The Instigator
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
61 Points
The Contender
Arcita
Pro (for)
Losing
35 Points

Pro-Female Affirmative Action

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,572 times Debate No: 8922
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (15)

 

mongeese

Con

Affirmative action - http://en.wikipedia.org...
"The terms affirmative action and positive action refer to policies that take ... gender into consideration in an attempt to promote equal opportunity..."

This does not include jobs in which a woman is obviously preferrable, such as casting for the role of a female character.

Let the debate begin.
Arcita

Pro

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for this debate challenge.
The brevity of your round 1 hopefully sets a friendly mode for a new debater.
Excuse me on format errors. Feel free to correct me.

Questions:
Could you specify "woman is obviously preferrable"? Does it include stereotypes, physical limitations, etc... Please set a more discreet bound around the exception.

Definitions:
I'm going to go off the definition of affirmative action in Wikipedia.

Resolution:
Pro-female affirmative action should be supported because male-dominant systems undeniably favored males in many social systems.
Not supporting pro would be a discredit to females and their potential, perpetuating the male-dominant system in subtle ways. (Disproportional Systems based on Gender)
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Con

"Could you specify 'woman is obviously preferrable[sic]'? Does it include stereotypes, physical limitations, etc...[?] Please set a more discreet bound around the exception."
I'm talking about things like filming. We wouldn't want a guy to play Vesper, now, would we?

"Pro-female affirmative action should be supported because male-dominant systems undeniably favored males in many social systems."
I deny it.
My opponent claims that society is male-dominant. As men are the ones who typically have salary-paying jobs, this is, in a way, true.
However, how does it favor males? Is there any incident in which a woman is not promoted while a man who deserves the promotion less receives it? Does such a situation exist? On what basis does this favor males?

"Not supporting pro would be a discredit to females and their potential, perpetuating the male-dominant system in subtle ways. (Disproportional Systems based on Gender)"
There's always the option of equality.
Could you please explain how this system is male-dominant, and why that means that women are being disadvantaged?

Now, to my arguments:

The only real reason that there is a difference in the wages of men and women today is because of the traditional family style. The woman usually stays at home, perhaps with children, while the man works.
However, this does not warrant a claim that women are disadvantage.
For one thing, a study revealed that single men made less than single women.
For another, women usually only have a part-time job because they usually assume the role of housekeeper, so they can't make as much money as a man or woman who doesn't.
Finally, between a husband and wife, it doesn't matter who makes the money. They both spend it equally. In fact, the wife usually makes about 80% of the purchases between the two of them.

Arcita, I have a question: in what situation should pro-female affirmative action be practiced? Without marriage, women make more than men, and with marriage, the woman makes less than otherwise and the man makes more than otherwise, but it doesn't really matter, because they share the money.

I hope that my opponent answers my question. I'll just play a card face-down and end my turn.

My source is "Economic Facts and Fallacies," by Thomas Sowell.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Arcita

Pro

Sorry for the bad organization.
Could you possible tell me the appropriate response time to post a response? I fear I delayed it too long.

Questions:
Why should female affirmative action be practiced? (Did you refer to "card faced down" as setting your case later?)

Responses:
"I deny it. My opponent claims that society is male-dominant. As men are the ones who typically have salary-paying jobs, this is, in a way, true.
However, how does it favor males? Is there any incident in which a woman is not promoted while a man who deserves the promotion less receives it? Does such a situation exist? On what basis does this favor males?"
Well, bringing the idea of a promotion shifts the focus of affirmative action to the individual. I would say the the stereotype, implied from the sheer number of males in salary-paying jobs, may deter females in both the individual and systematic sense.
In relation to the stereotype, many African Americans during times of slavery did not dream of becoming a famous orator or writer partially because of social prejudice result of stereotypes, external and internal - It prevents one by self-inhibition and external prevention. There are exceptions, but these cases are analogous to "few women promoted".

"There's always the option of equality.
Could you please explain how this system is male-dominant, and why that means that women are being disadvantaged?"
Overlooking stereotypes tend to be a positive feedback system. Bit like a circular rock constantly changing position on two sides of a hill- the rock when on ones side, tends to fall towards that side. In order to prevent the stereotype from persisting or getting worse, pro affirmative action, pushing the rock up the hill towards the top middle, must be done.

The current situation is disavantagious for the females in terms of stereotipical inhibition.
I'll also discuss the notion on how this gives females less social power in my arguments.

Arguments: "Pardon me, I'm not quite sure of the format I should take, so I'll just support my position by responding to your arguments."

"The only real reason that there is a difference in the wages of men and women today is because of the traditional family style. The woman usually stays at home, perhaps with children, while the man works."
The traditional family system is paternal, a characteristic observed from the agricultural revolution. The man supports the family money or food-wise, while the wife takes care of childern and home, analoguos to your decription of the traditional family.

"However, this does not warrant a claim that women are disadvantage."
Well, this does limit the power of the women in social sense.
Prior to the paternal family system, there was the nomadic family system. In this system women played an important role in food gathering/ supporting the family since gathering systems outputted little food. Therefore, women had voice in society obvously because they held an important role. They could also get together, establishing a sense of group for the women, another natural human behavior.
However, in the agricultural family system, women were restricted more to their homes in comparison to the nomadic system. (Very true in Democratic Greek Societies; women could not voice their opinion on their right to vote together because they were restricted to their homes.) Their primary function became domestic roles, birthing childern, taking care of house etc... But this is long term investment (i.e. children). The importance were not immediately observed as with the food/money, possibly leading to the placement of importance on male roles. (You need to live, to see the long term investments)
In the modern age, the situation has been ameliorated considerably, partially because of activists, but this took a long time. As you stated, women are still expected to perform the role of a traditional paternal family in a general sense. Because the paternal family system restricted women's social power and function in society, women is disadvantaged. Women gained new household powers such as child rearing, etc, but it serverly restricted their social power as shown above.

"For one thing, a study revealed that single men made less than single women."
And your inference is that this concludes to equal "promotion", therefore no need for pro-female affirmative action. If so, I would disagree. The higher pay can be a result of simple filtering. If the woman was not outstandingly good, she probably was deterred. Or, few, but perhaps many in this limited scope of few high-pay women, are not married for the sake of proving paternal family systems wrong. The assumption, if you made one, is lacks serious consideration of other cases. Suggestion from data is fine, but important facts such as "There are less women than men in the salary-field" needs to be taken into account.

"For another, women usually only have a part-time job because they usually assume the role of housekeeper, so they can't make as much money as a man or woman who doesn't."
This actually supports, "the higher pay can be a result of simple filtering". So there are less women in full-paying or more-paying jobs.

"Finally, between a husband and wife, it doesn't matter who makes the money. They both spend it equally. In fact, the wife usually makes about 80% of the purchases between the two of them."
Yes. Perhaps even women in the agricultural paternal family system made more "food" or household "items" out of raw resources or money the men brought home. The spending of the money or earning the money is definitely important in the sense of power. Men gets imcreased importance simply because they earn money. Also, why is who spending money considered when the woman is in restriction of the home, lacking social influence and power?

Thank you for such a good debate.
If there are any unclear parts feel free to question.
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Con

"Could you possible tell me the appropriate response time to post a response? I fear I delayed it too long."
Just respond whenever you can. If it takes a while, then it takes a while. As long as you get it in before time is up, it's good.

"Did you refer to 'card faced down' as setting your case later?)"
No, it's my preparation for a counter-argument.

"I would say the ... stereotype, implied from the sheer number of males in salary-paying jobs, may deter females in both the individual and systematic sense."
This implication is incorrect.
Many people cite unbalanced gender ratios in jobs as an obvious sign of stereotyping.
However, this is only caused by traditional family roles, which women can easily choose to avoid.
How does this deter women? The stereotype is false. A woman is just as likely to be hired as a man, assuming that they have equal qualifications. The thing is, fewer women apply for jobs, and they take maternity leaves more often, so they aren't in the quickly visible workforce.

"In relation to the stereotype, many African Americans during times of slavery did not dream of becoming a famous orator or writer partially because of social prejudice result of stereotypes, external and internal - It prevents one by self-inhibition and external prevention."
Again, you assume that such a stereotype exists. It does not.

"There are exceptions, but these cases are analogous to 'few women promoted'."
It is also analogous to "fewer women try."

"In order to prevent the stereotype from persisting or getting worse, pro affirmative action, pushing the rock up the hill towards the top middle, must be done."
Wait, to stop a rock from rolling over on one side of a hill, you push it off the other side?
To get the rock on the top of the hill is simple. Apply equality. The rock may seem to move slower, but, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "Delay is preferable to error." A steady application of equality will be better than rushing a bunch of Pro-Female policies, which would send the rock off the other side. It should be Pro-Equality.

"The current situation is disadvantageous for the females in terms of stereotypical inhibition."
Again, there is no stereotype.

"Well, this does limit the power of the women in social sense."
The women choose to stay at home while the man works.

"However, in the agricultural family system, women were restricted more to their homes in comparison to the nomadic system...."
You imply that women are restricted to their homes, like in the times of the Greeks. This is false. There is currently no law that favors any gender. Women are allowed to roam wherever they please. They just choose to stay at home more often than men. Women frequently attend presidential speeches, campaigns, and Tea Parties.

"As you stated, women are still expected to perform the role of a traditional paternal family in a general sense. Because the paternal family system restricted women's social power and function in society, women [are] disadvantaged."
Wait, so because women choose to "disadvantage" themselves, we should fix that? They should just stop making a "disadvantageous" choice.

"Women gained new household powers such as child rearing, etc, but it serverly[sic] restricted their social power as shown above."
They chose to restrict their own social power. Women frequently go against their "expected" role, which is expected.

"If the woman was not outstandingly good, she probably was deterred."
Why would she be deterred?

"Or, few, but perhaps many in this limited scope of few high-pay women, are not married for the sake of proving paternal family systems wrong."
They could easily have a maternal family system. There are some stay-at-home dads. However, this still shows that when marriage is not applied, women make more than men, so Pro-Female Affirmative Action would not make sense, as women are making more, and there is obviously no stereotype going against them.

"The assumption, if you made one, is lacks serious consideration of other cases."
According to Thomas Sowell's data, single women make more than single men. The most obvious cause is a lack of stereotyping.

"Suggestion from data is fine, but important facts such as 'There are [fewer] women than men in the salary-field' needs to be taken into account."
Again, this imbalance is caused by paternal family systems, not stereotypes.

"This actually supports, 'the higher pay can be a result of simple filtering'. So there are [fewer] women in full-paying or more-paying jobs."
No, it doesn't. The women who don't get married make more than those who do. Are you saying that women who have the ability to make more money don't get married as often?

"Perhaps even women in the agricultural paternal family system made more 'food' or household 'items' out of raw resources or money the men brought home."
We aren't talking about work right here. We're talking about general spending.

"Men gets[sic] imcreased[sic] importance simply because they earn money."
Women can also make money, if they choose to. However, they don't choose to tackle high-paying jobs as often as men.

"Also, why is who spending money considered when the woman is in restriction of the home, lacking social influence and power?"
This implies that the woman is required by law to stay at home, which is false. A woman can easily have social influence and power by going about and doing what she wants.

Now, to provide some examples:

Situation A:
A man and a woman are applying for a job. They both have equal qualifications. They are both single. They would both do equally well in the job they are applying for. So, should the employer:
A) Hire the man?
B) Hire the woman?
C) Try to find more specific details that could put one of them above the other.
I'm thinking that the answer is (C), because it promotes equality.

Situation B:
A single man is competing with a married woman for a job. They both have equal qualifications, except the woman has kids, and therefore has more restricted hours than the man. So, should the employer:
A) Hire the man?
B) Hire the woman?
I'd go with (A), because the man has more qualifications, and would bring more profit to the employer.

I'd like my opponent to choose his own answers for the above two questions.

In conclusion, a stereotype against women does not exist. Women can make just as much money as men, but they choose not to, for family reasons. My opponent still cannot list a situation in which Pro-Female Affirmative Action is necessary, or even applicable. Therefore, Pro-Female Affirmative Action does no real good, and should be abolished.
Arcita

Pro

Arcita forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Con

What a shame. My opponent provides no examples, ever, of where Pro-Female Affirmative Action would be necessary, appropriate, or even acceptable. It is a twisted form of sexism. Extend all arguments.

Vote CON!
Arcita

Pro

Arcita forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
All points to Con.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Same here.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Defaulted CON due to multiple forfeits.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Well, I can't use any argument, good or bad, until you respond.
Posted by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
You do realize that the word "discrimination" does not have one meaning, right? You can discriminate between, and you can discriminate against. Your definition is broad. I hope you use this argument in the debate. It's a truly awful argument.
Making a distinction is definitely not racism. Your deductive reasoning skills are bad.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Racism is racial discrimination.
Discrimination is the act of discriminating.
Discriminating is making a distinction.

Therefore, racism is making a disctinction in race.
Affirmative action makes a distinction on the race of potential employees.
Therefore, it is racism.
Posted by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
"Anything that takes race, gender, or ethnicity into account shouldn't exist, because that's just a twisted form of racism and sexism. I'm PRO-Equality."

You should read the definitions of racism and sexism.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
Haha. Right. I'm looking forward to seeing it.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I got the ultimate counter-argument yesterday, which I plan to use in the rematch.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
Read over your last debate with tribefan011.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LaSalle 7 years ago
LaSalle
mongeeseArcitaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SaintNick 7 years ago
SaintNick
mongeeseArcitaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
mongeeseArcitaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
mongeeseArcitaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
mongeeseArcitaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
mongeeseArcitaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
mongeeseArcitaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
mongeeseArcitaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
mongeeseArcitaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
mongeeseArcitaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70