The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
1 Points

The ratio from Men to Women has to be 10% men and 90% women for true equality.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 668 times Debate No: 78832
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)




This will be an open debate as to the equality of society given the ratio of men to women. For this debate I will take con, or against the subject listed above. This will be an argumentative debate, so it is up to the voters, and only the voters to decide who won or lost. I and the person who I am debating cannot say he/she has won because of a mistake in logic or proof.

With all that out of the way, I hope that I can get someone to debate!

Round 1 Is just stating position, with all other rounds providing evidence and arguing.


Okay well, I accepted this argument for a challenge.(I definitely believe in equality of both genders) So let's start.

What I am arguing that for equality to work, men and women have to be uneven, with men being at 10% and women 90%.
In my arguments I will be talking about firstly, how in order create equality among all genders we need to make everyone agree. Equality doesn't happen if the majority of people are against it, for African Americans, gay marriage, even currently transgender, there has always prejudice and oppression but this has helped achieve our goal of equality faster than ever.

My second argument in the next round will be about in order for men to fully appreciate what the woman has gone through, we need to establish what we have been through. I am not saying that equality would need such a bias for the entire time, but instead just for a short period so that people actually understand that this issue of women's equality isn't a myth. Lots of people believe that women equality has been a joke and full of feminists who are just against women. To truly understand the delicacy of the situation we need to empathise with others.

Finally, my last argument is going to be about a change in power. We have been dominated with men rule for so long. For example the amount of man leaders to female is so different. Men and women are completely different in some ways, and so therefore by putting women in power while 10% of men don't have a leadership role, maybe we will be able to see different ways our world can world. It is a fact that women and men work differently. Women are known to think things through while men are more in the present. This quality in men is very desirable and great to have in some cases, but maybe in setting a time where women are allowed to take high leadership roles, we will be able to witness her taking some action for different issues, thinking them in a new perspective to a man. Women also prioritise different things to men. For example, having the work industry and political sphere with 90% women instead of 90% men which is currently is, this would mean that we may be able to change different issues such as sanity tools for poor women as a charity rather than funding in sports. We would be able to distribute the money of the government in a different.

So overall, these are my arguments. I am not arguing that 90% women in rights but in the workforce because it is not specified in the topic.
Debate Round No. 1


While I am sure the points that you made are completely logical, I do think that you do not realize the topic at hand. The topic is not talking about the specific number of men to women in a given industry, It is talking about the population of each type across the whole planet, hence the broadened term. So, the way it is phrased, is that there needs to be 9 women for every 1 man, as that is what the ratio states, across the whole planet. This means that the population would be reduced by 7/18 of the current, making women more common than men across the world. That means the that Men would be a minority group, and that women would in fact be the majority. Now, in a culture that was run by women, assuming history repeats itself, would make men considered "Inferior" by number.


Well in that case...By 1998, that proportion tripled to 60%
I'm going to start off by defining natural selection. It is where the fitter organism with favourable characteristics live and pass their characteristics to their offspring whereas the other variation of species slowly dies out to an inferior number or nothing.

In 1900, men outnumbered women in the U.S.: 38.8 million versus 37.2 million, a ratio of 95.9 women for every 100 men while now (1999) the situation has reversed: there are 139.5 million women versus 133.4 million men, a ratio of 95.5 males per every 100 women. That being said, we can see how the number of women has increased to men, and can assume that women will continue to grow from this trend while men will probably stay a constant. Rather than DECREASE through "culling" of men, their number just wont increase. Over time women will have such a large population this ratio of 1:9 will be achieved. Us humans, can't argue with the process of natural selection because its basically evolution as it creates the better organism to live while the other variation of species (men) dwindle in numbers. The limiting factor will probably about 10% of males, because females still need men to reproduce but seen as though most men love sex so much, it should be a problem is every male has sex with 9 girls (actually would probably be preferable from most males.)

Similarly in the work force as I was talking about earlier, women have gone from 19% of nation held jobs in Australia in 1900's to tripling to a 60%. This number will continue to increase while men's number won't and eventually reach the limiting factor of 9:1. My arguments in the first round pretty much explain why women should be more dominant in the workforce.
Debate Round No. 2


ADHDavid forfeited this round.


Okay for guys:

Picture this. Lets say you wake up one morning. It is sunny, and you can hear chirping in the distance. But it's not your usual day, sleeping next to your girlfriend. The girlfriend who wakes you up at 6am to go for a run or the girlfriend who uses the bathroom for 3 hours. Instead, you are sleeping next to 9 girls. You have 9 girls to choose from and they all love you to bits, because lets face it, we don't have much choice if the ratio is 9:1 so you literally have girls begging for you. Not sure how many guys would love this situation but I'm guessing a lot.

For girls:
Picture this. Lets say you wake up one morning. It is sunny an you can hear chirping in the distance. But it's not your usual day. Instead guess who runs the world? (like Beyonce would say). You guessed it! GIRLS! So instead of having to go to your male dominated work place, instead of having to please the boys at school, you can be at ease. Because guess what there is no more feminist talks, there are no more glass ceilings of trying to make your mark on this male dominated society (there are statistics on the glass ceiling business), because (lets be honest) no guy wants to fight with any girl especially if our periods are all on sync.

So overall ladies and gentlemen, you can obviously see that both these scenarios benefit us all :) Face the facts, it would be a utopia
Debate Round No. 3


I have forfeited this debate, as I am pre-occupied elsewhere


opinionatedbritt forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by opinionatedbritt 1 year ago
midnight1131, it's a joke :) this whole situation of 90% woman is never going to happen in reality either and it's nonesense too if you take it literally. Just trying to make the best of a debate where the topic is hard to argue for
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
"Instead, you are sleeping next to 9 girls."

What nonsense, there's nothing saying that if there was a ratio of 10 men to 90 females that each man would be allowed to take 9 wives.
Posted by Corwyn 1 year ago
" That being said, we can see how the number of women has increased to men, and can assume that women will continue to grow from this trend while men will probably stay a constant."

That is some wacky statistics. The 1900s figure was due to women dying in child-bearing. I am pretty sure we can't get much lower than a 0% fatality rate. So unless men start dying off in huge numbers, the ratio is going to stay around the birth ratio (currently 52% male). And why would men 'stay constant'?
Posted by robertacollier 1 year ago
That goes for the OP. Man up, wuss.
Posted by robertacollier 1 year ago
A lot of American men have become metrosexuals and limp wristed twits. Now there's your topic.
Posted by provideoman123 1 year ago
Completely true. I agree with Con.

I nominate myself to be among the 10% of men who survive the culling process, as I am strong, quick-witted and attractive to women.
Posted by Towarzysz 1 year ago

You are mostly correct.
Equality has little to do with the amount of population and y the amount of each type of genders within the population. However stating figures such as the ones in this debating question and arguing that said figures are bound to create equality is just outright ridiculous and that's all I meant.

I did not really intended to sound like I was proclaiming that social equality is based on the fact that there are 50% females and 50% (or any other percentages) males within the population. Now as I read my comment again though, I understand why you could have made such assumption since I did not word myself specifically enough. My apologies, on my defence this debate question does not mention the word "society" anywhere.
Posted by Corwyn 1 year ago
Fisher's principle states that 1:1 is the evolutionary stable strategy for most species. That could be claimed to be the point of equality. That point could be deviated from if some of the assumptions are violated. For example if raising a male child cost 10 times more than raising a female child, then we might find a point of equality that is 1:9 Males to Females being the evolutionary stable strategy.

If someone is willing to put their genes where their argument is, and produce 9 female children for every 1 male child, I am prepared to win massively (evolutionary speaking) by producing male children.
Posted by Corwyn 1 year ago
I am not arguing in favor of the proposition, but against Towarzysz's point. The way people get treated, has nothing to do with how many of them their are. One can have a equitable society with 10% males and 90% females, or 50% of either, or 90% males 10% females. Likewise with non-equitable societies. The equability of our current society is not compromised by the fact that there are more females than males.
Posted by ADHDavid 1 year ago
I'm mainly looking for someone to try to argue for this ridiculous claim, as it's actually believed by some people.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF