The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Women are treated as equals to 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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/14/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 811 times Debate No: 56614
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




I will firmly negate the resolution that states: Women are treated as equals to men.

Women were considered property for most of history, but those days are long gone. However, people still expect less out of women & don't consider them equals to men.

C1) Women make less money than men.
Even though this is a well known fact it is still an outrage. Women still make less than their male co-workers. If women really were equal they would make the same amount as a man that has the same job.

C2) For the most part women aren't considers attractive after a certain age.
When a women begins to look older around a certain age ( the age varies from woman to woman) they're no longer considered sexually attractive. However, most men are still considered attractive for over half of their lives.

C3) Many people still expect women to stay at home & take care of children.
Even though this was customary for most of history it is no longer customary. Women have the power to achieve whatever they want, but if they're constantly told that they're going to be a house wife that is what they'll most likely become. In some situations people even shame women for getting an education and working. I recently experienced the personally. People tend to expect men to go out there and make something of themselves. You can't say we're treated as equals when people expect men to make something of themselves and expect women to do nothing.


Hello, let's have fun.
You present 3 arguments based on the premise of equality.

Women do make less money than men in most career situations. Yet this argument isn't all encompassing. White women "corporate executives" earn salaries higher than black male executives, and salaries astronomically higher than Latinos. In addition, white women CEO-ran corporations & sole proprietor companies see white women making more money than their male counterparts.

Not true. Shania Twain (48) is still considered sexy by a large number of 20 and 30ish men. As well as Christie Brinkley, Connie Britton, Sela Ward, Kelly Preston, and oh my gawd, the 44 yr old C. Zeta Jones. Hollywood & Maxim are just about the only entities that cater to the young beautiful woman. People and Cosmo regularly feature older "hot" women and actually highlight the age of their beauty. In addition, only the so-called "white man" ran nations prefer the young. China and Russia honor their elderly celebrities.

Honestly, women are simply naturally-born BETTER parents and homemakers than men. True chauvinistic sentiments exist in American and foreign homes. But the Arabs and Chinese cultivate a society where the woman is the homemaker because they "believe" females are superior in that capacity. The American view blinds most of us to what really is happening in other racial societies.
Debate Round No. 1


C1)Yes two people can both be executives, but they can be of different ranking still. It's completely logical for a person of higher ranking to make more than a person of lower ranking. Also, if they work for different companies than their salaries are most likely going to differ. Anyone ranking CEO is going to make way more than anyone elsewhere the corporation. The only true way to see who makes more is by taking people who have the exact same position in the exact same corporation. This way they're on a so called level playing field. When you make this comparison a male with this position is more likely to make more than a female in the same position. Showing that the playing field is not level, but really giving the male the upper hand.

C2) "... honor their elderly celebrities" This should say it all. All the women you listed are rich celebrities who can afford beauty enhancements (such as plastic surgery). Also magazines aren't ever looking at the "normal" women. They see the women who can afford enhancements. Even with these enhancements there is a risk that they could go wrong. When they do go wrong celebrity women are shamed for trying to look younger. It's a double edge sword: it's bad if you look your age or its bad if you try to look younger. Also, while women in their so called later years can be incredibly gorgeous & sexy it's only praised among celebrities, and very seldom with "normal" women. This isn't true among men. They're considered attractive for most of their lives without judgement.

C3) Just because women are "simply better" at being homemakers doesn't mean they should only strive to be wives & mothers. Just because someone is better at baking than someone else, does that mean they should only strive to be a chef? Telling a woman the only thing she can do with her life is be a homemaker, and then tell a man he can be anything in the world is proof that men and women are not treated as equals.


When I stated: "White women "corporate executives" earn salaries higher than black male executives, and salaries astronomically higher than Latinos" I am referring to equal ranks. Respectfully, there wasn't any tangible compelling evidence in your C1 rebuttal, just some semantics. I'm not a "the white man keepin' down" spitting person, but the racial element I mentioned about white female corporate executives is tangible common sense. Is it practical for a Caucasian woman to argue gender equality of income when white American & British women earn paycheck substantially higher than all other ethnicities male or female? I tried to subtly reveal the racial issue and sound like "another angry black man".

According to the watchdog website, Who Rules America? in the article, Diversity Among CEOs and Corporate Directors: Has the Heyday Come and Gone?
"...14 black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies between 1999 and 2010 revealed how wrong we were. Intrigued by these appointments, and by the increasing number of appointments of white CEOs of Fortune 500 companies...However, a new and unexpected pattern has emerged for...diversity in the CEO position.... The number of African American CEOs dropped from its peak of seven in 2007 to six, the number of Latinos from 13 in 2008 to 10, and the number of Asian Americans from 15 in 2011 to 10. turns out that recently there have been very different patterns for the white women CEOs as opposed to the African American, Latino, and Asian American CEOs. The number of white women who were CEOs in each year since 2000 increased at a fairly dramatic rate. In 2000, there were four white women CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, and as of January 15, 2014, there were 23, an almost sixfold increase."

Celebrities are practically the only visible evidence we can cite to give readers a painted picture of our arguments that they can use to go verify. Check the facts, the trend of plastic surgery among female celebrities is almost exclusive to the young women. Heidi Montage, Kim Kardashian, Megan Fox, etc. The average woman over 40 does not have some standard shoved at her to "look young." The million dollar piece of evidence you didn't include in your previous rebuttal is that the non-celebrity woman over 40 usually has a 10+ marriage to a husband who likely isn't pornographically obsession with the "hot & slutty" beauty these young girls are running around endorsing. Therefore it is highly reasonable to assert that non-celebrity women aren't burden with your C2 premise. Since they outnumber the female celebrities 10,000 to 1 these numbers invalidate your C2 argument. The attraction remains.

I never implied "they should only strive to be wives & mothers." Honestly, women are simply naturally-born BETTER parents and homemakers than men. You completely overlooked a provable fact I stated: "the Arabs and Chinese cultivate a society where the woman is the homemaker because they "believe" females are superior in that capacity." When I wrote "they" I meant both the men & women believe "the woman is superior in that capacity" otherwise in such an insistent I would have wrote "the men believe" if the belief was indeed exclusive to just the males.
Debate Round No. 2


Any person that is an executive is going to make a lot of money. However, executives are only a small part of employed Americans. The fact is that on average for every $1 a man makes a woman makes $.77. We're talking about women as a whole. White women executives making more than men executives of other races doesn't mean that all women make more than all men. I restate that the large majority of men make more than women of the same standing.

Celebrities are not the only visible evidence it's seen everywhere in everyday life. Most of the time "normal" women who are in their "older years" are not considered attractive. Younger celebrities are simply up front about them having plastic surgery because they're not shamed for it. Older celebrities are going to keep it on the down low because, as I said in the previous round, they're shamed for trying to look younger. About 70% of men cheat on the wives. Nearly 45% of them cheat with women that are 15-20 years younger then their wives. Which means that they are more attracted to that younger woman than their "older" wife. Even if it is a happy marriage these celebrity women wouldn't be shamed by their family, but by the public.

In my first argument my third contention was, "Many people still expect women to stay at home & take care of children." You have proved this contention to be true and agreed with it. The reason women are supposedly "better" at being homemakers is because that's all women did throughout history, and know that is a tired idea some people are still clinging to that idea. This idea that people still clingy to is a part of the reason why women still aren't treated as equals to men. "the Arabs and Chinese cultivate a society where the woman is the homemaker because they "believe" females are superior in that capacity." this is something the Arabian & Chinese adults tell young girls to make them think it's the right thing to do, but in all reality they have no other choice but to be homemakers. Also, "superior in that capacity" meaning that they're "superior" in homemaking, but not superior in any other way. Which shows that people in these countries, just as in America, expect men to make something of themselves & for women to simply be homemakers.
"When I wrote "they" I meant both the men & women believe "the woman is superior in that capacity"this also proves my third contention. This shows that people, both men & women, still think women should still be homemakers.

In conclusion, you've simply argued my contentions, and you did not prove that women are treated as equals to men.
To sum up: In your first contention you've shown that white women executives make more than male executives of other race, but you ignored the whole population of women, and how they make $.77 for every $1 a man of the same standing makes. Showing that only white women are only "superior" to men in executive positions. I proved that, minus this exception, men are still considered "superior".
In your second contention you talked about how women can still be sexy in their "older" years, however it is only admired among celebrities. When looking at "normal" women it is,for the most part, not considered attractive. While men are considered attractive for most of their lives.
In your third contention you supported my contention stating that "Many people still expect women to stay at home & take care of children."



Everyone is paid the same under minimum wage unless someone works harder, shows good work etiquette, & gets a .25 cent raise. But wage deals with $10+ an hour jobs. As I have shown, corporate employees"wht. women earn more than their minority counterparts as well as women of color. Now I"ll show that women as a whole out earn ALL men except white men.
1st, Again I"m not playing the race card in vain or for sympathy. Let"s be 100% honest. America is still controlled by white men. White men tip the scale in your favor. But remove that factor & your C1 argument implodes.
2nd, White women outnumber blk men 3/1. Latinos, its 2/1. Add Asian males & the numbers balance out. However, add minority women on her side & the ratio leans heavily in the female favor. It is common knowledge there are more females in America & the world than males, excluding white males (using America as the example) it is logical to assume women as a whole earn more than men (white men excluded).
3rd, Your argument can only win if white males are factored in. Since my previous arguments have proved this & my next shall too, it is apparent that your argument is bias, using the white man as your pawn. Because without his earnings, women as a whole out earn all other males. Your argument is based on partisanship.
Now, your 77 cent estimate is part of the many Obama Lies.
"The 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. When all these relevant factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap narrows to about 5 cents."
Please READ:
The website Payscale meticulously breaks down the wage gap & shows that ONLY in certain professions men out earn women because it"s a male dominant profession. However, in female dominant professions the women out earn the men.
Blk women out earn both blk men & Latinos.
"An analysis of census data by consumer research firm Reach Advisors found that women between the ages of 22 and 30, without children, had bigger paychecks in 2008 than their male peers in 47 of the 50 largest U.S. cities. Their wages were 8 percent higher, on average".
"Atlanta, Ga., offered the best financial opportunity for these women, who took home 121 percent of the average wage for their peers. Young, single women were also substantially better-paid in Memphis, New York, Sacramento and San Diego."

According to a National Vital Statistics poll, as of 2013, there are est. 2,118,000 million heterosexual marriages in the US. According to your 70% of heterosexual husbands cheat on their heterosexual wives. This mean that 1,482,600 married men have cheated on their wives in 1 year. Seriously? So only 635,400 married were faithful? Your 70% is preposterous & unfounded.
In fact, the source you cited is by Lisa Penn of Her claim of 70% isn"t validated through any other source, esp. not on her website. I read a few articles on her site & she asserts claims but never cites a verifiable source. Each article I read list "figures" & "claims" but no secondary source is cited. She simply backlinks her own articles!
Your original premise states:
"For the most part women aren't considers attractive after a certain age."
Yet you give no source for this claim nor delve into provable logic, whether as I listed a few women over 45 that are still sweetly beautiful. I listed 2 sources, you can find in a supermarket that regularly feature older women & tailor articles around their lasting beautiful.

"When a woman begins to look older around a certain age"they're no longer considered sexually attractive."
Again no source. As a man I can say with certainty most guys reading this debate also view the older women I listed as "attractive". Now, "physical attraction" & "romantic relationship" isn"t the same. Men can find Jennifer Aniston "pretty" but that doesn"t mean they want to be in an intimate relationship with her. And I believe you probably deem them as going hand-in-hand.
Your argument speaks from a bias female point of view without supplying any evidence from men on the issue. Again, as a man, I can say with certainty most guys do not hold your point of view, & it is the male POV that decides if you are right & you, sweet lady, have provided none. =514;
Actually if you look at what my words imply you"ll see that my claims "women are simply naturally-born BETTER parents and homemakers than men" & "they believe females are superior in that capacity" that these two claims don"t endorse your sentiment that "[men] expect women to do nothing." These two claims actually imply something greater to which your argument is blinded towards, which is, you ridicule the very essence of a female homemaker even though history has shown us females are "better" at that job. My point was to sideline that ridiculing sentiment with evidence that your scorn is lacking in potency against society for "expecting" women to be the "superior force" rearing the family in morals & decency. My comments never implied women should be limited to just these goals. Men & women expecting women"in your own words"to "think women should still be homemakers" isn"t equivalent to "women should ONLY be homemakers." Why should women rebel against the first job they are undisputedly superior at by nature? Accepting it doesn"t mean she is expected to do nothing else. And esp. in America, women aren"t hindered by societal expectations to not fulfill their desired potentials in careers. So, no, I didn"t endorse your argument, per se, nor did I validate it.
In conclusion,
1.I showed your C1 argument to be bias & inconsistent, relying solely on the Caucasian male workforce to prove your sentiment under the guise of "as a whole." I showed that without them as a factor, women out earn all other males in the wage gap. I even went so far as to show evidence that white women singlehandedly trump all genders & races (save the white men) in salary jobs. And I added a bonus of showing that the second dominant male earner, Black Men, earn less "as a whole" against Black Women. Your .77 cent allegation is a lie perpetrated by our proven lying President. The true number is about .5 cent.
2.I demonstrated your C2 argument is bias & without foundation, since you being a young woman, cannot conclude that the majority of the opposite gender find older women "unattractive". You provided no evidence, just speculation. As a man, I can assert that men in my circle, of my heterosexual proclivity, do find older women "attractive." At no point did you define your "certain age" with a specific age limit, so through my examples I presented 44, 48, 50 year old women whom guys likely find "attractive." Attractive is defined "appealing to look at." The burden of proof was on you to prove this to which you failed. My examples pass the guy test of "appealing to look at". S. Twain, C. Brinkley, K. Preston, C. Zeta Jones. I can even add Jen Aniston, Penelope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, Sarah Palin, heck even Nancy Grace is a bit "appealing to look at." Your own "word" destroyed your argument.
3.Your C3 argument, upon close evaluation, is both limited & restrictive. Therefore I didn"t have much to refute. Expecting something & preventing something are as different as a heap of sh*t & a heap of chocolate"they may appear the same but they do not smell the same, they do not taste the same, they do not serve the same function. There is nothing wrong, evil, or disrespectful about expecting a natural-born caregiver to be a caregiver. Few American men are bold enough or stupid enough to attempt to prevent a woman from fulfilling higher goals outside the home. In fact, the only prevent-ers you see are usually Amish or LDS-type
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
To Revic...
I respect your analysis, except your indication that I did not provide an "original argument" the existence of equality between men & women. Con laid out 3 propositions, these 3 where the issues of the debate. The burden of proof was on her. Citing any other premise outside of the realm of the initial 3 premises over burdens the original. In professional debates you're not allowed to introduce another premise from the original. So I didn't.
As far as counter-arguments...
The best argument is one based on verifiable facts, and so I gave many.

Thanks anyways.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
To Emery...
I had reached my word limit in final comment and it cut off my "thank you" to you.
So thank you for the intriguing debate.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 2 years ago
On Pro's second point, perhaps woman aren't considered as sexually attractive because men realize subconsciously that the woman can no longer have children. Just a thought. Interesting debate, though.
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
It should be "Women should be treated as equals to men". You state in your first argument that people don't expect as much out of women, which contradicts your position. If they aren't expected to do as much, they aren't exactly treated the same, and therefore your argument is invalid.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Nicoszon_the_Great 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed to be having repetitive arguments
Vote Placed by revic 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very tough one to vote on, simply because Pro only had counterarguments. C1: Con wins this one, she has provided a legitimate source. Next time, bring that source up earlier in the debate though. C2: Pro succesfully refuted this argument everytime Con tried to defend it. C3: Pro conceded that expecting your wife to stay at home still happens. But Pro succesfully showed that this argument does not count, as women are still given the choice to do what they want. They are not being restricted of their choices, and therefore equal to men. So why did I still vote Con, if Pro refuted 2 of her arguments? Simply because con's first argument wasn't really countered. And, it really is enough to prove the resolution. 1 strong argument can make you win the debate! Had pro made his own argumentation, instead of just counter-arguing, he might have won IMO.