Men & Women are not equal and should not be considered as such
Debate Rounds (5)
Pro will accept the responsibility of proving that Men and Woman cannot be rationally compared as equal by definition and that a social acceptance of equality between the two sexes would be more problematic than beneficial.
This debate is concerning present day status of equality between Men and Women in the United States only. Round 1 will be for acceptance only. Round 2 will be for opening arguments. Round 3 will contain rebuttals and if needed, additional points of argument. Round 4 will be continued rebuttals. Round 5 will be for summarizing each argument and will not contain any rebuttals but focus solidly on the case each has made in summary.
Disqualification criteria: Citing false or otherwise unfounded statistical data. Making generalized statements such as "Most people believe" without providing proof. Offering any statement that can be considered illogical beyond reasonable doubt. Attempting to use opinion to justify opinion.
Best of luck to whoever accepts, I look forward to the debate.
I'd like to divide my argument for this debate, firstly addressing that Men and Women simply do not meet the prerequisite criteria to be what is defined as equal to one another, followed by my rationale behind discrediting the idea that society can dictate an equal standard that should be followed, and finally my logic behind why Men and Women should not be considered equal. Throughout these points I'll make my best attempt at simultaneously addressing why Men and Women cannot be rationally compared as equal by definition and why a social acceptance of equality between the two sexes would be more problematic than beneficial.
I. In order for two things to be equal they must be the same, Equal is synonymous with Identical and is defined as being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value. In its Adjective form, "Equal" is a difficult term to place on two of anything, I cannot fathom how one would even go about measuring a Man and Woman for consideration of the title: Equal. Having established the meaning of Equal and the degree of difficulty in understanding how two things could possibly be equal, I would suggest to Con that any movement by either sex to establish such a difficult title between Men and Women couldn't possibly be an attempt to establish the true meaning of Equal. Instead I suggest that any such attempt is actually an attempt at assigning a modified and personalized version of Equal, a "Subjective" Equal, which wouldn't make it equal at all. I'd like to take this opportunity to insert some humor in the form of sarcasm when I say "Words MEAN things". The reason our vocabulary is defined so clearly with rules is so that we do not confuse one another, but to assign additional meanings to a word and remove portions of it's original meaning could only cause confusion and is highly suspicious. Can anyone truly be expected to stand for one side of something versus the other and argue against someone who chooses to redefine words to suite their own need in justifying their side? I certainly wouldn't.
Now in it's Noun form, equal can simply mean a person or thing "Considered" to be the same as another in status or quality. It's important to note that the literal definition specifies that this is what is Considered to be. I won't speculate on who considers this but I presume that it's society as a whole. I honestly don't have an issue with classifying something in this manner because there isn't a requirement for precision, merely a specification for a majority opinion or substantial support. In this case however, I find rational way to consider a Man or Woman Equal to each other based on their sex. In this case, sexism swings in my favor against equality...how can a Man and Woman be equal based on sex? What does sex have to do with being equal? If Men and Women are considered equal, then our Sex has been overlooked during the equating process, and if our Sex isn't taken into consideration while determining whether we are equal...then what is? If you approach me as a Woman and tell me that you are equal to me, I would ask you "How"? If you respond with "Because Men and Women are equal" then I would have to retort with "Obviously not, our Sex has been overlooked if we're considered to be equal because you would have to overlook our obvious differences to assign equality, we are different from one another (Reproductive organs)". This is where the popular argument "We're equal in certain ways" came from. It's not possible to argue that Men and Woman are equal because the basis for that argument would have to be that Sex doesn't play a part in determining equality, and if that was true...then we would all be measured against one another with demonstrated skill being the only factor.
II. The Difference: Men and women have different communication skills, different uses of emotion and even different perceptions of pain. However just because men and women are different does not mean that one is better than the other, in fact the very existence of humanity depends on these differences. These differences are what we might call complementary and they are part of the richness and design of humanity.
The issue stemmed largely from Australia, when a new Liberal Prime Minister was voted into office and the inner cabinet contained only one woman. The uproar across media lasted the better part of a week with the new cabinet being compared to the political cabinet of Afghanistan which has three women. The Liberal party had no quota on the number of women hat must be selected, basing itself on merit alone, whereas the outgoing Labor party had a self-imposed policy that aimed to preselect women as candidates in a minimum of 40% of seats. Imposing quotas though seems to be a rather disingenuous way to respect women. How is a woman selected under a quota regime supposed to know if she is there for her particular talents or simply to meet a politically correct criteria?
This is where society is getting it wrong; a false notion of equality. It begins at a subliminal level where the message is diffused that one's gender is a social construction, meaning that a Woman is a Woman because she was dressed in a skirt and given dolls as a child, and a Man is a Man because he was dressed in trousers and given toy trucks. It is worth remembering that the term "Gender" came about in the early 1960s in an attempt to differentiate between one's biological sex and imposed sociocultural roles.
When a society fails to understand the nature of men and women it is true that everything can look unfair but we set rather arbitrary standards of where fairness lies. If we were sincere about the equality issue we would insist that besides a quota of women in leadership positions, a set number of Men become carers to the disabled and work at home raising children. However this is not an issue about genuine equality, it is an issue about power, we all want to be out there doing what is seen to be the most important job at the time, but meanwhile we so often forget where the important things lie.
Men and women are not"Equal" in their gifts but both sexes have a multitude of specific gifts and we always remain equal in our dignity as human persons. The more we focus on false notions of power and equality the less happy and satisfied we will be. Better that we realize and highlight the complementary that Men and Women share and use it to make our world a better and more just place.
III. Men and Women should not be considered equal:
By the standards of fairness in equality, I present the following as logical reasoning as to why equality between Men and Women would be more problematic than beneficial:
1. Any reason for a Man to protect a Woman would become equal reason for a Woman to Protect a Man and would have to be justly expected of both sexes to do so. Can you imagine a Woman defending her Husband's honor?
2. Any reason justifiably good enough to hit a Man would become equally justifiably good enough to hit a Woman. In today's society, physical violence between two men can result in wounds and legal consequences but physical violence between a Man and a Woman is treated with far more seriousness and heavier consideration simply because there is a Woman involved. This would no longer be the case and understanding the the penalty would likely never lower, Women would become just as heavily penalized for being involved in physical assault as Men are.
3. Women only programs would have to immediately be annihilated, such as all the "Woman only" scholarships for college. http://www.carrollk12.org...
4. Cultural double-binds would somehow have to be done away with, such as :
a) Men and women are expected to be equal, but men are often expected to be the sole monetary contributors towards expenses (for example, buying expensive jewellery, paying for meals, etc.).
b) Men are taught from a very young age that women are to be kept "on a pedestal" and revered, but the same cannot be said about women to men.
c) The increasingly popular cultural focus on the importance of having an above-average penis size, while simultaneously depicting focus on breast size, waist-to-hip ratio, and other attributes of female sexuality as sexist.
5. The U.S. Draft and Selective Service Registration would have to include Women as well as Men. I am a Father of 4 daughters, they are my entire world, I am all for Women having their day, but one of my many reasons for refusing to follow the equality movement is that I know War, it is my craft...and no one is drafting my Daughters into that...no matter how fair it is.
6. Chivalry would have to Die, there would be no funeral. Holding doors open, pulling out chairs, offering a hand across wet surfaces, intervening when things simply look bad or unsafe...this would all have to end because it is only done for Women because they are Women...no other reason. Manners would be redefined forever and chivalry would be a history book.
7. Women and Children First would have to be shunned, a time when people were idiots would need to be the phrase used to describe the era in which it was coined. The thought that a Woman's life is worth more than a Man's or that a Woman should receive more opportunity to live than a Man is no equal...not in the least. Strangely, I've honestly never heard a Man complain about this one.
Running out of room, that will have to suffice for now, I will look forward to hearing from Con on this subject, and only offer the one reference above for the citation of Women only colleges as the rest of my points above are rested on mere logic alone and don't include anyone's logic save my own. To you Con.
Secondly we will see how inequality is affecting the world negatively today. Right now we are under the assumption that women need special treatment. We create criteria in colleges and jobs that say employers need to have this percentage of women in the workforce, depriving them of the talents they could very well need.
However women could very well posses those talents as well but aren't allowed to cultivate their minds properly because as a child and a teenager they were encouraged to pursue more domiciliary duties like learning how to sew or cook or take care of a child, possibly depriving us of things like the cure for cancer or the ability to travel at the speed of light because the scientist who would have invented it was taught that science wasn't for girls, science was only for boys, when in fact some of the greatest scientific discoveries were enhanced by female scientists like Marie Curie and her studies with radioactivity. And it's not just in the sciences. Woman are needed in programs such as the armed forces. They are soldiers as well as occupations like decoders. We are not the force we were once, and the other countries are much greater. If we are going to war we need every capable soldier we have.
But moving on from that let's just look at it in a economic standpoint. Because people consider woman inferior they make, on average, 77 cents to every man's dollar (http://www.bls.gov...). That is a problem because women aren't always married, or married to a man. According to the US Census Bureau in 2009 only 44.9% of women over the age of 25 are married. That means they don't rely on a man for their economic stability. And then there is the issue that of that 45% how many are gay? Meaning they don't have a husband but they have to rely on a smaller income than a house that has a husband and a wife. Why should they work harder because our society is pitted against woman? There is absolutely no reason for woman not to be treated as equals yet we still haven't reached the equality that everyone is due.
I agree that Women and Men alike have human rights, I also firmly believe the Women and Men should be treated with legal equality. The social equality may just be the pinpoint of the issue here, Men and Women aren't currently socially equal. Con has made a case of Women needing special treatment. I don't believe that it's an assumption made by anyone that they need it, but more of an understanding by at least a majority of Men that Women deserve it. Women are given special treatment that Men either don't want or wouldn't feel comfortable receiving.
I agree with Con that Women CAN very well possess the talents that employers want however, I disagree that Women haven't been allowed to cultivate their minds properly. This is the 21st century, I might buy into a Woman excusing herself for not having desirable talents for good jobs in the 1950s when Women truly were shoved into that corner and taught that Girls cook and Boys roll their sleeves up and make the money. This isn't the case anymore and hasn't been for a long time.
In America there are over 270 women"s commissions, but only one for men in New Hampshire.
There are over 700 Women"s Studies programs on colleges and universities throughout the United States teaching thousands or tens of thousands of classes from the gender feminist perspective, but not one program or class, teaching Men"s studies from the masculine perspective.
The U.S. Department of education reports that boys face a significantly harder time in early education than girls.
On a minor note, I agree with Con on the fact we we need capable Soldiers, every single one.
I counter Cons claim that Women make on average 77 cents to every dollar than Men make with my own: The estimates and measurements that have been made on the behalf of Women to show the economic inequality between the two sexes are bias and inaccurate at best.
To explain simply, Men choose higher paying jobs.....the ones that result in high death counts each year. Men make up 93% of all industrial deaths and accidents - NOISH.
The Top Ten most dangerous jobs in America according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics are Fishers, loggers, aircraft pilots, farmers and ranchers, roofers, iron and steel workers, refuse and recyclable material collectors, industrial machinery installation and repair, truck drivers, construction laborers. All job fields dominated by Males.
Men are more likely to work in uncomfortable, undesirable, and isolated locations for long periods of time that pay more money...like Iraq and Afghanistan. I served 4 deployments for 12 months each except for 2006-2008 when we pulled 15 months and I banked on average over $62,000 tax free each time! That doesn't include the fact that my wife and all my children get free dental, free medical, free vision, I had full health dental and vision, all expenses paid...meals, lodging, I banked it all. The Army has been open to Females since 1948 and the financials are equal across the board for the Army in today's day and age.
- The average full-time working Man works 6 hours longer than the average full-time working Woman.
- Men are more likely to take jobs that require them to work on weekends and evenings than Women.
- In the same career categories, Men are more likely to choose higher and higher paying specializations than Women.
- Unmarried Women who've never had a Child actually make more money than unmarried Men according to the Census
- Women business owners make on average less than half of what Men business owners...which makes no sense
because without a boss there can't be any discrimination in the workplace. So Men in this aspect make more money
than Women with the total absence of discrimination. Studies have however, been done to show why: http://www.cbsnews.com...
There is no wage gap, it's a myth according to Business insider: http://www.businessinsider.com...
Carrie Lukas is the Executive Director of the Independent Women's Forum in the Wall street Journal and agrees: http://online.wsj.com...
CBS News also advocates: http://www.cbsnews.com...
So it stands to good reason now that the wage gap has been effectively debunked and should never be used again to support the movement for equality lest the movement be slandered for using fiction to support their cause.
I have to take a strong stance with Con on the U.S. Census Bureau reporting only 44.9% of women being married, I believe this calculation to be very accurate and that was only 2009, imagine what the numbers might look like now. That being said I find it only logical to report that Women are the party filing for divorce in about 66% of divorce cases: http://www.pobronson.com...
I'd like to take this time to draw bold attention to the fact that Con has made an excellent example, he/she has made a case of Women not having a husband to rely upon and that households with a Husband and Wife have a larger income...and then asks why should Gay Women work harder? Setting aside the example, I don't feel this makes much sense, the wage gap is gone...it's not there, if Women find themselves making less money than a Man then there are echelons of evidence and study to support that it is mere choice that provides those results. I suppose we ought to create a subsidy for Women who make less money so they don't have to take the hard jobs that Men choose, but we already have that in the form of Welfare.
I have drawn a conclusion at this time, after carefully reading Con's statements it stands to reason that Con believes Women should be given equal pay regardless of circumstances and there should be a compensation factor to fill the gaps between Men and Women....a handicap if you will, well we already do that. It's called the Male to Female employment quota and it dictates that Women (Regardless of qualification) be given the exact same opportunity as a Man who is to be scrutinized for qualification criteria...simply because she is a Woman. And that is the world we live in today...but that is not equality.
In conclusion of this round, Con has stated that Women aren't allowed to cultivate their minds properly because of encouragement provided to them as children and teenagers to pursue domiciliary duties. This isn't the case, there is no evidence to support this, this is 2014 not the early 1900s. Women are afforded more educational opportunities than Men, you need only look at one of the many "Women Only" scholarships for college, "Men Only" scholarships don't exist.
Con has used the Wage Gap to support further points, I have provided sufficient evidence and explanation to support that the Wage Gap is a myth.
I'm not honestly secure in my understanding of Con's last point concerning Women, their being unmarried and then the whole Gay Woman issue. Unless Con is trying to insinuate that being an unmarred Woman is a legitimate claim to disability then I can probably live without really understanding that one.
Back to you Con.
Kaalee forfeited this round.
Kaalee forfeited this round.
Kaalee forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 2 years ago
|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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: I was really disappointed with Con's forfeiture. Pro should do this debate again, and put restrictive criteria to who can accept it. Con had a semi-full forfeit and never presented any convincing arguments on the resolution but argued about definitions, while Pro was the only one to complete this debate to the end, and provided what I believed were convincing and controversial arguments. So he gets both arguments and conduct.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.