Male domination is necessary for a society to have net gender equality.
I am a woman and I oppose gender equality on the grounds male domination is required for a society to have net gender equality.
First of all I would like to point out what exactly we mean by gender equality.
"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."
It means that everyone regardless of his/her gender, when in the same situation, should get equal opportunities.
Your notion of women influencing the society by being the limiting factor in reproduction is fundamentally flawed. It is true that investment by a mother is much greater than that done by the father during reproduction. however, it doesn't provide women any real influence in the society. According to your line of thought the only thing women can influence is the population, which we already have enough! Gender equality is not limited to reproduction. It has a much broader sense and significance.
Back in ancient and medieval ages, strength had more value than wisdom did. Men being naturally superior to women in terms of physical strength dominated the society and curbed the voices and rights of women. men grabbed all the freedom and leisure's of life while women were restricted to the household chores bound by the command of their master. however, dawn of the nineteenth century resulted in the empowerment of women. they were given the right to work, the right to vote, the right to property and in the true sense of the word, right to freedom.
Today, women have accomplished great things in all walks of life. They have demonstrated the immense potential they carry. Therefore, for the betterment of the society, that potential should not be curbed by an authoritarian male dominated society.
Thanks for agreeing to this debate.
While I am not sure where you got your opening quote, note the fact I say “net gender equality” by which I mean “the same influence over society”. Granted, you add the caveat “unless there is a sound biological reason for different treatment”. I contend a certain amount of bias in favor of men must exist in order to “compensate” men for the fact, all else being equal, women tend to exert greater influence over society thru the role of “gatekeeper” to reproduction which would qualify as “a sound biological reason for different treatment”.
Consequently, this influence inherent to women and the stated goal of “the same influence over society” does not necessarily mean equal opportunity. The goal is what we might call “output based equality” in the face of the the inherent different influence we might call “input based inequality”.
By acting as reproductive gatekeepers, women indeed have a real influence over society. As gatekeepers, women regulate which men engage in reproductive activities, when they get to do so, in what fashion they get to do so, and under what circumstances just to name a few ways. [Note: I presume an absence of rape for this analysis.] As a result, women get to determine who is conceived, who gestates, and ultimately who gets to exist and have the same legal right to live and thrive and eventually take places in society as potentially productive members. To say reproductive gatekeeping does not accord women “any real influence” in society would suggest the mothers of Einstein, Jonas Salk, Washington, Ghandi, and Moses were all insignificant in the course of society and history. Yet, without these women, their respective children would not be at the particular points in history at which they each proved quite pivotal.
You assert, “According to your line of thought the only thing women can influence is the population, which we already have enough” is erroneous. At no point did I say women’s only influence was thru the population. Even if I had, the fact you think “we already have enough” of the population is irrelevant as to whether women influence society thru reproduction.
You also point out “Gender equality is not limited to reproduction. It has a much broader sense and significance” as if I said otherwise; I did not. I said, however I suppose I might not have made it clear, reproductive gatekeeping is one factor in favor of a woman’s influence on society to “balance” when measuring gender equality.
You close with two paragraphs which might be relevant had I claimed, for example, women should be slaves. Again, I said no such thing. I said, “some male dominance is required for a truly gender equal society.” The degree and form of such male dominance remains an open question.
Nor does a male dominated society have to be authoritarian. Imagine a society where, as a general cultural rule, the primary male of each household makes the decisions for said household with the right of refusal reserved to the primary female (assuming a mixed male-female household) for cases such as the safety, stability, and the prevention of abuse. Further suppose legal rights are structured so as to prevent abuse and to maintain safety and stability of the household, so as to help bolster this cultural rule and the influence of women should such influence otherwise wane unnecessarily. Nothing in this description requires such a society to be “authoritarian”.
While I agree that women are are more prudent about reproduction but saying "As gatekeepers, women regulate which men engage in reproductive activities" is going a bit too far. If a man is denied by a woman, it doesn't mean that he will never have kids! No woman can decide who will and who will not reproduce. Also you base your argument on the fact that women are more selective and cautious towards sexual intercourse. That is true but when it comes to reproduction in real world, that doesn't hold much importance, i'll explain how. Majority of the kids are conceived after marriage. women who conceive before marriage usually say that it was a mistake,so, i will not include that because in this case it wasn't her decision to have the baby. Now, in my experience, everyone who wants to get married, eventually does get married. women maybe more cautious towards sex but when it comes to marriage, i would say men and women are equally cautious and prudent. and even if a man or a woman gets rejected, they find someone else. so, people get married if they want it. now, i don't know about your or other societies but where i live, every married couple tries to have a baby, and most of them are successful. please keep in mind that my argument is based on the majority of the population and not every single person.
so in short,most of the reproduction in the society happens after marriage.
majority of people who want to get married eventually do get married, may not be the person they intended, but they most of the time find someone.
unlike sexual intercourse, when it comes to marriage men and women are equally cautious about choosing their partner.
after marriage almost every couple tries to have kids.
in this process we never see a distinct advantage to women.
"To say reproductive gatekeeping does not accord women "any real influence" in society would suggest the mothers of Einstein, Jonas Salk, Washington, Ghandi, and Moses were all insignificant in the course of society and history. Yet, without these women, their respective children would not be at the particular points in history at which they each proved quite pivotal." Without their mothers they wouldn't have come into being, that's true, but out of everyone who has kids, did they do something radically different? it was just a matter of luck that their child turned out to be an amazing icon. Also, might I point out that everyone who you have mentioned here are men? I am not saying that women are incapable of greatness but they were not 'allowed' to achieve it. of-course there are several women iconic figures now, but if you look back in history, you'l find women icons to be quite a rare species.
now, according to me, when we say influencing something, it means being able to change the course of action of something. In a male dominated society, all the positions of power are occupied men. Be it in the government or the household. men and men alone are able to make decisions which govern the course of action. how women can influence the policies of an institution by saying no to sex is beyond me. Perhaps you can give me a practical example for the same?
you say that women have an inherent advantage of controlling reproduction. But what about the inherent advantage men have? isn't physical strength an advantage? you say that because of a disparity in input based equality, men should be given more power to achieve 'net equality'. however, i think you have got the subjects mixed up. Men have an advantage over women, physical strength. This is what led to a male dominated society and pushed women to a condition of slavery in earlier times. And now to ensure the net equality women rights and women empowerment programs have come into being. so, men have an advantage over women and women have to be given extra advantages and rights to achieve a 'net quality', not the other way round.
Addressing what I perceive to be fallacies in your argument required more than the 8000 characters which debate.org permits in a round. So, in the interest of fully informed debating, I have posted my response here: http://pastebin.com...
I would also urge my opponent to negate the idea I am conveying instead of quoting and contradicting each individual statement I make.
there are several instances one will find that my statements have been quoted way out of context if he/she takes the pain of going through the humongous argument my opponent has put forth.
for example when i say that about every married couple tries to have a baby she responds with "Are you saying, where you live, if two people in their 60"s get married they try to have a baby? What of couples where one or both spouses are infertile" even when i have mentioned that all my arguments are applicable to the majority and not everyone.
she has quoted that too. "please keep in mind that my argument is based on the majority of the population and not every single person." and she replies, quite ironically, "I have never said otherwise."
while i would love to follow the suit and quote and contest all of my opponents contentions, for the sake of objectivity i will refrain from it.
i concede to the point made by the opponent that births outside of marriage or on the rise. 29% of all the births in USA are illegitimate which, although is a minority, is significant enough to merit a consideration. i would chalk it up to cultural differences because the place i live in, it is fairly rare and so i wrongly assumed it to be the general trend.
However I still stand by the point that although men are more open towards sexual activities, when it comes to having kids, men are equally cautious as women.
in her argument my opponent demonstrates the influence women have over the society with the following example. "if the mother of the next would-be Adolf Hitler were to choose to withhold sex on the particular day which would conceive him, the genetic component which influences his personality would almost certainly be different due to the various factors involved with sperm selection in the reproductive process. Since, as noted, women have an inherent tendency to be more selective and, consequently, influential in the reproductive process, women have a greater sway than men in the personality of the people who make up the set of policy regulators of a given institution. One example which readily comes to mind is Marie Curie; without her, research into radioactivity, the subsequent development of x-ray machines, and their eventual establishment in hospitals would have taken longer. All else being equal, no Marie Curies means one less researcher working in just the right field at just the right time in just the right way. This lack of research focus means less development of the particular field would have occurred and the benefits gained from it would have been slower to come, if at all. Meanwhile, the people whose lives were saved because Marie Curie did exist would have possibly died and their effect on their society would have been different compared to our society. Over time, as such differences compound, the course of history between these two timelines diverges more and more and the effect on society by the mother of Marie Curie having sex when she did becomes more and more pronounced."
i quoted the entire paragraph in case the reader did not go through my opponents argument as this demonstrates the crux of her entire cause.
It is clear that this example is hollow at its core and is just an example of the butterfly effect, which is the effect of small things resulting in great changes. the point my opponent fails to realize is that the mother did not 'choose' to give birth to Adolf Hitler or Marie Curie. She just chose to have unprotected sex at that particular time. She did not have any clue what her child will turn out to be. Results obtained without the intention is not influence, but luck.
lets say a woman X is the CEO of a multi-national company which controls billions of dollars in assets. She has the power to make deals and trades which can effect millions of lives. The ripples of her decision and choices can effect entire countries! Similar things can be said about other positions of powers such as politicians, judges, managers or even head of the family. In all of these cases the subject is aware and concious of his/her decisions and the outcomes they may produce.
Such power to control things is what i and everyone else means by 'influence'.
"It (patriarchy) is primarily the Aristotelean belief men are inherently superior to women, the Aristotelean belief men are perfect while women are imperfect, and the spreading of that belief by Aristole"s student, Alexander the Great, which is thought to have lead to the disenfranchisement of women." Aristotle lived around 400-300 BC. Your statement that aristotle and his disciple alexander were responsible for patriarchy is false. One of the earliest civilization in the world, Indus valley civilization which existed around 3300 BC was dominantly patriarchal.
Many animal societies which are mammals such as that of monkeys, chimps and even lions are patriarchal. In their societies the head position is obtained by the demonstration of strength. you might argue that the nature of their society holds no relevance pertaining to our own origins but with that you will go against every social psychologist present today. you might also give me examples of other societies such as that of penguins, ants or bees. penguin society is gender neutral, but you may also notice that males and females have about equal strength in the species. even when males cannot reproduce themselves and do not have superior strength, they have a gender neutral society. in ants and bees they do have a queen, but that's just one female. the others work. in fact in a hive only female bees work while the males are only responsible to fertilize the queen and nothing else. anyway the above species are not mammals and significantly different from humans.
"your argument does not take into account the fact a number of women are stronger than a number of men while the number of men able to conceive and carry children thru a full pregnancy in the same fashion as women still remains extremely low."
"technological advances are rendering the effect of those differences moot. Today, using a combination of various tools and/or devices, some of the most delicate females, if not all, can lift as much as the most olympian male bodybuilder"
As i said earlier my arguments are for the majority. females with extra ordinary strength are in minority. I agree that technological advances have rendered the advantage mute. however, my statement was made in the context of origins of a male dominated society, not in the present world. The advantage men have now is that society is already dominated by men regardless of the fact that the reason that enabled them to dominate does not apply any more. for example a very rich man can fund his campaign and get elected for an office. now, even if he goes broke, he will still have the power and influence of the office even when the money which enabled him to get the office is gone.
to repeat myself, i agree that women are not as open as men towards sex but when it comes to reproduction men are equally cautious and selective. also the argument you pose that women gain power and influence in society by giving birth to influential people is fallacious as i noted above.
I am surprised by the implication the principles of logic and the accuracy of statements have a size limit, which is how I take your opening claim, especially when a large portion of the text I posted is simply quoting your arguments to keep responses in context. I would accommodate you if I had available another method to do so without sacrificing accuracy, which is what I would hope everyone strives for in a debate.
Additionally, I did negate the ideas you were conveying by showing the individual pieces to be inaccurate and, occasionally, showing how, even if the pieces were accurate, the conclusions drawn from them would still be wrong. An analogy would be showing how individual grains of pixie dust do not exist and how, even if they did, a statue made of them would still not exist.
Since I have left your statements as is with very little editing and, even then, with no editing which changes the substance of your statements, your charge of “my statements have been quoted way out of context” is dubious, especially in light of the fact I have gone so far as to leave, for example, capitalization errors in place when quoting you. To illustrate: you did not argue “about every married couple tries to have a baby” but “now, i don't know about your or other societies but where i live, every married couple tries to have a baby, and most of them are successful.” The word “about” is conspicuously absent from the actual quote. Pray tell, where did I misquote you or misinterpret you? I left your text in plain view for everyone to see in the previous round and anyone clicking on the link can compare what I quoted with what you wrote to confirm that point. Consequently, there is no irony in pointing out I never said something you said I said.
Your return to the conflation of marriage with reproduction does nothing to refute the points regarding such I put forth. You can freely “stand by the point” all you want but you would still be “standing by” an erroneous point unless you can show my prior conclusion to be incorrect.
I also find skeptical the assertion “Results obtained without the intention is not influence, but luck.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the primary definition of “influence” when used as a noun is “the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something, or the effect itself”. Two examples my copy provides are the phrases “the influence of television violence” and “I was still under the influence of my parent”. Merriam-Webster gives the definition “the power to change or affect someone or something : the power to cause changes without directly forcing them to happen” and Wiktionary gives “the power to affect, control or manipulate something or someone; the ability to change the development of fluctuating things such as conduct, thoughts or decisions.” None of these definitions require intent. So, clearly, influence need not involve intentional results. In fact, you provide examples of CEOs, judges, politicians, etc., each of whom make decisions with both intended and unintended effects, further undermining the claim such does not meet the definition of “influence”. Therefore, “Such power to control things is what i and everyone else means by 'influence’” is patently false.
Your critique of the Aristotle comment misses the key word “primarily”, which does not mean “only” as said critique implies; however, even if did, you neither provide nor offer any citation of your Indus Valley claim here or in the comments just as I offered for mine. I can offer sources on Aristotle in the comments if you’d like but a quick cursory web search shows conflicting results with respect to the veracity of the Indus Valley claim. By all means, present your references for review.
The structure of animal societies definitely has no relevance to how human society ought to be structured nor on logical deduction, nor does social psychology. Additionally, with the Indus Valley, animal, and social psychology arguments, you seem to be arguing more about what currently is and/or how we got to where we are while I have been arguing about what ought to be.
You have not shown how “when it comes to reproduction men are equally cautious and selective” because you have not shown how, for example, the “pre-selection filter” I describe does not exist or does not operate in the way I describe.
You also change the claim I make: I did not say at any point in time “women gain power and influence in society by giving birth to influential people”. I am not sure why you feel the need to “tilt at windmills”, so to speak, but you certainly seem to be doing so.
I did not accuse you of misquoting me or changing my claims, just that you have quoted me out of context.
I agree to the fact that men are more open towards sexual activities than women. However sex and reproduction are two very different things. If you think that men are any less apprehensive about having kids than women then you are simply mistaken.
Your notion of influence on the society does not empower women or lead to a higher societal status and benefits in any way. Women have been giving births to great men and women even when they were treated as slaves. Still they are not said to have influence over the society. If you want to know he position of women in medieval times you may refer to http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
Even with the word primarily, your claim is false. Patriarchy was predominant in Aristotle's time. He was not the cause of it, he just offered a causality for the same. you can verify my claim about the Indus valley civilization from the following link: http://www.halfmantr.com... . If you are not convinced by Indus valley civilization you can also read about Mesopotamian civilization who were also one of the first civilizations. http://history-world.org...
I think that it is common sense that men are equally cautious and selective when it comes to reproduction. In earlier times when men didn't really take responsibility for their wards, I would agree with you. But in today's societal structure this is not the case. Your assertion towards the imbalance in power regarding the same puts the burden of proof on you.
Furthermore, if women are more resistant towards sex, its their nature. Its their personality. Imparting more power to men on the basis of personality of women sounds quite hollow.
Address your concerns one by one:
Actually, the limit I placed was how many characters one can utilize on debate.org per round. To argue, for example, only 8,000 characters at most in total may be used to make an argument each round would negate much reference material. Additionally, nothing in any debate rule I put forth said we may not post links to elaborated text. However, I digress.
To “quote someone out of context” is only meaningful if the resultant quote is either a misquote or a misinterpretation, both of which I asked you to show I presented. Neither did I say you accused me of changing your claims. However, this point is yet another digression.
Your focus on sex is superfluous because I never based my argument on sex, only reproduction; while sex may be the typical way one thinks of reproduction, the advent of in vitro fertilization makes reproduction independent of sex.
Your argument about apprehensiveness with respect to having children argues the wrong point: I stated women have a tendency to be a greater limiting factor than men with respect to reproduction due to the greater incentive to act as such; such a tendency does not require one be “apprehensive” with respect to having children, either in absolute terms or relative terms.
You again seem to be using a word incorrectly, “empower”; that word means “to give (someone) the authority or power to do something” (Cf., the OED again). However, I am not saying women should be given such power; I am saying women already have such power. Nor do I say, again, such power “lead[s] to a higher societal status and benefits”. I am saying, if we want women and men to be social equals, we must account for inherent differences in social influence when assessing relative social status between two otherwise identical people.
Regarding history, even if nobody noticed the influence women have over society in the past does not mean we should continue to ignore that influence today. As such, the position of women in medieval times is irrelevant to what ought to be today.
When one considers the reach of Alexander the Great’s empire and the influence of Aristotle he brought with him, the entrenchment of the more destructive form of male dominance you describe is not surprising. However, again, (1) male dominance need not take that form and (2) the history says nothing about what ought to be today.
On the Indus Valley, a single statement repeated twice without evidence is unconvincing. Consider http://v.gd... which disputes your assertion. Both pages make conflicting claims without verifiable citation. On Mesopotamia, you now present either a new argument or a piece of information to try to back up an existing argument; whichever course you intend it still says nothing about what ought to be today.
Regarding reproduction and “common sense”, the appeal to “common sense” is a type of informal fallacy and I would suggest you stay away from it because it does not help prove your points. However, if such an appeal did, one could equally claim it to be “common sense” a man does not and cannot, due to the differing circumstances described, be “equally cautious” as an otherwise identical woman. The added concerns of nine months of pregnancy, increased difficulty at disavowing lineage, extra physical demands of pregnancy and/or nursing, and potential emotional attachment due to direct physical attachment during pregnancy are simply not as fully comprehended by one completely incapable of directly experiencing such. I did present this proof in my opening argument. Why you imply I did not is unclear.
Again, my argument is independent of sex. However, even if it were not, as noted earlier, the differences in circumstances and incentives of otherwise identical women and men would be the cause of any such personality differences, if they did exist. As such, those differences in personality represent signs of factors with non-zero weight to consider in assessing net gender equality.
Sexual intercourse and reproduction are two different things. While a disparity exists in the level of selectivity in the former case, it is considerably reduced in the latter.
If someone doesn"t gain a greater societal status or any kind of benefit from an action, it does not provide him/her an advantage.
Aristotle and Alexander did not lead to a patriarchal world system. It was already predominately followed during that time. I brought up Indus valley civilization to prove that patriarchal system existed since the beginning of civilization. Since there were conflicting views on its validity on the internet. I gave the example of Mesopotamian civilization since it was also one of the first civilizations on earth and were confirmed to be a patriarchal society.
I hope your other concerns will be alleviated by the points made in my conclusion.
My adversary argues that, women have a lesser tendency towards reproduction and since they are the deciding factor in process, they in effect decide the fate of an unborn child by deciding if they want to reproduce with a particular man at a particular time. In an example she demonstrates the influence a woman can have over a society by enunciating the importance of the mothers of prominent figures such as Marie Curie and Adolf Hitler as how they wouldn"t have existed if their mothers had not chosen to have a child at that point of time. Because of this power, men should have an added advantage over women so as to achieve an equality of power.
I disagree with her based on the following points:
"Men too have the power to abstain from reproduction. They just don"t use it as often as women tend to do. It"s the choice of using that power that results in changes in the society. However, everyone have several choices to make in their lifetimes which effect the society in its own way.
"Men are cautious about reproduction too. Having a kid is a great responsibility and requires commitment. I concede that women have to endure the physical aspects of it. However, the disparity is not very great. In fact there are several cases where a woman wants to have kids while a man doesn"t. In a survey it was found that out of the total subjects, 59% of men and 63% of women wanted kids. Source: http://psychcentral.com...
"Women do not gain any considerable advantage by it over men. Had this been the case then women would have dominated men in the past which is clearly not the case. So, the idea of giving men more power on account of this is absurd.
I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and wish her good luck!
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|