fool: I've been thinking lately, about the problem of the idea of gender equality. I recognize that it' not so clear what should be equalized, or should be the standard of equality. For one may argue that we ought to have the equal gender rights for consenting adults to prostitute themselves or make money by using their bodies. But most feminists would frown and disagree with this and they would argue that this exploits women as opposed to men".

How??

A possible objection would be that men are more likely to want the service, and so there'll be disproportionate amount of women who are of the sex workers, and men who are the sex clients.

But is this an unjust discrimination?
-------------------------------
Perhaps they may argue that men more likely to perceive women as objects, to be used for their body, rather than for their mind..

Hmm. But then what is the difference between a general physical laborer who are simply used for their bodies, to shovel a ditch, to lay bricks, to sling rocks, to pick up garbage, etc. etc.
------------------------------

FaustianJustice : Isn't that like... the stuffing of one big strawman?

The Fool:: No, what it is and what it appears like is not the same thing.

A strawman is when you intentionally give, a version of an argument that nobody actually hold, and an attack that version as though it is the one that somebody does hold. But at least you are willing to give ground that, you know, it looks like one. So, it looks like a duck, but. Cool.

Can you please demonstrate how I've done this?(good luck)


'Perhaps they might argue....' then proceed to refute the argument invented on their behalf.



Is not society more likely to use men who are generally stronger, and perhaps more efficient, resistant, and more willing to do such type of mindless, low-paying and physically stressful work?

FaustianJustice : 'more willing' to do manual labor, I think is a bit of a misnomer.

The Fool: No it isn't. A poor man with no other skills then strength on average is more willing to long hours of hard manual labor, compared to a woman, who would on average rather do something more socially related, like a cashier, or waitress, etc.

Between the two, which do you think a foreman would hire?

FaustianJustice:Able to, along with the identifier of having the skill set for, if you catch my drift.


FaustianJustice: Its a rare occasion where some one readily enjoys manual unskilled labor.

The Fool: Good, so when I argue that men readily enjoy manual labor, you can use the same line, and not be considered so intellectually dishonest.

Which part do you find dishonest? That dudes LIKE digging ditches for low wages?

Insofar as this is true, is it then unreasonable that the physical laborer spend his money on the sex worker, and the sex worker, spend her money on the laborer, if they should choose too.

Perhaps a Feminist would claim that society generally sees men more for their intelligence as opposed for sex object, therefore using women for sex is more immoral than using men for labor.

FaustianJustice:: ... isn't this a nicer set of stuffing for....

Would you be at least willing to say the duck-looking thing is quacking?


Is this really a justified argument? Isn't it also true that society sees women as more emotionally intelligent and/or nurturing than men as opposed to men as physical objects.

FaustianJustice: Like, silk stuffing...


The Fool: Ah, you like that. I like you like that.

Looking and quacking with feathers... but not a duck.

FaustianJustice: Wouldn't the traditional term 'hunter/gatherer' society put that line of labeling to a halt?.

The Fool: As much as a traditional term donkey.. Terms are terms.

FaustianJustice: "I look around, and"

FaustianJustice: when it comes to a gender role now, it seems men are more the 'builder' type than just a physical object.

The Fool: There are white hats, and yellow, Engineers, supervisors and unskilled laborers. Perhaps you have been privileged and have never had to spent long hard hours doing un-skilled labor.

Why? Isn't that something I was supposed to enjoy? I thought that would make me more intellectually honest if I did.

FaustianJustice: Well, builder, sports entertainers, etc.

The Fool: For the most part, the only one calling women are objects is feminist. It doesn't make it more or less true, because they call them that. Which supports my argument that society is more willing to see men as, the evil agent and women as innocent objects which are being acted upon.

Hm. 'Terms'. I guess.

Perhaps Feminist would argue that prostitution puts women at a higher risk of physical risk. But 97%+ of work-related deaths are by men, since the 1st Gulf War (DOD) and 99.99999999999% before that.
http://www.avoiceformen.com...

FaustianJustice: : and two eyes made out of coal.... (yeah, lets make it a snow man, tis the season).

The Fool: Don't quit your day job. You might Have no choice but to work a more dangerous job.
<(8D)

Which I would be 'willing' to do, and it would make me intellectually honest. :)


Are these differences simply due to anything but the fact that society views men as somehow the evil perpetrators and women as somehow that innocent victim which Feminism generally exploits, abuses and perpetuates for the sake of its own agenda, making society view one service as permissible, and the other impermissible.

FaustianJustice:: No prison stats on sexual assault? Hm. Figured there might be.

The Fool: I'm glad you brought that up, as a supports my argument by virtue of the fact that feminists do nothing about that, because all they care about is violence against women. Supporting my point that, feminism exploits the fact that men are raped in jail, not to help them, but to exploit them for their own cause.

Another problem would of course be documented sexual assault to PUT some one in prison to begin with. Inflated, sure, but when looking at the prison population divided by gender, which one contains more sexual assault offenders. Its easy to play the victim when a larger collection of offenders is present. Again, exaggeration, but an arrow in the quiver for them.


Perhaps these two workers go out on a date, and instead the man pays for the date, and receive sex at the end of the night. Is this a morally inferior exchange then the direct financial exchange. Does the type of conversation make a difference?

If not what the hell is the difference?

FaustianJustice:: "The right to refuse service".

The Fool: This is the difference between, between exchanging one service for another.

The right to refuse service vanishes, then? No client may be refused?

Recall:
"For one may argue that we ought to have the equal gender rights for consenting adults to prostitute themselves or make money by using their bodies. "

"FaustianJustice: I think its a safe assumpt that men would prefer a certain... qualifications of sex workers and I think that it would also be true that women would want to culture a certain clientel.


The Fool: I believe you believe that, and you are without a shadow of a doubt wrong. Not simply because the fact that men and women come in all shapes and sizes, stronger and weaker, more or less attractive, but because, but the fact that, unskilled laborers often do hire prostitutes.

Fair enough, got me on this one.




Check out the original video I posted, for further inquiry.

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Tranny
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 3:21:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 7:31:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I've been thinking lately, about the problem of the idea of gender equality. I recognize that it' not so clear what should be equalized, or should be the standard of equality. For one may argue that we ought to have the equal gender rights for consenting adults to prostitute themselves or make money by using their bodies. But most feminists would frown and disagree with this and they would argue that this exploits women as opposed to men".
Wait, so are you saying that feminism is wrong or are you saying that some feminists are wrong? I'm pretty sure you're not saying feminism is wrong, but I want to make sure. I'm fairly certain that feminism doesn't say what you're arguing feminists say.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 4:19:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 3:21:55 PM, Tranny wrote:
At 12/10/2014 7:31:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I've been thinking lately, about the problem of the idea of gender equality. I recognize that it' not so clear what should be equalized, or should be the standard of equality.For one may argue that we ought to have the equal gender rights for consenting adults to prostitute themselves or make money by using their bodies. But most feminists would frown and disagree with this and they would argue that this exploits women as opposed to men".

Tranny : Wait, so are you saying that feminism is wrong or are you saying that some feminists are wrong? I'm pretty sure you're not saying feminism is wrong, but I want to make sure. I'm fairly certain that feminism doesn't say what you're arguing feminists say.

Overarching Thesis(many threads):
What I'm essentially saying is that, since men and women are different, equal gender rights, does not entail, justice, fairness, or is a sufficient for moral principle, since certain equal rights can favor one gender or sex, more or less than another..

Feminist, who argue against the equal right to make money off one's body, especially in regards "sex work", implicitly recognize this by the fact that they would argue that such an equal right is more detrimental to woman, and beneficial to men.

Particular Thesis
Sex work, is no more or less morally permissible, in regards to secular morality, then hard physical labor.

Against The Ideologist

Yes, I am defending the proposition that "equal "gender rights", by feminist standards is way to oversimplistic, and inadequate to constitute a Universal Moral Principle.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Tranny
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 4:26:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 4:19:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Yes, I am defending the proposition that "equal "gender rights", by feminist standards is way to oversimplistic, and inadequate to constitute a Universal Moral Principle.

Let's say you have a man and a woman who are equally skilled in a field or profession. So equal rights like equal pay is 'too simplistic' and so it is fair to pay the woman less than the man or to favor the woman over the man? That's just silly. How about equal gender rights in places where gender shouldn't be considered a factor in decision-making?
Ok, so some facets of feminism might be a little bit crazy. Maybe. That doesn't mean feminism should be ignored or anything. Also, it's unfair to take some of the crazies and use them to represent feminism as a whole.
What have you got to say now?
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 5:09:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I can't be sure whether these arguments are satirical or not, but either way I can't help smiling :)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 5:49:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 4:26:13 PM, Tranny wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:19:00 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Yes, I am defending the proposition that "equal "gender rights", by feminist standards is way to oversimplistic, and inadequate to constitute a Universal Moral Principle.

Tranny : Let's say you have a man and a woman who are equally skilled in a field or profession. So equal rights like equal pay is 'too simplistic' and so it is fair to pay the woman less than the man or to favor the woman over the man?

The Fool: Keyword is universal. A.k.a., in all cases. therefore there only needs to be one counterexample. It doesn't matter if there's 1 million examples where it works, it fails as a universal principle, and so is inadequate.

On Inadequacy
By inadequate I mean, equal gender rights is NOT a sufficient Factor for morality. We can skip the gender variable altogether, and simply say that equal pay should be given for equal work. This is not particular to gender.

Refutation of the Gender Gap Argument
Now, despite the gender pay gap, (Same pay for the same quality of work) being debunked a long time ago,(See video) any woman who had the same skill, and could be paid less would get the job over any man. Why bother hiring Men at all.

Tranny: How about equal gender rights in places where gender shouldn't be considered a factor in decision-making?

The Fool: Why would an employer, want to pay more for no reason? Isn't that why they have sweatshops with children, in Third World countries in the first place? Because they can get away with paying children less. All one needs to do is negotiate a deal to be paid less for the same work, and will get hired.. That's how Social contracts work.

This is the very kind of problem, with feminism. There's so many nonsense arguments, and even when something is debunked, there's so much propaganda, it's impossible to see through.

Tranny: Ok, so some facets of feminism might be a little bit crazy. Maybe.

The Fool: Some? Like reducing the population of men down to 10%.

Tranny: That doesn't mean feminism should be ignored or anything.

The Fool: No, that would be downright dangerous and a strawman all the same time. That's not my position. My personal position, is that without an opposition to criticize feminism feminism becomes blind to its own biases.

Tranny: Also, it's unfair to take some of the crazies and use them to represent feminism as a whole.

The Fool: Crazies are still a part of feminism and therefore do represent some aspect of feminism. Not that that's my personal argument, it's just a counter to your argument.. When you do take a poll, where feminist will actually tell you if they are misandrous or not, then come back to me. Again, I'm not saying they all are or even most, I'm simply pointing out how baseless these assumptions are.

Tranny: : What have you got to say now?

Against The Ideologist

The Fool: A ding dang dong!!!!
<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:11:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Faustian Just IS.
Part 3

Man of Straw.
The Fool: Look dude, there are feminist that argue against sex work because they believe it disenfranchises women. And there are those who argue for such work, because they believe it empowers women.. Point being, that their decisions are not based on equality, for men and women, but whether or not is beneficial or detrimental, to women..

The argument I gave are common arguments that feminist give, and is by no means meant to be exhaustive, or all-inclusive. Thus expression like "there are many who argue", and "perhaps".."for the most part," "generally."

It is normal for MRA's to receive lots of hostility, bias and prejudice, so I'm am verycareful to choose my words properly. I'm expecting you to roughshod over key points, and create for me positions I never gave.

Quick review of the foul play so far.

So far, you've accused me of at least three strawmen, and given no demonstration at all.

1. :FaustianJustice : Isn't that like... the stuffing of one big strawman?
2. : : :FaustianJustice:: ... isn't this a nicer set of stuffing for....
3. :FaustianJustice: Like, silk stuffing...

Even when I asked you to backup your accusation you simply avoided giving one. You then proceeded to give strawmans, yourself:

Strawman 1
The Fool: No, what it is and what it appears like is not the same thing.:
FaustianJustice: But at least you are willing to give ground that, you know, it looks like one. So, it looks like a duck, but. Cool. Looking and quacking with feathers... but not a duck.

Strawman 2
The Fool::Can you demonstrate how to give a strawmen"
FaustianJustice: 'Perhaps they might argue....' then proceed to refute the argument invented on their behalf.

Strawman 3*3
The Fool: A poor man with no other skills then strength on average is more willing to long hours of hard manual labor, compared to a woman, who would on average rather do something more socially related, like a cashier, or waitress, etc. :

1. :Which part do you find dishonest? That dudes LIKE digging ditches for low wages?
2. : Isn't that something I was supposed to enjoy?
3. :Which I would be 'willing' to do, and it would make me intellectually honest. :)

No questions. Listen and believe.
On top of this you didn't even attempt to answer any of my questions, nor did you give any actual positive argument, for any particular position, of whether or not sex work is moral or immoral. By moral in the sense I mean secular morality, as opposed to religious morality.

I even asked you politely to please give your position , and to highlight key points that you're refuting, so that discussion would go more smoothly. I don't even know what your position is?

Are you saying that, feminist do not argue that it's more or less favorable or detrimental to women?Are you arguing that sex work is immoral and on permissible? Or are you arguing that it is permissible??

Against The Ideologist

So let's next I will proceed to refute what I think to be misunderstandings about philosophy of language, and what is left over or threatening to my position. If you think you're being misrepresented, by all means please clarify yourself..

And once again, good luck.
<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:11:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Faustian Just IS.
Part 3

Man of Straw.
The Fool: Look dude, there are feminist that argue against sex work because they believe it disenfranchises women. And there are those who argue for such work, because they believe it empowers women.. Point being, that their decisions are not based on equality, for men and women, but whether or not is beneficial or detrimental, to women..

The argument I gave are common arguments that feminist give, and is by no means meant to be exhaustive, or all-inclusive. Thus expression like "there are many who argue", and "perhaps".."for the most part," "generally."

It is normal for MRA's to receive lots of hostility, bias and prejudice, so I'm am verycareful to choose my words properly. I'm expecting you to roughshod over key points, and create for me positions I never gave.

Quick review of the foul play so far.

So far, you've accused me of at least three strawmen, and given no demonstration at all.

1. :FaustianJustice : Isn't that like... the stuffing of one big strawman?
2. : : :FaustianJustice:: ... isn't this a nicer set of stuffing for....
3. :FaustianJustice: Like, silk stuffing...

Even when I asked you to backup your accusation you simply avoided giving one. You then proceeded to give strawmans, yourself:

Strawman 1
The Fool: No, what it is and what it appears like is not the same thing.:
FaustianJustice: But at least you are willing to give ground that, you know, it looks like one. So, it looks like a duck, but. Cool. Looking and quacking with feathers... but not a duck.

Strawman 2
The Fool::Can you demonstrate how to give a strawmen"
FaustianJustice: 'Perhaps they might argue....' then proceed to refute the argument invented on their behalf.

Strawman 3*3
The Fool: A poor man with no other skills then strength on average is more willing to long hours of hard manual labor, compared to a woman, who would on average rather do something more socially related, like a cashier, or waitress, etc. :

1. :Which part do you find dishonest? That dudes LIKE digging ditches for low wages?
2. : Isn't that something I was supposed to enjoy?
3. :Which I would be 'willing' to do, and it would make me intellectually honest. :)

No questions. Listen and believe.
On top of this you didn't even attempt to answer any of my questions, nor did you give any actual positive argument, for any particular position, of whether or not sex work is moral or immoral. By moral in the sense I mean secular morality, as opposed to religious morality.

I even asked you politely to please give your position , and to highlight key points that you're refuting, so that discussion would go more smoothly. I don't even know what your position is?

Are you saying that, feminist do not argue that it's more or less favorable or detrimental to women?Are you arguing that sex work is immoral and on permissible? Or are you arguing that it is permissible??

Against The Ideologist

So let's next I will proceed to refute what I think to be misunderstandings about philosophy of language, and what is left over or threatening to my position. If you think you're being misrepresented, by all means please clarify yourself..

And once again, good luck.
<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:29:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 5:09:33 PM, kbub wrote:
kbub : I can't be sure whether these arguments are satirical or not, but either way I can't help smiling :)

The Fool, For the record, remember, I'm not arguing against equal gender rights, nor am I advocating inequality. I know you would love that.. At least to paint me like that.

What I am saying, is that it's way more complicated than that, and if that's all one focuses on, then it will inevitably lead to an unjust Society. In other words, what is good for one, is not necessarily as good for the other.

Against The Ideologist

Some like apples more, and some like oranges more, so forcing everybody have either oranges or apples, causes an imbalance of well-being. We to give oranges to the orange people, and apples to the apple people. Get it.
<(89)

Do you disagree?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:31:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
*We [want] to give oranges to the orange people, and apples to the apple people.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 7:27:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:11:42 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Faustian Just IS.
Part 3

Man of Straw.
The Fool: Look dude, there are feminist that argue against sex work because they believe it disenfranchises women. And there are those who argue for such work, because they believe it empowers women.. Point being, that their decisions are not based on equality, for men and women, but whether or not is beneficial or detrimental, to women..

The argument I gave are common arguments that feminist give, and is by no means meant to be exhaustive, or all-inclusive. Thus expression like "there are many who argue", and "perhaps".."for the most part," "generally."

Yes, they are common arguments that are given, I don't disagree, however picking and choosing which one you prefer as a refute to an argument you give, then summarily refuting that you gave on their behalf...

It is normal for MRA's to receive lots of hostility, bias and prejudice, so I'm am verycareful to choose my words properly. I'm expecting you to roughshod over key points, and create for me positions I never gave.

Oh, no! That is not the argument at all! I am sure you experience lots of unique replies and retorts from choosing your words, even if very carefully. And, to be fair, by your rejoinder, they aren't positions that you gave, they are positions you chose on behalf of an opponent that isn't present. Then summarily refuted them.

Quick review of the foul play so far.

So far, you've accused me of at least three strawmen, and given no demonstration at all.

1. :FaustianJustice : Isn't that like... the stuffing of one big strawman?
2. : : :FaustianJustice:: ... isn't this a nicer set of stuffing for....
3. :FaustianJustice: Like, silk stuffing...


Even when I asked you to backup your accusation you simply avoided giving one.
Gave definition of, specifically. Which appears to match what you have done. But, it isn't. It just appears that way.

You then proceeded to give strawmans, yourself:

Strawman 1
The Fool: No, what it is and what it appears like is not the same thing.:
FaustianJustice: But at least you are willing to give ground that, you know, it looks like one. So, it looks like a duck, but. Cool. Looking and quacking with feathers... but not a duck.

and....? what it is (your argument, and the arguments of your opposition, and your refutes to the arguments you made on behalf of the opposition) and what it appears like (a straw man) are not the same thing. It appears like one, though. Right? But its not the same as one, right?

Strawman 2
The Fool::Can you demonstrate how to give a strawmen"
FaustianJustice: 'Perhaps they might argue....' then proceed to refute the argument invented on their behalf.

Strawman 3*3
The Fool: A poor man with no other skills then strength on average is more willing to long hours of hard manual labor, compared to a woman, who would on average rather do something more socially related, like a cashier, or waitress, etc. :

1. :Which part do you find dishonest? That dudes LIKE digging ditches for low wages?

In reply to: "Good, so when I argue that men readily enjoy manual labor, you can use the same line, and not be considered so intellectually dishonest." Honest question to your reply.

2. : Isn't that something I was supposed to enjoy? "Good, so when I argue that men readily enjoy manual labor, you can use the same line, and not be considered so intellectually dishonest."
Again, honest answer to your reply.
3. :Which I would be 'willing' to do, and it would make me intellectually honest. :)

Again, honest answer to YOUR reply. Do you honestly think digging ditches for low wages it something that people want to do? Do you find it intellectually dishonest that I think people would rather NOT do that? When the topic of 'willing' came up, I was referring to a means to an end, with the preference of not doing it should something better come along. Whether or not men do something they are better suited for makes no difference in this instance, the question is whether or not should an option that come along and not require the intensity of labor for the same pay, what sense of duty would keep our ditch digger in his trench?



No questions. Listen and believe.
On top of this you didn't even attempt to answer any of my questions, nor did you give any actual positive argument, for any particular position, of whether or not sex work is moral or immoral. By moral in the sense I mean secular morality, as opposed to religious morality.

I agree. I didn't.

I even asked you politely to please give your position , and to highlight key points that you're refuting, so that discussion would go more smoothly. I don't even know what your position is?

That you were creating arguments for your opposition. That was the long and short of it. I have no problem with the stance, how you point out the inequalities, and the like. If you have something to say against a stance, though, please, don't invent their argument. Respond to it.

Are you saying that, feminist do not argue that it's more or less favorable or detrimental to women?Are you arguing that sex work is immoral and on permissible? Or are you arguing that it is permissible??

If you searching for an answer there, I have heard 2 sides to it, both from people who take a 'feminist' stance, and I think sex work is permissible, I can't think of a good reason not to beyond health, which is an easy hurdle. Regarding the morality, I can't call into question what some one wants to do with their own body as 'immoral', provided its not blatant self harm.

Against The Ideologist

So let's next I will proceed to refute what I think to be misunderstandings about philosophy of language, and what is left over or threatening to my position. If you think you're being misrepresented, by all means please clarify yourself..

Astute observation, that very well might be. I was not terribly interested in threatening your position, so much as how you decided to use others'.

And once again, good luck.
<(89)

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Tranny
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 7:30:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:31:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
*We [want] to give oranges to the orange people, and apples to the apple people.

I can't believe you're actually making sense. Wow.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 4:25:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 7:30:34 PM, Tranny wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:31:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
*We [want] to give oranges to the orange people, and apples to the apple people.

Tranny : I can't believe you're actually making sense. Wow.

The Fool: What have I said, that you disagree with?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 5:02:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Faustian Just IS.
Part 4

Man of Straw.
The Fool: Look dude, there are feminist that argue against sex work because they believe it disenfranchises women. And there are those who argue for such work, because they believe it empowers women.. Point being, that their decisions are not based on equality, for men and women, but whether or not is beneficial or detrimental, to women..

The argument I gave are common arguments that feminist give, and is by no means meant to be exhaustive, or all-inclusive. Thus expression like "there are many who argue", and "perhaps".."for the most part," "generally."

Yes, they are common arguments that are given, I don't disagree, however picking and choosing which one you prefer as a refute to an argument you give, then summarily refuting that you gave on their behalf...

The Fool: What I am doing is simply trying to eliminate all the possible objections I believe a feminist who does oppose sex work, would bring up. That's not a strawman, nor is it a false representation. The purpose of the post is so that people who do have counter arguments on behalf of feminist who disagree with sex work, can supply them..

It is normal for MRA's to receive lots of hostility, bias and prejudice, so I'm am verycareful to choose my words properly. I'm expecting you to roughshod over key points, and create for me positions I never gave.

FaustianJustice: Oh, no! That is not the argument at all!

The Fool: Dude, you did it roughshod over key distinctions, and created for yourself your own narrative of what I'm saying, which is not true. What you're saying is simply not true. Cut your losses.

FaustianJustice: I am sure you experience lots of unique replies and retorts from choosing your words, even if very carefully. And, to be fair, by your rejoinder, they aren't positions that you gave, they are positions you chose on behalf of an opponent that isn't present. Then summarily refuted them.

and....? what it is (your argument, and the arguments of your opposition, and your refutes to the arguments you made on behalf of the opposition) and what it appears like (a straw man) are not the same thing. It appears like one, though. Right? But its not the same as one, right?

The Fool: This is ridiculous. Are you familiar with what an argumentative essay is?

Against The Ideologist

(To be continued)

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 5:16:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Tips on how to write an argumentative essay

Consider Both Sides of Your Topic and Take a Position
"Once you have selected a topic you feel strongly about, you should make a list of points for both sides of the argument and"pick a side. One of your first objectives in your essay will be to present both sides of your issue with an assessment of each. Of course, you will conclude that one side (your side) is the best conclusion.
In the planning stage you will need to consider strong arguments for the "other" side. Then you'll shoot them down!"

http://homeworktips.about.com...

Against The Ideologist

This is high school.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 5:50:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 7:31:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I've been thinking lately, about the problem of the idea of gender equality. I recognize that it' not so clear what should be equalized, or should be the standard of equality. For one may argue that we ought to have the equal gender rights for consenting adults to prostitute themselves or make money by using their bodies. But most feminists would frown and disagree with this and they would argue that this exploits women as opposed to men".

That's funny, you say "most feminists", yet every single feminist that I know, doesn't think like that.

How??

I must be lucky.

A possible objection would be that men are more likely to want the service, and so there'll be disproportionate amount of women who are of the sex workers, and men who are the sex clients.

But is this an unjust discrimination?

Historically, women have not had many opportunities to work. Nor to study since many of them were just expected to get a husband and look after the family. A woman who has no work nor studies, is more likely to resort to prostitution than a man, that usually (historically) has either one thing or the other, or both.

Perhaps they may argue that men more likely to perceive women as objects, to be used for their body, rather than for their mind..

This is also true. But it's not really men's fault as male individuals, but men's fault as supporters of a patriarchy that constantly objectifies women.

Hmm. But then what is the difference between a general physical laborer who are simply used for their bodies, to shovel a ditch, to lay bricks, to sling rocks, to pick up garbage, etc. etc.

Well if the laborer is exploited, then one could argue he is being objectified, in the sense that he is not being treated as you would treat any human being (in this case, he would be treated like a machine). The case of women's objectification is not (mainly) this one, but sexual objectification, in which women are seen as tools for fullfilling sexual desires, and not as people. That's why you portray them in full make up, ridiculously low weight, gigantic boobs, and partialy or fully naked, in every single advertisment, while you don't usualy do this to men, although it is clear men are being objectified more and more in the last decade, because objectifying people is an easy way to make a lot of money.

Is not society more likely to use men who are generally stronger, and perhaps more efficient, resistant, and more willing to do such type of mindless, low-paying and physically stressful work?

Society has its prejudices. Some affect negatively to women, and some to men. I don't think feminists are saying that society is perfect for men. Society forces on men some pretty harsh standards, in fact, the whole social problem of being gay, is partly because of the standards that society forces on men. We have reached a point in which "gay" is even considered an insult, "girl" is also an insult, and "having balls" is even a form of flattery as if there was something wrong with women's genitalia lol.

Insofar as this is true, is it then unreasonable that the physical laborer spend his money on the sex worker, and the sex worker, spend her money on the laborer, if they should choose too.

Perhaps a Feminist would claim that society generally sees men more for their intelligence as opposed for sex object, therefore using women for sex is more immoral than using men for labor.

Maybe.

Is this really a justified argument? Isn't it also true that society sees women as more emotionally intelligent and/or nurturing than men as opposed to men as physical objects.

Society doesn't see women as more intelligent than men lol. Do you know a lot of politicians or business directors that are women? No. Society doesn't trust women. It sees them as cute things that are, well, cute, but not much more.

Perhaps Feminist would argue that prostitution puts women at a higher risk of physical risk. But 97%+ of work-related deaths, since the 1st Gulf War (DOD) and 99.99999999999% before that.
http://www.avoiceformen.com...

Well, that's sad to hear, but doesn't mean being a prostitute is not risky, and btw, I don't think non-regulated jobs like prostitution are counted on that study.

Are these differences simply due to anything but the fact that society views men as somehow the evil perpetrators and women as somehow that innocent victim which Feminism generally exploits, abuses and perpetuates for the sake of its own agenda, making society view one service as permissible, and the other impermissible.

No. I don't think so. Neither I think feminists perpetrate that idea.

Perhaps these two workers go out on a date, and instead the man pays for the date, and receive sex at the end of the night. Is this a morally inferior exchange then the direct financial exchange. Does the type of conversation make a difference?

If not what the hell is the difference?

Against The Ideologist

The difference is misandry.

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 7:55:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Feeling Lucky
Part 1

The Fool: I've been thinking lately, about the problem of the idea of gender equality. I recognize that it' not so clear what should be equalized, or should be the standard of equality. For one may argue that we ought to have the equal gender rights for consenting adults to prostitute themselves or make money by using their bodies.

But most feminists would frown and disagree with this and they would argue that this exploits women as opposed to men".

Otokage : That's funny, you say "most feminists", yet every single feminist that I know, doesn't think like that.

The Fool: I'm sorry are you saying that most feminists agree with sex workers? Do not consider this a type of oppressive objectification. Are not most Feminist against this type of sexual objectification..

How??

Otokage : I must be lucky.

The Fool: Not one feminist that you know disagrees with prostitution?

Objection of prostitution by virtue of disproportion
A possible objection would be that men are more likely to want the service, and so there'll be disproportionate amount of women who are of the sex workers, and men who are the sex clients.

But is this an unjust discrimination?

Otokage: Historically, women have not had many opportunities to work.

The Fool: Well I would say that they work pretty hard, because the poor the technology the more physical the work was. Right?

Otokage: Nor to study since many of them were just expected to get a husband and look after the family."

The Fool: Historically, women tend to work in the house where it was safe and men work outside, and abroad where the environments were more dangerous, especially in regards to war as we still see today. The lives of women have always been more prized while men generally tend to be the disposable, and expendable sex. Right?

This was necessary for the survival of humanity. The progress of social systems, and technology has made it more practical for women to work abroad, without any disadvantage to the community at large, should they choose it.

But let's be honest here. The predominantly rich white woman pioneers of the women's movement, who had the most easiest life compared everybody, and often owned slaves, and employed others to do their housework, wanted more opportunities to work in better jobs, not worse jobs. Right?

Otokage: A woman who has no work nor studies, is more likely to resort to prostitution than a man, that usually (historically) has either one thing or the other, or both.

The Fool: Exactly, and is also the same reason why men tend to be general laborers, since well, they are uneducated and unskilled. Right? If I remember correctly prostitution is the oldest profession, and was probably a means, to make money from many single women, in a world, were only an extremely small majority of the population had any educational, and often owned slaves, while the rest of the population was absolutely ignorant, and barely got by.

Against The Ideologist

(To be continued)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 8:07:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Feeling lucky
Part 2

Argument From Objectification
The Fool: Perhaps they may argue that men more likely to perceive women as objects, to be used for their body, rather than for their mind..

Otokage: This is also true.

The Fool: If it is true, then it contradicts:

That's funny, you say "most feminists", yet every single feminist that I know, doesn't think like that. :

Otokage:: But it's not really men's fault as male individuals, but men's fault as supporters of a patriarchy that constantly objectifies women.

The Fool: I'm sure you're a smart person. Smart enough to realize what you said here is a direct contradiction. It's not man's fall, but it's men fault.

Objectification, is simply to treat somebody, as an object/means/tool and not as an end. That is to use somebody, against their best interest. We also call this exploitation. Or a Kantian categorical imperative. Right?
<(89)

The Fool: I don't think, historically men simply used women against their own interests, and for women's interest any more than women used men against men's interesting for women's interests. Society has always been interdependent, on both men and women. The societies that were able to adapt, to the environment, this environment including other civilizations are the ones that survive. And the other ones, well, died off.

Recap Argument from Objectification
The Fool: Perhaps they may argue that men more likely to perceive women as objects, to be used for their body, rather than for their mind..

Hmm. But then what is the difference between a general physical laborer who are simply used for their bodies, to shovel a ditch, to lay bricks, to sling rocks, to pick up garbage, etc. etc.

Otokage:: : Well if the laborer is exploited, then one could argue he is being objectified, in the sense that he is not being treated as you would treat any human being (in this case, he would be treated like a machine).

The case of women's objectification is not (mainly) this one, but sexual objectification, in which women are seen as tools for fullfilling sexual desires, and not as people.

The Fool: Objectification is exploitation, and exploitation is a objectification. What makes it good or bad, is the harm which results from the objectification, not the type of objectification. If women are not forced and are getting paid, then it's not exploitation, because they are being rewarded for it. So unless you consider sex as immoral, it's not particularly worse. Certainly not worse than denying women the freedom to use her body to make money, sexually, should she choose to do so. Or do you believe that feminists have the right to control women's bodies, and or decisions about their own bodies?

Otokage: That's why you portray them in full make up, ridiculously low weight, gigantic boobs, and partialy or fully naked, in every single advertisment, while you don't usualy do this to men, although it is clear men are being objectified more and more in the last decade, because objectifying people is an easy way to make a lot of money.

The Fool: Firstly, I personally don't do that. Secondly, I believe women should be free to make money or pose in advertisement, and take such jobs should they choose to.. It's a matter of supply and demand, and advertisers will advertise, whatever the public demands. I don't believe that has anything to do with paycheck in particularly. And I think it is fair that people have a right to their own preferences and opinions, on what they consider attractive and or beautiful. Do you agree?

Or do you think that, we should be forced to all have the same preferences, or have no preferences, and or have our preferences control, by feminist?

Against The Ideologist

(To be continued)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 8:09:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Corrections
*It's a matter of supply and demand, and advertisers will advertise, whatever the public demands. I don't believe that has anything to do with [Patriarchy] in particular.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 7:18:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 7:55:32 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Feeling Lucky
Part 1

The Fool: I've been thinking lately, about the problem of the idea of gender equality. I recognize that it' not so clear what should be equalized, or should be the standard of equality. For one may argue that we ought to have the equal gender rights for consenting adults to prostitute themselves or make money by using their bodies.

But most feminists would frown and disagree with this and they would argue that this exploits women as opposed to men".

Otokage : That's funny, you say "most feminists", yet every single feminist that I know, doesn't think like that.

The Fool: I'm sorry are you saying that most feminists agree with sex workers? Do not consider this a type of oppressive objectification. Are not most Feminist against this type of sexual objectification..
How??

Otokage : I must be lucky.

The Fool: Not one feminist that you know disagrees with prostitution?

Objection of prostitution by virtue of disproportion

I was merely pointing out that the feminists I know, do not make a distinction between male and female prostitution. They consider both equaly questionable. Since you said "most feminists" usually consider female prostitution as somehow worse, I answered that I must be lucky, since the several feminists I know don't seem to be part of that group you call "most feminists".

A possible objection would be that men are more likely to want the service, and so there'll be disproportionate amount of women who are of the sex workers, and men who are the sex clients.

But is this an unjust discrimination?

Otokage: Historically, women have not had many opportunities to work.

The Fool: Well I would say that they work pretty hard, because the poor the technology the more physical the work was. Right?

For work I meant a remunerated job.

Otokage: Nor to study since many of them were just expected to get a husband and look after the family."

The Fool: Historically, women tend to work in the house where it was safe and men work outside, and abroad where the environments were more dangerous, especially in regards to war as we still see today. The lives of women have always been more prized while men generally tend to be the disposable, and expendable sex. Right?

No. I don't think society sees men as more disposable. If you take a look at ancient civilizations, families always wanted to have male children, including royalty. This was specially prevalent in China until recently. This is because those societies were sure men were more useful than women.

This was necessary for the survival of humanity. The progress of social systems, and technology has made it more practical for women to work abroad, without any disadvantage to the community at large, should they choose it.

I think allowing women to work was never a disadvantage. How many brilliant female minds could not flourish because of society's machist standards. If women had ever been treated equally, then we would have double number of scientists, double number of philosophers, and double number of revolutionary discoveries. Yes, we would probably be twice as advanced as we are today.

But let's be honest here. The predominantly rich white woman pioneers of the women's movement, who had the most easiest life compared everybody, and often owned slaves, and employed others to do their housework, wanted more opportunities to work in better jobs, not worse jobs. Right?

Wanted to be able to work in the same jobs as men. And, precisely, there wasn't really that much of an obstacle to be, say a miner, if the woman really wanted to. The real problem was when she wanted to be accepted in a privileged job, say as a political leader. This was something a woman could never achieve, so those priviledged jobs may be the main target of feminists.

And about calling feminists white slave-owners. I don't know what's your point? It is clear that the only women that would fight against the system, would be those with lots of money, because rich people, male or female, rarely fear society and power as poor people do.

Otokage: A woman who has no work nor studies, is more likely to resort to prostitution than a man, that usually (historically) has either one thing or the other, or both.

The Fool: Exactly, and is also the same reason why men tend to be general laborers, since well, they are uneducated and unskilled. Right? If I remember correctly prostitution is the oldest profession, and was probably a means, to make money from many single women, in a world, were only an extremely small majority of the population had any educational, and often owned slaves, while the rest of the population was absolutely ignorant, and barely got by.

Men tend to be everything dude, except jobs that are considered too girly as nurse, or maybe school teacher. For everything else, there's more men than women in every single job.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 7:35:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 8:07:38 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Feeling lucky
Part 2

Argument From Objectification
The Fool: Perhaps they may argue that men more likely to perceive women as objects, to be used for their body, rather than for their mind..

Otokage: This is also true.

The Fool: If it is true, then it contradicts:

That's funny, you say "most feminists", yet every single feminist that I know, doesn't think like that. :

No, I believe it doesn't. As I was speaking about how the feminists I know see male and female prostitutes, which has nothing to do with how men see women.

Otokage:: But it's not really men's fault as male individuals, but men's fault as supporters of a patriarchy that constantly objectifies women.

The Fool: I'm sure you're a smart person. Smart enough to realize what you said here is a direct contradiction. It's not man's fall, but it's men fault.

What I meant is that it is no individual's fault. It is not your fault, or mine. Not directly as we have not created the patriarchy. But it is our fault indirectly, because we all (and in "all" I include women) somehow support the system in which women are reduced.

Objectification, is simply to treat somebody, as an object/means/tool and not as an end. That is to use somebody, against their best interest. We also call this exploitation. Or a Kantian categorical imperative. Right?
<(89)

The Fool: I don't think, historically men simply used women against their own interests, and for women's interest any more than women used men against men's interesting for women's interests. Society has always been interdependent, on both men and women. The societies that were able to adapt, to the environment, this environment including other civilizations are the ones that survive. And the other ones, well, died off.

Recap Argument from Objectification

Well, women may have tried to use men for their interests, but I don't think they historically achieved much compared to men, because they were on a very low position of power to begin with.

The Fool: Perhaps they may argue that men more likely to perceive women as objects, to be used for their body, rather than for their mind..

Hmm. But then what is the difference between a general physical laborer who are simply used for their bodies, to shovel a ditch, to lay bricks, to sling rocks, to pick up garbage, etc. etc.

Otokage:: : Well if the laborer is exploited, then one could argue he is being objectified, in the sense that he is not being treated as you would treat any human being (in this case, he would be treated like a machine).

The case of women's objectification is not (mainly) this one, but sexual objectification, in which women are seen as tools for fullfilling sexual desires, and not as people.

The Fool: Objectification is exploitation, and exploitation is a objectification.

No, objectification is objectification, and exploitation is exploitation. That's why we have two words and not one.

What makes it good or bad, is the harm which results from the objectification, not the type of objectification.

So if I poison a burger and I give it to you, I'm not doing something wrong if that results in no harm? A quaint consideration.

If women are not forced and are getting paid, then it's not exploitation because they are being rewarded for it. So unless you consider sex as immoral, it's not particularly worse. Certainly not worse than denying women the freedom to use her body to make money, sexually, should she choose to do so. Or do you believe that feminists have the right to control women's bodies, and or decisions about their own bodies?

Of course, if men are not forced to work 10hours on a factory and are getting paid, then it is not exploitation! In fact, the rights of workers are just oppressive measures to annoy the workers, who certainly would gladly do such work, because nobody forced them to begin with! What a wonderful world.

Otokage: That's why you portray them in full make up, ridiculously low weight, gigantic boobs, and partialy or fully naked, in every single advertisment, while you don't usualy do this to men, although it is clear men are being objectified more and more in the last decade, because objectifying people is an easy way to make a lot of money.

The Fool: Firstly, I personally don't do that.

I was speaking in general. Well, unless you are a publicist, then I wouldn't be so sure :)

Secondly, I believe women should be free to make money or pose in advertisement, and take such jobs should they choose to. It's a matter of supply and demand, and advertisers will advertise, whatever the public demands. I don't believe that has anything to do with paycheck in particularly. And I think it is fair that people have a right to their own preferences and opinions, on what they consider attractive and or beautiful. Do you agree?

No, I don't. It is ok to have your personal opinion as to how women should be. If you think they should be created in photoshop and printed, that's ok. The problem is when you force your views in society, and you create a whole system that makes women feel wrong about themselves because they are not perfect like the created-by-photoshop girl of the advertisement.

Or do you think that, we should be forced to all have the same preferences, or have no preferences, and or have our preferences control, by feminist?

Your preferendes are already in control. You like victoria's secret angels not because they are objectively/universaly beautiful, but because some people find entertaining and profitable that you like them.

Against The Ideologist

(To be continued)