The Instigator
HeXimei
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
wmpeebles
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

A decrease in male population would be beneficial for society

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
wmpeebles
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,024 times Debate No: 13163
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

HeXimei

Pro

I am arguing that a substantial decrease in the global male population (for numbers sake, let's assume a 40-60% decrease) would offer many societal benefits (I'll primarily be focusing on benefits in the Western world.) This is purely hypothetical, let's assume a disease pops us that permanently reduces the ratio of male to female births.

Main points:
Many societal ills would be greatly reduced. Our prisons would be less full (assaults and murders would take a nosedive), and the market for sex trafficking would be greatly reduced, seeing how it's client´┐Żle is composed of almost exclusively men.

Conditions for women would improve. Due to a dearth of male workers, girls would have a higher likelihood to be prepped for higher paying math/science/technology jobs due to a need to fill them. This would give women more economic power and enable them to be less expendable, making conditions for ill treatment less likely.

Men would have a larger pool of women to choose a one-night stand, lover, or life partner from, which would 1.) likely lead in greater marital/sexual satisfaction due to a higher capability to "date up" their social ladder and ability to choose from a wider variety of options and 2.) decrease the demand for prostitutes, which would further destroy the market for sex trafficking.

This wouldn't cause too much harm for women, since they are more sexually fluid it's not far fetched to believe more would be entering into homosexual relationships. And seeing how we no longer live in a society where people engage in life-long monogamy, many women would still have a strong chance of having a male partner at some point in their life.

The media would provide more shows marketed to women that don't center around their relationship to men and children (Birth Story, Say Yes to the Dress, etc.) due to fewer women focusing their lives around relationships to men and their children, creating less demand. This would further empower women to do something more with their lives than solely aspire to become a wife and/or baby machine.

There would be fewer accidental pregnancies, and more planned pregnancies (think gay couples.) This would lead to higher amounts of children being born into homes where they are highly valued and invested in. Not only would this help contribute to a healthier, more stable population, it would also decrease the population, easing the pressure we put on our environment. We'll have to decrease the population eventually and learn to function in an older society, this would contribute to the process.

This is an idea I've been toying with, I look forward to Con providing some good counter arguments to look into!
wmpeebles

Con

This is an interesting topic. I thank my opponent for allowing me to accept this debate.

A decrease in global male population would be beneficial for society. At least, that is what my opponent is arguing. I do not think that any benefits would occur for society if the global male population decreases. But, lets just look at the arguments my opponent has stated.

"Many societal ills would be greatly reduced. Our prisons would be less full (assaults and murders would take a nosedive), and the market for sex trafficking would be greatly reduced, seeing how it's client´┐Żle is composed of almost exclusively men."

Societal ills would probably be reduced, but would that be any benefit to society? After all, when there are less men in the world, there are less people in society, so the number of men & the number of crimes committed by men would be proportional. So, there is not much benefit here.

"Conditions for women would improve. Due to a dearth of male workers, girls would have a higher likelihood to be prepped for higher paying math/science/technology jobs due to a need to fill them. This would give women more economic power and enable them to be less expendable, making conditions for ill treatment less likely."

What conditions for women are you talking about? Which societies are you talking about? What do you mean about the "likelihood to be prepped..."?

"Men would have a larger pool of women to choose a one-night stand, lover, or life partner from, which would 1.) likely lead in greater marital/sexual satisfaction due to a higher capability to "date up" their social ladder and ability to choose from a wider variety of options and 2.) decrease the demand for prostitutes, which would further destroy the market for sex trafficking."

Are you talking about decreasing the male population while increasing the female population?

"This wouldn't cause too much harm for women, since they are more sexually fluid it's not far fetched to believe more would be entering into homosexual relationships. And seeing how we no longer live in a society where people engage in life-long monogamy, many women would still have a strong chance of having a male partner at some point in their life."

If people are not engaging in life-long monogamy, then why would be still need to decrease the male population for this purpose?

"The media would provide more shows marketed to women that don't center around their relationship to men and children (Birth Story, Say Yes to the Dress, etc.) due to fewer women focusing their lives around relationships to men and their children, creating less demand. This would further empower women to do something more with their lives than solely aspire to become a wife and/or baby machine."

How would this be beneficial to society as whole, rather than just women? I only see this as helping women in society.

"There would be fewer accidental pregnancies, and more planned pregnancies (think gay couples.) This would lead to higher amounts of children being born into homes where they are highly valued and invested in. Not only would this help contribute to a healthier, more stable population, it would also decrease the population, easing the pressure we put on our environment. We'll have to decrease the population eventually and learn to function in an older society, this would contribute to the process."

You can't be sure that there will be fewer accidental pregnancies and more planned pregnancies. Even so, I don't see how planned pregnancies would decrease the population.
Debate Round No. 1
HeXimei

Pro

Alrighty, I'm going to go through each question in order one by one...

1."Societal ills would probably be reduced, but would that be any benefit to society? After all, when there are less men in the world, there are less people in society, so the number of men & the number of crimes committed by men would be proportional. So, there is not much benefit here."

Even with crimes being proportional, with less men there is less crime. In a world with fewer males there would still be people who make up society. For the people living in that society, life would be less dangerous.

2."What conditions for women are you talking about? Which societies are you talking about? What do you mean about the "likelihood to be prepped..."?"

Conditions: economic, cultural (in regards to how they are viewed and treated as a whole)
Societies: In this case, I'm specifically thinking about American society, but it would be applicable for many besides that one.
Likelihood to be prepped: likelihood that parents and educators would encourage girls to become more involved with math/science/tech related activities. For example, I used to work at Toys R Us. When parents would buy science kits, they almost always had a boy in tow who they were buying it for. With fewer males, previously male dominated arenas in the workplace would have more open spots, and parents/educators would be more willing to train females to fill those spots, since someone has to, and women would now have a higher success rate in getting them.

3."Are you talking about decreasing the male population while increasing the female population?"
No, I'm saying the male to female ratio would stay the same through time, at around 4-6 boys for every 10 girls. But yes, to get there first the male population would decrease, while the female population increased.

4."If people are not engaging in life-long monogamy, then why would be still need to decrease the male population for this purpose?"
I don't understand your question. This part isn't so much a benefit as a rebuttal to a common counterargument people have (along the lines of "if there were more women than men most women would be spinsters and never get laid, which could cause societal problems.") I just wanted to get it out in round one so I wouldn't have to later. :)

5."How would this be beneficial to society as whole, rather than just women? I only see this as helping women in society."
I think it could be potentially beneficial to men as well. Men would be around more highly educated women (if women aren't focusing their lives around men and babies, they're likely focusing it around getting a higher education and better career.) This would allow them to meet more women who they are attracted to on not only a sexual, but also an intellectual level (which there currently seems to be a need for- talk to an engineering or hard science major about how they'd feel about meeting an attractive female with the same major.) If your partner stimulates you intellectually in addition to sexually, boredom is less likely, and you have a higher chance of having a more enjoyable relationship.

6."You can't be sure that there will be fewer accidental pregnancies and more planned pregnancies. Even so, I don't see how planned pregnancies would decrease the population."
True, you can't be sure there would be fewer planned pregnancies and more planned pregnancies. However, unless the fewer males in society start having huge amounts of unprotected sex with multiple females, the rates of accidental pregnancies would likely not reach current levels with a pretty 50/50 population split. So this, coupled with larger amounts of same-sex couples, who may or may not want to have children (they obviously can't have accidental pregnancies, gay sex doesn't work that way), would mean the population would decrease.
wmpeebles

Con

I'd like to thank your for your kindness throughout the debate. There aren't many debaters I've debated who would have responded the you have done.

"Even with crimes being proportional, with less men there is less crime. In a world with fewer males there would still be people who make up society. For the people living in that society, life would be less dangerous."

While this is true, lets just say that there are 500 people living in one place, and out of those 500 people, only 50 are murderers. If the male population is different, and there are only 100 people living in that area, about 10 people are murderers . It still means that about 1 out of 10 people have the chance of being murdered no matter the size of the population. Because of this proportion, life would not necessarily be less dangerous.

"Conditions for women would improve. Due to a dearth of male workers, girls would have a higher likelihood to be prepped for higher paying math/science/technology jobs due to a need to fill them. This would give women more economic power and enable them to be less expendable, making conditions for ill treatment less likely."

Thank you for answering my questions. Now that you mean the American society, It would probably be very detrimental to reduce the male population since one source explains that women don't take jobs in these fields because of their "need for greater flexibility and the demands of parenting and caregiving,". It also explains that women take up 50% of medical school classes. So it's not that women aren't prepped for math & science jobs, it's just because they need to take care of children. Decreasing the male population would not necessarily mean that more women would enter math & science careers, because as it shows now, America needs more people anyway to chose math & science careers. [1]

"Men would have a larger pool of women to choose a one-night stand, lover, or life partner from, which would 1.) likely lead in greater marital/sexual satisfaction due to a higher capability to "date up" their social ladder and ability to choose from a wider variety of options and 2.) decrease the demand for prostitutes, which would further destroy the market for sex trafficking."

Well, we would have to be talking about how much of a decrease in the male population we'd be talking about. I do not agree that there would be greater marital/sexual satisfaction since there is a high divorce rate in America. 40% for first marriages, 60% for second marriages, & 70% for 3rd marriages. Whether or not this has to do with all the "desirable" women being taken up, it would be hard to be sure. Thus, we would not know if there would be a decrease in demand for prostitutes either.

"I think it could be potentially beneficial to men as well. Men would be around more highly educated women (if women aren't focusing their lives around men and babies, they're likely focusing it around getting a higher education and better career.) This would allow them to meet more women who they are attracted to on not only a sexual, but also an intellectual level (which there currently seems to be a need for- talk to an engineering or hard science major about how they'd feel about meeting an attractive female with the same major.) If your partner stimulates you intellectually in addition to sexually, boredom is less likely, and you have a higher chance of having a more enjoyable relationship."

In a perfect society, maybe, but in the 1st source, it states that "women's career preferences and lifestyle choices tilt them toward other careers such as medicine and biology over mathematics, computer science, physics and engineering." Don't forget that women make these choices to to be a parent & caregiver, not because they're being held back by men in society. [1]

"True, you can't be sure there would be fewer planned pregnancies and more planned pregnancies. However, unless the fewer males in society start having huge amounts of unprotected sex with multiple females, the rates of accidental pregnancies would likely not reach current levels with a pretty 50/50 population split. So this, coupled with larger amounts of same-sex couples, who may or may not want to have children (they obviously can't have accidental pregnancies, gay sex doesn't work that way), would mean the population would decrease."

Even with a decrease in the male population, what would that have to do with planned or unplanned pregnancies?

Sources:
[1] http://www.sciencecodex.com...
[2] http://www.divorcerate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
HeXimei

Pro

"... lets just say that there are 500 people living in one place, and out of those 500 people, only 50 are murderers. If the male population is different, and there are only 100 people living in that area, about 10 people are murderers . It still means that about 1 out of 10 people have the chance of being murdered no matter the size of the population. Because of this proportion, life would not necessarily be less dangerous."
The analogy is erroneous; it only takes into account the male population's proportions. The female population is not lowered, it rises. For example, if the current population has 500 males and 500 females, and there are 10 murderers (who statistically will be 90-100% male) then there is one murder per hundred people, assuming each murderer kills one person. Now, if the male population decreased, and there were now 300 males and 700 females, hypothetically there will now be 6 murderers, and six deaths. Living in a population with 6 murderers is less dangerous than living in a population with 10 murderers.

"Now that you mean the American society, It would probably be very detrimental to reduce the male population since one source explains that women don't take jobs in these fields because of their "need for greater flexibility and the demands of parenting and caregiving,". It also explains that women take up 50% of medical school classes. So it's not that women aren't prepped for math & science jobs, it's just because they need to take care of children. Decreasing the male population would not necessarily mean that more women would enter math & science careers, because as it shows now, America needs more people anyway to chose math & science careers. [1]"
But in a world with less men and a decrease in births (see round 2), fewer women would be needing flexibility to meet the demands of parenting. And regarding the current demand for people to fill math & science careers, perhaps a major reason women aren't currently entering those numbers in large amounts is because, as stated earlier in the debate, that they aren't being prepped for it? It seems most of society assumes men will fill those spots, so they prep girls for other things (look at the girl's section of a toy store versus the boy's section and what movies are marketed for women versus men.) If the male population decreased, perhaps that assumption wouldn't be taken so readily.

"we would have to be talking about how much of a decrease in the male population we'd be talking about. I do not agree that there would be greater marital/sexual satisfaction since there is a high divorce rate in America. 40% for first marriages, 60% for second marriages, & 70% for 3rd marriages. Whether or not this has to do with all the "desirable" women being taken up, it would be hard to be sure. Thus, we would not know if there would be a decrease in demand for prostitutes either."
I do not understand your logic here. Because there is a high divorce rate currently, there would likely NOT be greater marital/sexual satisfaction if the male population was reduced?

"In a perfect society, maybe, but in the 1st source, it states that "women's career preferences and lifestyle choices tilt them toward other careers such as medicine and biology over mathematics, computer science, physics and engineering." Don't forget that women make these choices to to be a parent & caregiver, not because they're being held back by men in society. [1]"
Then that begs the question, what causes women's career preferences and lifestyle choices? I believe women are conditioned to prefer certain vocations and lifestyles, by glamorizing them. For example, look at the media. Look at what TV shows are marketed to which sex, and who their protagonist is. For females it's often: moms (TLC), the "damsel in distress" (True Blood), the "diva" (Jersey Shore/MTV.) For males it's often: crime solvers (Bones, NCIS), office workers (the Office), and the "Badass" (Sons of Anarchy.) Now look at who girls want to be like vs boys
Now, if the status quo radically changed, which a substantial decrease in male population would do, chances are society would actively change how they behave towards men/women, because the roles of men and women would have to change in order for society to remain functioning successfully. In such an environment, I believe it's very likely that women's career preferences and life choices would change. I'm not saying that women wouldn't want to be moms or raise a family, just that it likely wouldn't be the primary focus of their lives.

"Even with a decrease in the male population, what would that have to do with planned or unplanned pregnancies?"
A decrease in male population means there wouldn't be as many men sexing up women, which would mean fewer births. Also decrease in male population = likely more female same-sex couplings. Increase in gay couples = increased gay couples having kids, gay couples can't accidentally have kids, thus it's planned.
wmpeebles

Con

wmpeebles forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Hey I will challenge you to the same debate. ..
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Heximei argument from hate..
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
Then that means a decrease in the female population would be beneficial for society . . .
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
As it takes at least 3 women to do the job of 1 man it would certainly reduce unemployment.
:-)
Posted by wmpeebles 7 years ago
wmpeebles
I am sorry I had to forfeit. I have been in and out of the hospital lately.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Interesting topic. Since the ratio of males to females has been refined to the present level by evolution, Pro has a substantial burden to prove that nature has gotten it wrong. I don't think that Pro met that burden. Con missed the fairly obvious argument that the women who don't become homosexual, nearly all, are probably not going to be happy with some sort of harem arrangement that Pro suggests.

Neither side used any references. There are societies where women greatly outnumber men, a result of the men being killed off in war. That's the origin of matriarchal societies. I ave never heard a claim they are better off, but either side could have researched it.

Con loses conduct for the forfeit.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
HeXimeiwmpeeblesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13