CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Feminists...set me straight!
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world and you know it, you are as much to blame for how things are as men. Stop blaming men for your inability to realize your power as effectively as you would prefer. What do you expect us men to do... relinquish what advantages WE naturally have? Be y'alls bitches? ;)
I think that is the point of the feminist movement. Its women realizing their power and trying to spread the awareness of it to other women. However the reason it's failing is because its headed by feminazi cunts who dont want equality with men they want dominance over men. Theyre trying to spearhead a men-hatred movement and nobody is buying it.
In what way, precisely, is the women's movement failing? Last I checked, pretty significant advances have been and continue to be made. Every movement of note has had its radical extremists, and they can actually serve a very important role in making the overall movement seem more moderate. The demand for equality seems less extreme from the status quo perspective when juxtaposed with the more extreme demand for superiority.
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world and you know it, you are as much to blame for how things are as men. Stop blaming men for your inability to realize your power as effectively as you would prefer. What do you expect us men to do... relinquish what advantages WE naturally have? Be y'alls bitches? ;)
Are you serious? Would you say the same thing about all oppressed populations? These systems of oppression are centuries old and predate anyone alive today. The expectation is not that advantages be relinquished, since usually that is not really practicable, but that they be ackonwledged alongside efforts to ameliorate disparity in opportunity together.
They have done studies (I believe it was in "The why axis" by Gneezy and List) and found that women in matriarchal societies were more competitive than women in countries such as ours and their men were less competitive in such societies than those in ours. The women were more willing to take risks, they were more confident, unafraid to go for what they want. We train our women to be uncompetitive in the workforce and then blame them for it? Of course, my libertarian instincts say we should treat everyone the same under the law (no affirmative action or equal pay bills) and that eventuality society will correct itself (but I am probably wrong about that).
The problem with your matriarchy example is that you can not prove causal direction; it is just as probable that those women are more competitive because they benefit from a matriarchal social structure than it is that the structure developed because the women there were more competitive.
I lean libertarian, but am also exceedingly skeptical regarding human nature. That said, I do not see that laws are the only tact for promoting equity.
but that they be ackonwledged alongside efforts to ameliorate disparity in opportunity together
Feminists are the ones that fail to acknowledge differences. Trying to make the sexes equal sounds nice... Right up to the point where it defies common sense. Can that 5'2" woman guard the 7' tall convicted rapist...? Well I don't know but we better let her try. Can that woman go live in a hole in the ground in Afghanistan for a year and a half with infantry men and 1000 Taliban that would go insane at the opportunity of capturing a white woman? Don't know, better throw her to the wolves, lest we be considered insensitive.
To be a true feminist, would be to comprehend womanhood, in all its glory, shortcomings, advantages, and limitations. Comprehend those things and take pride in it. To delusionally fight against it is to fight against something (God, nature, biology) that is much greater than you or your 3.5 billion sisters.
Both ignorant and utterly non-responsive to what I actually said. I never once mentioned the words "different" or "equality". I was speaking of equity of opportunity, which is an altogether different matter. Nor am I woman or a feminist. You will forgive me if I decline to waste more of my time on whatever asinine thoughts you care to post next.
A thousand apologies. Next time I'll make sure to remember the blurred differences between a liberal man and an irrational woman. I hope you'll forgive me for failing to recognize your overwhelming masculine presence.
Your incompetence does not offend me, it just speaks poorly of you.
You are adept at reaching unsound conclusions and apparently inept at addressing the points actually advanced against your view. Given your continued inability to present a counterargument to my original statement, I consider my point ceded and this debate over. Anticipate no further reply.
Im sorry, i assumed a little bit of time would make you realize that denying women combat positions is the same as denying them an opportunity, as well as a decision that is common sense. I'm sure it is easier to just close your eyes and pretend you are winning, but the world doesn't work that way.
I wouldn't say there is absolutely no validity to the feminist position, and I was trying to be provocative ;)
Would you say the same thing about all oppressed populations?
For the sake of argument sure. "Everybody's had to fight to be free"
These systems of oppression are centuries old and predate anyone alive today.
And you would have me believe females as a class of people have been more greatly oppressed than males?
The expectation is not that advantages be relinquished, since usually that is not really practicable, but that they be ackonwledged alongside efforts to ameliorate disparity in opportunity together.
People have different types of opportunities. I am not convinced that men have greater opportunities than women.
I wouldn't say there is absolutely no validity to the feminist position, and I was trying to be provocative ;)
Ever the provocateur, you.
For the sake of argument sure. "Everybody's had to fight to be free"
Except for the people who do not, of course. And there is the matter of the difference of degree to which a person must "fight" for their freedom.
And you would have me believe females as a class of people have been more greatly oppressed than males?
Yes. That is not to say that males have not also experienced oppression, but generally speaking the extent of that oppression tends to have been (and remain) more severe for females.
Further, that is wholly unresponsive to the point I was making. You effectively argued that women if women are oppressed then that is their own fault; my counter was that it seems illogical to fault persons for systems which predate their existence (or even that of their immediate family). Kindly respond, or concede the point.
People have different types of opportunities. I am not convinced that men have greater opportunities than women.
That is likely because you are a cisgender man who takes his male privilege for granted. As a transgender man who is now consistently read as a man but who lived for many years as a woman, I can tell you the difference in opportunity has been fairly marked. There is also fairly extensive research demonstrating systemic hiring/raises/promotion discrimination based upon biological sex/gender identity (against women, and favoring men).
Assuming you thought I was only referring to physical fighting. I would venture to assume that more men have been burdened with that then women have.
And there is the matter of the difference of degree to which a person must "fight" for their freedom.
It's a little hard to put different types of struggle on a scale to determine which is more burden.
Yes. That is not to say that males have not also experienced oppression, but generally speaking the extent of that oppression tends to have been (and remain) more severe for females.
How can you possibly prove that the oppression men face isn't more severe than what women have to deal with?
You effectively argued that women if women are oppressed then that is their own fault; my counter was that it seems illogical to fault persons for systems which predate their existence (or even that of their immediate family). Kindly respond, or concede the point.
Women throughout history share in the blame for current conditions. I won't assert either male or females as being more to blame than the other.
I personally believe that the submissive attitude of the oppressed is more to blame than the overbearing dominance of the oppressor for oppressive conditions. We (male and female) have a world we've created. No one wins at the shame and blame game now! :)
That is likely because you are a cisgender man who takes his male privilege for granted. As a transgender man who is now consistently read as a man but who lived for many years as a woman, I can tell you the difference in opportunity has been fairly marked. There is also fairly extensive research demonstrating systemic hiring/raises/promotion discrimination based upon biological sex/gender identity (against women, and favoring men).
You want to talk about people who are oppressed??? let's get real. LOW INCOME PEOPLE ARE OPPRESSED
Assuming you thought I was only referring to physical fighting. I would venture to assume that more men have been burdened with that then women have.
That is an erroneous assumption, and also rather narrowly construed.
It's a little hard to put different types of struggle on a scale to determine which is more burden.
I agree, but our difficulty in making that determination does not mean the differentiation does not exist.
How can you possibly prove that the oppression men face isn't more severe than what women have to deal with?
Are you sincere, or just being provocative once more? Research has consistently shown that women are more consistently and extensively dis-empowered politically, socially, legally, and economically than men.
Women throughout history share in the blame for current conditions. I won't assert either male or females as being more to blame than the other. & [...] No one wins at the shame and blame game now! :)
Part of our disagreement is that I am viewing this as a systemic issue, and you are observing it on an individual level. I do not believe we have truly free will, and to the extent that that is true our relative oppression is a consequence not of our choice but of the way that social systems act upon our biological dispositions. Since women are not uniformly oppressed in all societies, this indicates to me that where sexism is dominant this is a consequence not of biology (effectively, the individual) but of conditioning... and therefore, again, it makes little sense to blame women (or men, or anyone else) for a system which predates their individual existence.
You want to talk about people who are oppressed??? let's get real. LOW INCOME PEOPLE ARE OPPRESSED
And women are more likely to be in lower income brackets, because of the aforementioned.
You effectively argued that women if women are oppressed then that is their own fault; my counter was that it seems illogical to fault persons for systems which predate their existence (or even that of their immediate family).
...
That is likely because you are a cisgender man who takes his male privilege for granted.
Shouldn't the illogical nature of faulting individuals for systems which predate their existence be applicable regardless of whether the system in question is beneficial or detrimental to them? I agree that we shouldn't blame individuals for institutionalized oppression, but by that same token we shouldn't blame individuals for institutionalized privilege. On the other hand, individuals who use institutionalized oppression as an excuse to not even try are deserving of blame- as are individuals who use their institutionalized privilege to further oppression.
Shouldn't the illogical nature of faulting individuals for systems which predate their existence be applicable regardless of whether the system in question is beneficial or detrimental to them? I agree that we shouldn't blame individuals for institutionalized oppression, but by that same token we shouldn't blame individuals for institutionalized privilege.
I never blamed you for having male privilege; I indicated that you were unaware of it. Those are two very different things, and I mentioned it only because it is pertinent to your belief that oppression against women does not exist. I then also presented analysis as to why we can conclude that such oppression does exist, which you utterly neglected to address.
On the other hand, individuals who use institutionalized oppression as an excuse to not even try are deserving of blame- as are individuals who use their institutionalized privilege to further oppression.
I disagree. Part of being oppressed is internalizing expectations at failure, generally at a young age. Part of being an oppressor is exploiting the assumption that the oppressed should fail.
I never blamed you for having male privilege; I indicated that you were unaware of it. Those are two very different things, and I mentioned it only because it is pertinent to your belief that oppression against women does not exist. I then also presented analysis as to why we can conclude that such oppression does exist, which you utterly neglected to address.
I think you may be confusing me with atypican? I didn't voice any such beliefs, I was more chiming in from the peanut gallery, so to speak.
I disagree. Part of being oppressed is internalizing expectations at failure, generally at a young age. Part of being an oppressor is exploiting the assumption that the oppressed should fail.
But doesn't maintaining this stance [that members of the oppressed group hold no fault for their own circumstances] itself entail assumption that the oppressed should fail? Is there a stance that does not make this assumption besides working under the alternative assumption that those suffering from oppression can, in fact, improve their lot?
I know that the conditions we are born into are a significant factor in our lives; I'm not dismissing that. But at the same time, I don't believe that a rough childhood constitutes mitigating circumstances for choices that are damaging to the individual. Only a deterministic outlook, I believe, is sufficient to dismiss the individuals choice entirely- and that outlook also precludes laying blame on those doing the oppressing as well.
I think you may be confusing me with atypican? I didn't voice any such beliefs, I was more chiming in from the peanut gallery, so to speak.
Indeed, and my apologies. My distinction still stands, however; just change "you" to "him", really.
But doesn't maintaining this stance [that members of the oppressed group hold no fault for their own circumstances] itself entail assumption that the oppressed should fail? [...] Only a deterministic outlook, I believe, is sufficient to dismiss the individuals choice entirely- and that outlook also precludes laying blame on those doing the oppressing as well.
I do adopt a deterministic perspective. I disagree that this means the oppressed should fail or that they cannot improve their circumstances. Rather, mine was a simple observation of how systems of oppression perpetuate themselves through the mechanism of internalization. This in no way means that every oppressed person is biologically disposed or personally conditioned to internalize their conditions.
I agree that determinism precludes laying blame upon the privileged who oppress just as much as it does upon the oppressed who do not lift themselves out of oppression. I make a distinction, however, between responsibility and accountability; I do not think that the latter relies upon the former.
