The Instigator
SGM_iz_SekC
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mike_10-4
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Gender equality does no harm at all to society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Mike_10-4
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,234 times Debate No: 58721
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

SGM_iz_SekC

Con

BoP is on pro. First round is not for acceptance! Pro will use the first round and will not use their last round. No new info on the last usable rounds. Only closing statements. Failure to follow these rules will count as misconduct!
Good luck! Have fun!
Mike_10-4

Pro

My Friend SGM_iz_SckC (Con), I'm looking forward for a learning experience we both can enjoy during this debate.

Since Con left no limits on the definition of “gender equality,” leaves the field open for Pro to make the following claim:

“Gender equality does no harm at all to society” for “gender equality” is simply the equal endowment, pertaining to all of humanity, having the same and equal Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Since all humanity, including those who are focus on genitalia, have “equality” in Unalienable Rights as defined by the physical Laws of Nature, not man-made; therefore, such “equality does no harm at all to society” in the mutual pursuit of “Happiness,” is my Burden of Proof (BoF).
http://www.bookdaily.com...
Debate Round No. 1
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

BoP is on pro. Pro has to prove this topic. I will provide evidence in the meantime.
Gender equality by definition harms men, women, families and society.
The bottom line, says Venker, is that, "Feminism has sabotaged women's happiness." Worse, she adds, it's flipped male-female relationships upside down. Just one example: Men more than ever are seeking love, marriage and kids while women want independence.

As Schlafly's niece, Venker grew up seeing an alternative view to mainstream feminists views on TV and in the media. Now as a mother in Missouri, she's trying to help her aunt highlight what conservatives feel is wrong with feminism and to build a new understanding between men and women.

The book is controversial, especially in liberal circles, for lines like this: "Unfortunately, once feminism came along, women abandoned their pedestal in droves and decided they wanted to share the man's pedestal with him. They claimed they wanted both sexes on the same pedestal to represent equality and prove men and women are the same. Instead, they found themselves in conflict. Since there isn't enough room on a pedestal for both of them, feminists pushed men off to make room for themselves." She added, "That's not equality. That's matriarchy."

On sex: "Sex is a problem, too. More and more wives today say they're too tired for sex. ...Naturally, this poses a problem for husbands, who are rarely too tired for sex. Sex is a man's favorite past time, and the wives who are too tired to have it are often resentful of this fact. If change is going to come, it will have to come from women"they are the ones who changed the natural order of things. Moreover, men aren't the ones who kvetch about their place in the world"not because they have it so great, contrary to feminist dogma, but because it's not in their nature. Men tend to go along with whatever women say they need."

The duo have also raised concerns about Palin calling herself a conservative feminist. "You can't be both," says Venker, who adds that Palin is "confusing" conservatives by calling herself a feminist.

Mainstream media and liberal politicians and pundits also take a big hit, blamed for promoting feminism. They are especially critical of the "feminist elite" including Oprah, first lady Michelle Obama, CBS anchor Katie Couric, and Arianna Huffington. "What these women have in common is clout, and they believe they know that's best for women," they write, adding: "The problem is that the majority of women in this country don't have the power"feminists do. And feminists influence liberals as well as conservatives to confirm to the feminist message."

From the book and our recent interview, Whispers has pulled this list:

Five Ways That Feminism Has Ruined America

1. It hurt marriage. Women want to wait so that they can keep their identities longer and men are finding easy sex, taking away a big reason for marriage.

2. Undermines child rearing. More kids are in childcare where discipline is lax resulting in a "epidemic" of bad kids, childhood obesity, and bullies.

3. Two-income trap. With both husband and wife working it's hard to live without life's luxuries.

4. Undermines college sports. Title IX has ended many male-only sports at some colleges.

5. Emasculates men. It's better to be a wuss than speak up or mouth off and face charges of harassment or chauvinism.[1]

Today, a stay-at-home mother is viewed as a kind of second-class woman. In fact, feminists do not even view stay-at-home mothers as persons. This derogatory view began with Betty Friedan. "[V]acuuming the living room floor"with or without makeup"is not work that takes enough thought or energy to challenge any woman"s full capacity. Down through the ages man has known that he was set apart from other animals by his mind"s power to have an idea, a vision, and shape the future to it. " [W]hen he discovers and creates and shapes a future different from his past, he is a man, a human being" (The Feminine Mystique). The basic idea of feminism was that women should have a choice to go to the workplace and become less animal-like. What does that make a stay-at-home mother? Since being a wife and mother was supposedly glorified in the 1950s, the women"s movement fought to demote that role to the lowest level possible. Many impressionable young women wholeheartedly believed this 1960s philosophy.

Unfortunately, this feminist teaching has planted deep roots in the consciousness of American women. The feminist tree has blossomed. Today, it is considered a great shame to be a wife and mother only. In fact, being a wife and mother is synonymous with the meaningless life of a lower, uneducated class of people. What are today"s fruits of this philosophy?

The fight for women"s rights has actually turned into a fight against the family. Even the mothers of modern feminism admit that radical feminists have worked hard to repudiate the family.

Feminist Stephanie Coontz, history professor at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wa., wrote in the Washington Post, "We cannot afford to construct our social policies, our advice to our own children and even our own emotional expectations around the illusion that all commitments, sexual activities and caregiving will take place in a traditional marriage" (May 1). You don"t have to read between the lines to understand that such thinking is destroying the traditional family!

It is within the Anglo-American world that feminism has been embraced the most passionately. These countries also have the highest divorce rates in the world, and are producing record numbers of fatherless children"which in turn creates many other social problems. Robert Sheaffer writes, "One can try to argue that the U.S. family died of natural causes at precisely the same time feminists began shooting at it, but after examining the depth and ferocity of the feminist attack against women"s roles as wives and mothers, such an argument fails to convince" (Feminism, the Noble Lie). Let"s own up to it: Feminism has caused some tragic results for the family.

If we are going to fix our social problems, we must recognize that feminism has led our Western families into serious crises. Here is how it happened. Although many young women answered the call to pursue a career, they could not deny their natural desire for a husband and children. Many then opted to have a husband, children and a career. Realizing that certain feminine desires could not be denied, a new movement slogan was quickly pushed into public view""having it all." This slogan lives on. But it ignores a hard reality for many working mothers: Having it all also means handling it all. Working career mothers were forced into a high-stress rat race. Having it all was supposed to be fulfilling, but it was not. Now, almost four decades later, women find they are not any closer to finding true, satisfying fulfillment. For some, "having it all" has meant losing it all.

The truth is, working mothers suffer. The children of working mothers always suffer. And should we forget"the husband suffers too.

Severe fatigue plagues many working mothers. Balancing career, marriage and child care is an impossible task. Few can actually do it all. To do it all, corners have to be cut. Unfortunately, because of feminist peer pressure, marriage and family are sacrificed before career. Many two-career marriages have crumbled. Children have been left at home alone. Can we begin to see the harm that working motherhood has done to families?

Our society of working mothers is a disaster. Experts agree that the industrial revolution produced families with absentee fathers. Now feminism has given us families with absentee mothers. What does this mean? Essentially, our children are growing up alone.

It is estimated that as many as 60 percent of American children do not have full-time parental supervision. Think about it. If children are blessed enough to be in a two-parent home, generally they still have both parents working outside the home. The children are left home alone. If the family is run by a single parent, that parent (whether male or female) is working. Again, the children are home alone. This means our youth are growing up with an ever-dwindling amount of parental love, nurturing and supervision. The average latchkey child (a child returning home after school with no parent to greet him) is alone three hours per day. Some of these children are as young as 8; most are in their teens. When we think about parents arriving home after a difficult day at the office, we can logically surmise that there is not much quality time left for the child.

All children and teens fundamentally need acceptance, praise, teaching and discipline. Children need to be taught right from wrong. Children need to learn how to be successful. This requires experience and activities. These needs are best met by parents. If these needs are not met at home, children have no other choice than to look elsewhere. This makes our children frustrated, angry and vulnerable to many dangers.[2]

[1] http://www.usnews.com...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Mike_10-4

Pro

Off the debating floor (see comments), Con made the point that he will not “enjoy debating that one gender does not deserve those inalienable rights.” It is not “inalienable rights” that is the issue, by the way, the term is Unalienable Rights. These Rights are defined by the physical Laws of Nature, of which all life has and is the engine to evolution. I will make the point of evolution clear, at least on the social level, as we proceed in the debate.

Con also apologized for not defining “gender equality” and took issue with my definition in Round 1. He further lament that “everyone knew I [Con] meant the gender equality of feminism... etc.”

In Round 2, Con came out of the gate with the following definition, “Gender equality by definition harms men, women, families and society.”

Not everyone shares Con's definition. For example, Wikipedia has the following definition, “Gender equality, also known as sex equality, sexual equality or equality of the genders, refers to the view that men and women should receive equal treatment, and should not be discriminated against based on gender, unless there is a sound biological reason for different treatment.” http://en.wikipedia.org...

Everyone, including women have the same Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Discrimination often results in unhappiness. Then, why discriminate based on gender? The answer is a function of cultural norms, as oppose to one's Unalienable Rights.

The focus is on cultural norms and by their dynamics, are stable (aka Conservative) in nature. That is, they change very gradually over time. Stability in cultural norms is a good thing, where both Progressives and Conservatives, and most humans embrace stability. Who in their right mind would embrace social chaos?

On the other hand, the main objective of the US Constitution is to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government, no more, no less.

For example, in the beginning and having the mission to embrace and protect everyone's Unalienable Rights, the US started with a difficult task relative to the cultural reality of the day. Cultural norms do not change overnight, because they are inherently Conservative. Slavery and woman's standing in society were deeply rooted in the culture, including the norms of the ruling-class, for they too reflect the culture of the day. Our founding Fathers knew Unalienable Rights will remove cultural ills, as a result, slavery, the treatment of woman, and today's treatment of gays, etc, in time during the evolution of culture as a function of our Unalienable Rights and the design of Congress, representing the people, and the only branch to make law correcting such cultural ills.

What are cultural ills? Anything having to do with cultural norms where a group of individuals cannot morally achieve “Happiness” within society because of those norms. Group unhappiness feeds back to the mission of Congress to make adjustments in the attempt in correcting those cultural ills in the evolution of norms.

One may argue the Civil War, having its origin in the fractious issue of slavery, did a lot of harm to society by the death of hundreds of thousands of humans from the carnage on many battle fields.

Over the ages, many cultural norms, relative to men and woman, have their roots from religious doctrine.

Over the last hundred years our government controlled educational system is on the path towards secularism, diversity, etc, moving away from our traditional roots. Also, over the last hundred years government taxation on the individual went from null to about 50% of one's yearly income. When government takes half of your earnings, encourages two people in the house to work. The event of large groups of women entering the workforce, a cultural ill of discrimination surfaced in the workplace enhanced “gender equality,” which had its roots in the early part of the last century over voting issues.

Gender equality does no harm to society. What is harming our society is government over taxation, while our secular government schools not teaching the subject of morality and embracing diversity in place of Americanism.

Con gets down in the weeds on complaints that have little to do with discrimination against gender. Con focuses on the transitional friction in society during the dynamic of any cultural change, while the flow of society settles to a new norm. And in saying that, thank God hundreds of thousands are not dying over this transition of “gender equality,” compared to slavery. On the other hand, through the laws set by Congress both slavery and gender equality under the law should now be historical settled issues, why so much press on racism and gender inequality today?

In addition, there is potential disaster on the horizon created by our government's PC (Political Correctness) over diversity, while the orthodox Islamic groups come flocking into the US. Most are too familiar on the Islamic view of a woman's place in society. When that event crystalizes into violence, would Con still blame gender equality doing harm to society? What is even more concerning, which group will our government cater to, while the structure of our government morphs into some progressive “living constitutional” concept, away from our founding configuration, as in “fundamental change.”

Gender equality is in the noise relative to the slow cancer that has metastasize throughout our government. Con should recalibrate his concerns by seeing the movie "America."

This cancer had spread throughout our society with the enhancement of divide and conquer techniques with straw-men such as: racism, divide between the sexes, tension between the haves and have-nots, healthcare inequalities, the unfair wealth of the US stealing from the rest of the world, etc. As these straw-men crises becomes critical, a progressive tyrannical government steps in taking control, as the masterminds create the illusion of solving the problem.

For example, "There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well."

The above quote, by Booker T. Washington (1856-1915) African American political leader, educator and author.

To paraphrase Booker T. There is a class of feminists who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the women before the public. Some of these people do not want the women to lose their grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of feminists-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well.

Where are these “colored people” and feminists in our society “who don't want the patient to get well," stirring up angst in our society? You will find them in our government schools, media, and scattered throughout many government departments, where hundreds of thousands of nonelected government employees writing regulations, having the same power as law, to control society. Under this progressive “living constitutional” configuration, Congress, for the most part, is essentially out of the loop no longer representing the people, too busy with lobbyists and getting reelected.

There is a complex subtle thread of progressive-perversion running through the tapestry of our society embracing a large centralize tyrannical government, creating straw-men to solve all our problems, an opposite scenario to the US Constitution.

My Friend Con, gender equality does not harm our society, the root of the problem is far more complex and serious.
Debate Round No. 2
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

I am cut for time and cannot post my next argument to this debate. I apologize for any inconveniences. I will most likely be able to post my next rounds' arguments.
Mike_10-4

Pro

I hope my delay, in a null response, for this Round gives you enough time in your next argument.
Debate Round No. 3
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

I will post few arguments, as I am cut on time and I have spend the little time I have on other debates. Pro has to fulfill BoP. Which I believe they have not done. Vote con!

Gender equality is not achievable, because women are naturally weaker and more submissive than men. So if we force some women/men to accept the other gender's role (e.g. women being the bread-maker or the dad staying at home and watching kids/cleaning/cooking.), that is unequal in itself, and will only do more harm than good. (proof is in a previous round.)
Mike_10-4

Pro

I understand Con. Time management could be challenging thrashing between many debates. And in saying that, I think we made our solid points in the previous Rounds.

Con did mentioned “women are naturally weaker” than men. Pro would not want to experience child birth. In addition, Pro knows woman who are stronger than Pro, could drive a golf ball further than Pro, smarter than Pro, etc.

After pointing out differences between men and women throughout the debate Con closed with the following phrase, “... that is unequal in itself ...”

Con is stating the obvious, about “unequal” for no two men or no two women are equal. We are all unique individuals and no two are alike!

Again, “Gender equality ... refers to the view that men and women should receive equal treatment, and should not be discriminated against based on gender, unless there is a sound biological reason for different treatment.” http://en.wikipedia.org...

Nowhere in that definition implies men and women are to be considered equal. It is the “equal treatment, and should not be discriminated against” relative to the individual's Unalienable Rights.

If Con is still “cut for time,” in Round 5, we could place a, “null argument” to expedite the voting phase.

Good luck Con in your other debates, and I look forward to meeting you again on the debating floor.
Debate Round No. 4
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

I am no longer cut for time, but I accept my opponent's obvious victory.
Mike_10-4

Pro

In a constructive debate, I find the learning experience more important than victory, more informative and memorable than a class lecture, better feedback than a test, the foundation to the scientific method, last but not least, the evolution of ideas or cultural norms. You do not find those dynamics in a static text book, where the text book are results from past debates and used as references or building blocks in future debates.

Thank you Con, for the learning experience in the evolution of ideas.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Mike_10-4 3 years ago
Mike_10-4
@SGM_iz_SekC

Since you are "cut for time," I will wait for about 22 hours to post a null argument on my side of Round 3. This should give you a little more time. In the meantime, go see that movie "America."
Posted by Mike_10-4 3 years ago
Mike_10-4
@SGM_iz_SekC
Let"s go for it. It"s only a debate.
Posted by SGM_iz_SekC 3 years ago
SGM_iz_SekC
I apologize deeply, and will forfeit this debate if it is what would be best for you.
Posted by Mike_10-4 3 years ago
Mike_10-4
@SGM_iz_SekC

I have taken this debate because you left the meaning of "Gender equality" open.

Make your case clear in Round 2. I"ll do the usual complaint and carry on the best I can in going forward.
Posted by SGM_iz_SekC 3 years ago
SGM_iz_SekC
I apologize for there not being a definition of gender equality, I am for the one you, my opponent said, and would not enjoy debating that one gender does not deserve those inalienable rights.
I assumed everyone knew I meant the gender equality of feminism (not radical feminism, but normal feminism). Ex. women in the workplace, VAMA, affirmative action, etc.
Would you accept this explanation of gender equality?
Posted by Preston 3 years ago
Preston
:) lets see how you do!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
SGM_iz_SekCMike_10-4Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con essentially forfeits. Additionally, I had no idea first reading the debate what "gender equality" was supposed to mean, and Pro did a good job pointing this out. Nevertheless, Pro's arguments were far superior and backed up to a great extent.
Vote Placed by Splenic_Warrior 3 years ago
Splenic_Warrior
SGM_iz_SekCMike_10-4Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I award Pro conduct because Con was basically absent half the debate, and arguments because he was able to fulfill his burden in one round (which he was able to define, but that's Con's fault).