The Instigator
Orwell
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
oreostar
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Sexism against men

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Orwell
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,767 times Debate No: 30323
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

Orwell

Pro

I will be arguing that there has been, and still is, institutional sexism against men.

Definition of sexism: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of persons based on sex or gender.

The first round will be for acceptance and terms.

NB I will not be claiming that there isn't discrimination against women, only that discrimination against men also exists.
oreostar

Con

I understand and accept status and format of this debate.

I will be Con, specifically debating, that men (first world countries) are treat equally by law and still at a social advantage with there gender.

The debate may be nullified because legally sexism is against the law, smilier to racism. If Pro wishs me to continue this debate, he must agree to not discuss ANY opinions on legal matters of sexism (ie historical, constitutional and so forth)

Sexism: Discrimination against people because of their sex.
Debate Round No. 1
Orwell

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

Since the debate is about "institutionalized sexism", obviously we will be discussing legal matters. While in theory sexism is against the law in developed countries, in practice there are still many examples of it.

Military conscription
In Finland, Norway, Switzerland and numerous other countries men over the age of 18 are required to serve in the military. Failure to serve carries a severe punishment, for example in Finland 182 days in prison (without parole). This does not apply to women.

State pensions
In the UK, Poland and Italy men can claim their state pension at 65, whereas women can claim it at 60, despite actually living longer! This means that women have a significantly longer retirement than men.

Child custody
Feminists (rightly) claim that gender roles can be reversed, that women can make good bread-winners, and men good stay-at-home dads. However, the courts slap this down by voting overwhelmingly in favor of women when it comes to child custody. For example in the UK in 93% of cases where parents break-up, the mother gets primary custody of the children.

I hope these examples illustrate that there is still sexism against both women and men.

Sources
http://www.guardian.co.uk...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
oreostar

Con

Military Conscription

Laughably, the only countries that were recognized Finland, Norway, Switzerland (countries where Political opposition to conscription is rather marginalized and heavily associated with historical there communist roots of these countries) and numerous other countries force men to serve in the military at the age of 18. I believe you claim of sexism upon these men that give services to their countries, are unfair. This seems more like a case of gender inequality. Men are not being discriminated against based on there sexual orientation, in fact, I would like to contrast your claim and say that this is systematic. I mean, think about it, if this is really sexism. Think u Taxpayers pay for young men to serve in the military liable to serve either six, nine or twelve months in many different fields. moreover this training happens because in the event of a state of emergence (which is always likley considering the geographical postions) these men can protect the females and children, ditto, the biologically heritage of there people. Moreover, females can get jobs so they can provide resources of there family, especially, there children. A reversal in gender roles may be counterproductive because men are biologically made to, well, hunt/kill/ assist female egg and will serve better in the military then females-statistically. Women are to work as central to the economy; however, this phenomenon is common in places they were previously repressed of rights, while men go to war. Also, Work is not highly segregated by sex; and NOTE that these countries also give choice to females over their reproductive bodies. And we can assume that women have always traditionally been assigned housework and child-rearing responsibilities and had been socialized to be passive, submissive, and "feminine."

State pensions & Child custody

Simply, the answer is because even though men and women are equally qualified-cum-equally qualified, women may face a buffer, because they are arbitrary and often have invisible barriers (discriminating ones) that limit women"s advancement worldwide. Not many of women labor workers reach managerial, supervisory, executive, or administrative positions. Make it more inviting for them to turn to jobs that are physically less demanding. Also make it more inviting to be mothers and retire earlier, or less kindly put, because they become usless to the workforce of that country. Check this fact, according to a UN report As of 2006, only 4.7% of managerial and administrative positions in Korea were occupied by women For comparison, women occupying those positions amounted to 32% in Spain, 33% in England, 36% in New Zealand, 37% in Canada, and 44% in the US. The rate for Japan was 9.5%, and even Pakistan, which is also a male-dominant society, had a higher rate than that of Korea at 8%. Another survey in that year, 2006, showed that 57.5% of female respondents experienced discrimination based on gender while looking for a job. Sadly this mean that Among these countries, (OECD countries) women receive about 81% of the income men receive. Which makes it almost imposible for most of these women to have supporing income for there child. This may be why we see many cases of poor bastard or broken young teenage boys in places like New York selling crack to help there mother pay for shelter and food. Also, in my opinion, which is influenced from various scientific and biological theorys, inequality results from direcly from the organization of our society, not from any significant biological or personality differences between men and women.

sources

http://www.britannica.com...

Glick, Peter, and Susan T Fiske. "An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality." American Psychologist 56.2 (2001):

Jacobs, Jerry A, Kathleen Gerson, and Jerry A Jacobs. The time divide: Work, family, and gender inequality.

Robeyns, Ingrid. "Sen's capability approach and gender inequality: selecting relevant capabilities." Feminist economics 9.2-3 (2003): 61-92.

Harvard University Press, 2004.109.Ridgeway, Cecilia L. "Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment." American Sociological Review (1997): 218-235.
Debate Round No. 2
Orwell

Pro

You say that male-only military conscription is not sexist, but an example of gender inequality. However, this inequality is a direct result of the choice by the government to conscript only men, i.e a conscious decision to discriminate.

You claim that men are not being discriminated against based on their sexuality, however I never suggested that this was the case.

The claim that women are our biological heritage and so need protecting is absurd, given that men are just as necessary for procreation as women. To say that women are more central to the economy is also ridiculous, given that far more men are in full-time work than women.

You talk about "invisible barriers" to women getting jobs, but you don't say what these are. Why would women over 60 "become useless" to employers? Surely they are just as capable in non-manual jobs as younger workers? Surely being able to claim their pension 5 years early will make women less likely to progress in their careers, since they will be working for a shorter length of time?

In short I have shown several examples of discrimination against men, which my opponent has not been able to justify. I therefore ask you to vote in favor of the proposition.
oreostar

Con

You say that male-only military conscription is not sexist, but an example of gender inequality. However, this inequality is a direct result of the choice by the government to conscript only men, i.e a conscious decision to discriminate.

You claim that men are not being discriminated against based on their sexuality, however I never suggested that this was the case.

The claim that women are our biological heritage and so need protecting is absurd, given that men are just as necessary for procreation as women. To say that women are more central to the economy is also ridiculous, given that far more men are in full-time work than women.

You talk about "invisible barriers" to women getting jobs, but you don't say what these are. Why would women over 60 "become useless" to employers? Surely they are just as capable in non-manual jobs as younger workers? Surely being able to claim their pension 5 years early will make women less likely to progress in their careers, since they will be working for a shorter length of time?

In short I have shown several examples of discrimination against men, which my opponent has not been able to justify. I therefore ask you to vote in favor of the proposition.

Voter be aware that I have never slandered his argument his defention of sexism was "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of persons based on sex or gender" , he now is claim that he was arguing for the position of gender discrimination.

First, I would like to get the dirt work out of the way.

Your first paragraph is rhetorical; it seems to be lending on to the resolution that governments are individuals. I have not placed a opinion on that conclusion you came to, but I do have to say there is no evidence for your claim, that why you may have resorted to a subjective means of explain, or more so, a excuse to your inconsistency in your definition of sexism. You seem to do this other parts of your argument. You said that I have made faulty claims, which I have considered and will happily expand further for your lack of judgment. Specifically you said "You claim that men are not being discriminated against based on their sexuality, however I never suggested that this was the case." In a nutshell, you did claim that men were be discriminated against, you simple have chosen to not acknowledge it for some reason, up until your last argument.

Core response:

If, the claim , you made about discrimination against men was projected to the world, would it be taken into consideration women have been discriminated and faced sexism to a greater scale then men. If my opponent wins this argument then this means that the entire feminist movement was "irrational" and men of the world must be understood in a rather different light"namely, as the unrational providers of society to an inherently irrational and meaningless world for women. And indeed, a history of womens was often that of nihilism and irrationalism, perhaps the media would do well to give some attention to this possibility, sinse women are sex symbols and should live there life to serve men. The world has done much in the way of breaking down the traditional wall built up, over many centuries, between reason and madness, but the fact is that some still stay because it is rational to the people with power and unimaginable to understand by some. If you don"t know by now what im talk about your stament of "male-only military conscription", you said that this exist as a direct result of the government. Ill have you know that women only make up 23% of power in politics in the country"s you listed (http://unstats.un.org...) This men"s that the majorty of people who let male-only conscription take place is a result of men, not the government as a whole. It would be absurd to say men are self-hating and sexist, thus, we make our self-conscripted to military. The reason that male-only conscription exist is because of tradition, ergo, the tradition MAY have stemmed from our basic biology. Males are protecters/hunter/and seeder for women from an evolutionary perspective. And economically men have it better then women, as indirectly described in my other round.

Also you said "The claim that women are our biological heritage and so need protecting is absurd, given that men are just as necessary for procreation as women. To say that women are more central to the economy is also ridiculous, given that far more men are in full-time work than women.

Firstly, this statement is contradictory because women have the biologically physical qualities made for raising and give resources to human. Involuntary or evolutionary men have always been the providers. This may be why men are psychologically driven to be mainly attracted to a females reproductive quality"s and why women are careful to chose there subjectively best seeder so they can raise a baby with protection and a supplier of resources. Its sad that you don"t see this, but women might not need men anymore for reproduction especially since scientist have discovered how to make artificial sperm from the bone marrow (http://www.nbcnews.com...).
If this technology is proven successful then my statement will be even closer to the truth, ie women don"t need men for procreation and men can never reproduce because male sex organ aren"t made for reproduction . but this is Ok because men have always had it better, and haven"t been faced with a thick sense of sexism or as feel is more literal gender inequality. Men have dominated society, men aren"t made for reproduction, men were made to fertilize the egg and the rest of there lifes was free to explore purpose. Men invented cavitation"s that are awed upon by men future to them. Men have always had it better then women historically, we have always been on top of the gender pyramid. Discrimination in terms of gender towards men is mild, unless, it is of sexual interest like homosexuality. Men have and still have a majority populace in science, politics, ethics, law, economy, and so forth. So why is it that Pro feels it necessary to discredited the power of men and say that we are the weak in society, when men has dominated since there first steps. It is only until recently women have be granted freedom and equality, however still face sexism with ads like this and many should argue pro feel threated by it and is unprogressive of it.

This is exactly why you should vote con, because men are not being discriminated against, there are some men who think traditions should be changed not ethics. also given the fact that Pro dident provide any objective evidence for his opinions. his whole argument is undeveloped and lacks the means on proven evidence, what i mean is that he hasn't given any reason to why anyone should care about his thesis. where as i have with sources and statistical data, not to motion my own subjective opinion, which was, influenced by the statistical data that disapproved the argument he made. Vote con, vote liberty

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Orwell 4 years ago
Orwell
Thanks, will do.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Ahh. Ping airmax. He will probably work something out for you. :)
Posted by Orwell 4 years ago
Orwell
@Likespace I haven't been able to vote because for some reason I can't "confirm my identity". I've tried adding my mobile number several times but my carrier doesn't seem to be covered; once I've sorted that out I intend to be more active in other people's debates.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Your profiles show "votes cast = 0". If that's accurate, I propose that if you vote and comment on other peoples' debates, it's more likely that other people will vote on your debates.
Posted by Orwell 4 years ago
Orwell
Yea, I think that DDO needs to do something to get people to vote more; perhaps having votes affect Elo rankings?
Posted by oreostar 4 years ago
oreostar
and of course this debate was a monodemocracy
Posted by Orwell 4 years ago
Orwell
Are you referring to the debate or these comments?
Posted by malcolmxy 4 years ago
malcolmxy
call it panache, and the absolute directness and responsiveness of your comments make your statements hard to believe. just sayin'...
Posted by Orwell 4 years ago
Orwell
Actually it took a while to work out what you were saying. As for my argument I'm not sure what you're complaining about, since I couldn't find any grammatical errors in it.
Posted by malcolmxy 4 years ago
malcolmxy
...and yet you were quickly and accurately able to ascertain the meaning and intent of it - must have been doin' somethin' right. (that should have been a semicolon, but those confuse people, so I use dashes instead. As far as anything else goes, the entry system here drops keys I hit for reasons I've not quite figured out yet, so those were typos...however, I was not being judged on these things, you were.)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
OrwelloreostarTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's points were clear and his arguments were much easier to follow. This is due, in part to the organization of his arguments and also to proper spelling and grammar. S&G to Pro. Pro stated, "men over the age of 18 are required to serve in the military. Failure to serve carries a severe punishment" What does Con offer up against this as an example of sexism? (a) men aren't being discriminated against based on their sexual preference--a silly point irrelevant to the debate; (b) men need to protect the "biological heritage" of their people--no explanation is given as to why women are any more the biological heritage than men; (c) females can get jobs--so too can men; (d) men are biologically made to, well, hunt/kill--this, in itself, is a sexist comment stereotyping genders and ignoring some women are better hunters than some men. Pro addresses these weak arguments. Arguments to Pro.