The debate "Sexually assertive female pop-stars who identify as feminists are harmful for feminism" was started by
April 26, 2015, 4:23 pm.
By the way, DesolatedRoses is disagreeing with this statement.
54 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 13 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
I_Voyager posted 11 arguments to the agreers part.
DesolatedRoses posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
I_Voyager, Marvelgirl2002, wmd, ThyDarkest, TmlxIss2cool, Axbecerra, gotitgod, ibrahim, jonatron5, AnkGanu, Trance, theQueenofdebate, DerpedLocke, curlyyxx, AngryBlogger, debater, Dev and 37 visitors agree.
DesolatedRoses, v_d, sighnomore99, rishab, PandaKidd, Adrian and 7 visitors disagree.
I would like to know if you've had time to further consider my arguments? I'd like to think we've both invested too much into this conversation to just go silent. It might be more profitable if we at least try to come to a conclusion.
Since I've made an introduction statement, you've made a rebuttal, and I've wrote a further reposte, I think either you should make a concluding statement, or we should agree to one more round of exchange and then write concluding statements.
Freedom is not the freedom to be arbitrary. Lies are not freedom. We live in an objective universe - it is, and we are. For the sake of it, we have fixed natures, thresholds of behavior, entwining objectivity and subjectivity. To live free we must take actions, and our actions are dependent on the state of our knowledge. The state of our knowledge is dependent on how we are informed. When we earn income, we are participating in an economic machine which is at once both objective and subjective. When the value system it builds is built on transmitting objective information, it is encouraging the freedom to act. When the value being built is subjective, it is encouraging giving into your desire, your biological nature, the mechanism of self. There is no division between the experiential mechanism of self and the state of death, because both are mere matter in unintelligent motion. True freedom is the freedom to state "2+2=4", for the truth is actionable. If ever these women sung objective truths, sought to free the minds of the youth and not only to entertain and earn income by the manipulation of psychology then these women could be said to be powerful and glorious. But they encourage uniformity of manipulable behavior. They encourage totally arbitrary life-styles. 2+2=whatever the hell I want to them, and that is not freedom. That is slavery to self. Better than slavery to others, yes. But not all free, just or good, and therefor not good for a free society, and therefore not good for feminism.
Academic debates might be controlled... On this site, debates tend to be tangential. If you want to play strategist and drag me back in the territory you're comfortable fighting on, then you want to apply disingenuous gaming to this act of debating. We may need to expand to properly analyze the impact of this kind of music on culture into any number of places. If you lack the fortitude to go all the way, then we won't have a fulfilling conversation. You won't win points here for form, only for the function of your arguments in defending your position. You clearly have the intellect to do so, so stop dancing and debate. Refute, do not dismiss.
Neither can all the hopeless idiots dancing away their freedom, partying and pursuing subjective income, taking their wisdom from women whose only intent seems to be free to be a slut protect our democracy by voting for someone worth voting for. But thinking clearly and critically. By having an emotional attachment to the objective, to the pursuit of truth or knowledge. Nor would they ever, because it isn't profitable to make music about such things, because pop culture has entrenched itself in the public mind, feeding everyone into the path of least resistance, the path of obedience to your base desires and nothing more.
If sexual freedom were only PARTIALLY what they were about, I honestly wouldn't care. They have achieved the right to freedom and should defend it by being able to both be sexually explicit and meritous outside their views on their right to be naked. I'm sure Alyssa White-Gluz takes as many lovers as she wants on the road. She's a f**king rock star. And if she wanted to fight for that right, all the power to her. She's shown a heck of a lot of skin in some shows, has worn corsets and whatever. Plenty of sexual power. Not SOLELY sexual power. I reserve the right to judge idiots as idiots, and respect the rational for that instead.
I don't think you're trying to refute most of my arguments, with a couple small exceptions. Maybe that's my fault for not making clear enough my position. But if in the future you merely dismiss what I've said as being a weak argument without further examining the argument, or identifying that which I'm trying to say accurately, I'll know you're not here to debate, but merely to repeat your opinion.
I don't believe that sexually explicit behavior or imagery in itself is immoral. I don't believe these pop stars legal rights to perform sexually explicit material should be infringed upon. Indeed, they ought to dress how they want on stage. Specifically, this means that no authority has the right to force them to do otherwise, or punish them for doing so.
But I did make a strong case for the link between "what is good for feminism, is good for humanity", despite your unrefuting dismissal. For if feminism is specifically ""Freedom and equality for all", then sub-categories are applicable. That which is good for a free society is good for feminism. That which is bad for a free society is bad for feminism.
And if one of their arguments is "you're free to engage in a sex life in the way you choose to see fit" then all the power to them.
But if their whole movement consists of this behavior, then all they're promoting is a sexually explicit lifestyle with no objective backbone or underpinning. That is why they can be judged. Because they consist of no other content... All Miley Cyrus want love, money, party.
Beyonce isn't half as bad. She was better with Destiny's Child. At least some of her music appears to have creative content and isn't just the same drivel over and over and over, but at the moment this whole pop-music industry is just a clockwork movement of madeup rebellion and smoke-and-mirror arguments to detract from actual threats against humanity. Smokescreens are what armies move under.
When Rome fell, it wasn't just because Carthage (Rome's answer to ISIS) invaded. Violence isn't the only threat to an empire. Rome fell was because Rome was in a position to be invaded. It had made a number of bad cultural and military decisions because it thought it had all the power and money, and it did, and it created an imaginary bubble of thought within which it could do no wrong. Five bad emperor's and a citizenry obsessed with entertainment later and it couldn't repel the enemy at the border. It had wasted itself in its own cultural vapidity.
And plus. Come on, these pop stars are not a threat to humanity. Do they kill people? No. Do they rape people? No. Do they send suicide bombers on trains? No.
They are not a threat to humanity.
For you to state that they are viewed as sexual objects is exactly what we need to fight against. Miley Cyrus had received a lot of negative critisism about her VMAs perfeormance. People were referring to her as a slut, a sex object. So, she should stop? Because people viewed her as a sex object, a sexually explicit woman that did not fit their norms of a clean pure woman? Because she did not fulfill the standards of a stay at home wife with two kids and not allowed to wear a mini skirt? That is outrageous.
They are not making our society simpler and they are so harmful, they are telling women to wear what you want to wear, and to not fear if society judged you. They are telling women that yes you can be as sexually liberated as you want to be and you can have as many partners as you want to have and nobody should judge you for that.
You didn't exactly state how they are really a threat to humanity itself, but again, this is an exaggeration. The motion is about harmful for feminism, not a threat to humanity which wasnt well explained from your side.
We live in the 21st century. Women have the same rights as men (excluding some countries) but still women are objectified.
Let's take a look back at the music industry. In the 80s, ot was scandalous for a woman to be an entertainer. They were shamed to be one. And if you were a sexually explicit one, then you were a slut, a whore that made her way out with sex. Madonna is a feminist, and we have to include her in this. Her second album, "Like a virgin" received a lot of negative critisism, referring to her as a whore, a slut that made her way out with her body. But after a while people accepted that she is an artist, and that THIS is the way she presented herself. She wasn't perceived as a slut. That's why pop-stars like Beyonce, Miley Cyrus and other CAN express themselves in the way they want to. If they want to drag attention and to make profit with their bodies, who are we to oppress them and to judge them for it. They are women, they have the right to do so. They were born with the assets they have, it is shameful for us to judge them for showing them.
Let's imagine a world where sexually assertove female stars did not exist. Women would be in their homes, not allowed to wear what they want, not allowed to wear mini skirts or skinny jeans, waiting for their prince charming to swoop them off their feet. Women would be forced to wear something they do not want to, and of they wear something different from the social standards, then they are sluts. Is this the world you want to live in? Where women are sexually oppressed?
These women are the reason I can wear what I want to wear without getting judged. Thry are the reason I can express myself and nobody should judge me.
Also, you mentioned about how all these pop-stars always dress like this?
Well then, explain me how Beyonce is fully clothed on a DOCUMENTARY about feminism. She talks about what feminism is, how it influeces her. Miley Cyrus and her interviews, speeches about feminism. She is fully clothed and she talks about the problems of feminism.
And plus, they HAVE ultimately, the right to undress of they want to undress, the right to be as sexually liberated as they want to be, the right to be sexually assertive. We cannot pull that right away from them.
One last additive... To say they are not a threat to humanity because there are more pressing and serious threats to humans out there is fallacious. Like saying we don't need to talk about the dangers guns pose to societies because there are nuclear weapons out there.
The women you idolize hurt feminism. They make people weaker, simpler. They say simple things and think simple things and do simple things. They make our society weaker and uglier. They diminish truths and destroy art. They crush the free spirit. Equality? Sure, I’ve got no doubt they fight for the perception that all people are equal. But freedom? Virtue? Feminism? They ruin the whole thing. They give love for nothing, when love ought be earned through effort, and that effort is noble if even just in return for egg-shells.
Let's take a worthy idol as a contrast: Alyssa White, formerly the singer of the metal band The Agonist, now heading the extremely successful Arch Enemy, previously fronted by the inspiring Angela Gossow.
She is beautiful, downright sexy. But when I’ve seen her live and listened to her music and read her lyrics, that is not what I am perceiving. I am instead knowingly perceiving a genius and an artist. I perceive a real human with tangible, intellectual values, whose expression is an expression of self-identity – not an expression of vain emotional experience or limbic-flaring desire. When she sings a song, she is actually expressing value:
“I just wrote to tell you this; I did just my very best. I went far but got stuck there. I picked up the pieces, I was your vigilant soldier but the mass of the earth just weighed too heavily on me. How can truth be opinion? How can fact be right and wrong? The familiar turned strange, good and evil unhinged. My utilitarian comfort unsettled. Consequentialist moral reasons categorically examined. Self-knowledge is a loss of innocence! I heard your call to arms, set off the doomsday alarm, but never heard back. So, I set out alone. I don’t believe all I’ve been shown. A quest for truth and fact.”
She says to her fans,
"One of the biggest sacrifices I made when building my band over the years was to stop going to school. I really love learning and enjoyed my university courses! I'm excited to see that university-level courses are now easily accessible online (I just now discovered iTunes U). For those out there who are interested in higher education, what are some of the better platforms and courses you have found? My major in school was nutrition and exercise science but I also took some independent courses covering a huge range of my interests (physics, mathematics, biochemistry, geography, geology, visual arts, art history, fine arts, anthropology, etc) so I welcome any and all suggestions! Not a very focused approach but, hey, I am who I am”
These women deserve the legal freedom to express themselves how they want. But freedom is double-edged sword, for freedom of expression must include the freedom to analyze and criticize. These women choose to express themselves as sexual objects. They are defined by their sexual behavior and their sexual aims. They may talk about the objectification of women, but they do nothing to cease it. They encourage it by being sexually explicit. What they do is they give into their limbic system, the part of your brain which pushes you to engage sexually. They encourage taking the easy road and living for pleasure, rather than pursuing an intellectual sense of self, which is much more difficult. By listening to them you may gain a mediocre piece of intellectual stimulation from a few minutes of chattering here or there for the camera. But you become forgetful of how ensnared and controlled they are by their industry. They can only produce the music they’ve signed into a contract to write. They can only express the persona they’ve agreed to express. They are entertainers, and they’ve sold any sense of freedom they have to their self-passions, to the industry that controls them. Queens and kings though they may be, they encourage bowing before the power and accepting, humbly, your lot in life.
By harming people’s pursuit of freedom or virtue, they harm humanity, and in both, feminism. They make the whole thing look paltry, shoddy and condemnable.
It is not an exaggeration. Rhetoric laden? Sure. Regardless, it is a rationalization.
What is feminism? To quote Nancy Pelosi "If you agree with fairness and equality for all, you're a feminist." That's what my mother, a woman who also relates as a feminist, taught me. If this is what feminism is, then I also identify as a feminist, or at least it is incorporated in my philosophy of open source objectivism (it took me a while to get that term...) And in being so, it every little bit relates to what is or is not harmful for humanity. For if feminism is indeed freedom and equality for all, then we must necessarily discuss freedom, how it manifests, what it means.
True freedom is impossible, if we are to say, free of any constraining condition or circumstance. But in our human world we pursue degrees of freedom. We pursue freedom from each other’s arbitrary impositions first, and this is the hardest freedom to attain. Secondly, we pursue freedom to pursue the goals and interests we determine or experience for ourselves. Thirdly, we pursue freedom from addictions and internal mechanisms which control us. Finally, we pursue freedom from the constraints of nature by way of science and technological application
Now, this is not to say that sexuality is wrong, nor to behave from time to time sexually or explicitly is wrong. But the culture of pop music IS strictly that. They may speak ad infinitum about slut shaming. But they do nothing to express some other content through which we can appreciate them.
I don't think that these sexually assertive pop stars are harmful to humanity. This is a big exaggeration which you really didnt have to use, since I think that ISIS and terroristic groups are a much bigger problem than a twerk happy pop stat to humanity, but in this debate we are not debating around the harmful thing against humanity, but the harmful thing against feminism.
And dont you think pop stars, which are sexually empowered and are not afraid to love and accept and show their bodies with which they were born with, are actually inspiring? After so many years since females have gotten the right to be treated the same way as men are, we are again shaming women that are expressing who they are to the world and society, which is their freedom of choice to do. These pop stars have a gigantic number of interviews about feminism and how objectification and sexual oppression of women is still an issue even in the 21st century. These women express the way they want to express, and the most sexist thing we could do is judge them for it.
*soma not so a
All sexually explicit pop stars promote is a vapid Brave New Worldesque society in which giving into your desires is somehow also a kind of freedom. Sexually explicit pop stars are harmful to humanity. Drink your so a, shut down your mind, get in line to shake your ass. Don't worry, now you have the right to be as shallow and descriminating as the man-whores of the past.
The slave-kings and slave-queens of pop are all despicable human trash and all humans together should be united in loathi