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

Women belong in the kitchen

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,255 times Debate No: 52391
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




Women belong in the kitchen whipping me up a nice sandwich after my long hard day working. Instead now they feel like they can start running the show meanwhile they've done pretty much nothing in history.


This should be an interesting debate. Since my opponent failed to make the BoP and definitions, I shall.

Being: (of a thing) be rightly placed in a specified position.

Pro: That women belong in a kitchen and nowhere else.

By definition, this means that the only right place for a woman to be is in the kitchen and it is wrong for her to be anywhere else.

Con: That women do not belong only in a kitchen.

I will start my arguments and refute in the second round.

==Argument I: What we would miss==

Women are a very important part of the world. If we confined them only to a kitchen, there are multiple contributions we would miss that would make the world a much worse place. For example, had Rosa Parks been confined to the kitchen, she would've never made a significant contribution to breaking the color barrier.

Aside from playing a major contribution in breaking the color barrier, women have made contributions to science as well. For example, many women have researched cells and have led us to better understand them and the basic building blocks of life [1]. Women have also discovered diseases and developed cures. Needless to say, this plays a contribution that could not have happened if a women was solely confined to a kitchen.

Last, this would play a bad role on the annual income of the family. The average full-time man makes about $49,398 in America [2]. The average woman makes less, but still at a respectable $37,791 per year. Now, say the man works half-time and the woman works half-time, so one can stay at home in the morning and the other can stay at home in the afternoon. Together, they earn about $43,000 a year, respectively. But if the woman did not work and only stayed in the kitchen, the man would have to either work full-time or get a worsened cash flow. Thus, it is more beneficial (to her family) for a woman to not be fully confined to a kitchen and help the male work.

Thus, if we took the path pro is suggesting:

-The color barrier would not be broken/taken longer to break
-Scientific contributions would be not as common
-Cash flow would decrease.

==Argument II: The effect on America==

I'm taking this way to seriously, but here we go. Continuing on from my other arguments, if women were only in the kitchen and not actually working, jobs in America and around the world would decrease dramatically. Women actually have more jobs than men [3]. That means if women were to stop working and only make men sandwiches in the kitchen, there would be a job shortage which would have a bad effect on the U.S economy and force less qualified men to get jobs.

Then, we would have multiple equal-rights groups protesting if women were found to only rightfully be placed in the kitchen. These groups would be constant due to the big shockwave of your idea. This puts strain on the government and men. Strain is not something we need right now with all of the problems the government has.

Third, this idea isn't exactly a cakewalk for men, either. If women are cut from their household duties and are only assigned to cook, then men would have to take up the woman's normal chores. After work, you would have to pick up groceries, sweep the house, do the laundry, pay taxes, etc. If your idea is not proposed, then this will not happen and an equality will remain in the house.

And also, what if your wife's cooking REALLY sucks?

So technically, if women really only belonged in a kitchen:

-Jobs would significantly decrease
-Economy would take major, possibly unrepairable, blow
-Would spawn multiple equal-rights group
-Put a strain on the government
-Would make a man's life harder
-Would REALLY suck if you hate your wife's cooking

Since this is a debate with three rounds of arguments, I will wrap my arguments up here so my opponent can refute it all. I wish my opponent luck, and hand the debate over to him!

Debate Round No. 1


First of I should have specified that by women being in the kitchen I mean a stay at home mom, shopping and doing all the things around the house, not strictly restraining her in a kitchen for the rest of her life.

Just only around 100 years ago most women were stay at home moms with an occasional few that were smart enough to handle certain positions. I believe that life should go back to how it was 100 years ago where most of the cash flow came through the male. If the majority of families only had a male working, then the income issue you mentioned would not occur because the prices of things would shoot down because if almost all women quit then real estate would have to decrease in price to keep the economy balanced and to keep people in homes.

In work places if men are under women leadership their performance would typically decline as men think they are superior and don't think they should be controlled by a women. Women can also be a distraction to men if that man dreams of caressing her nipples or possibly sticking his pole inside her anal or vaginal area to pleasure his spidey senses. If women stayed at home cooked and shopped then men wouldn't have to worry about these problems


First, I would like to ask my opponent why women are of a lower status than men, or not equal, in his mind.

My opponent tried to change the BoP to something that gives him a much wider platform to argue on. This is after I presented my arguments. May I remind him that my decision of the BoP in the first round stands because he did not present a BoP. By definition, your "second round" BoP is incorrect and the first one stands. I advise a loss of conduct on my opponent's part for trying to change the BoP after we have presented our arguments.

Around 100 years ago, blacks were discriminated against, gays weren't seen as humans, most people still believed in creationism, and the world was just about to head into the Great Depression. If you want those circumstances, be my guest. If all families only had the male working, prices would shoot up because of the new demand of things.

Say the price of getting an object for food is $5.00. The companies need to make a profit, so the selling price to the people who make food becomes $6.00. The people who make the food need to make a profit, so selling it to the market becomes $6.50. The market, realizing the increasing demand, rises the price to $8.00. The point is, prices will not drop very much because the people need the food. It will rise so the companies will make more money. Haven't we learned that in the past?

If all women quit the real estate, there would be a major job shortage. However, I do not understand what my opponent is saying and I ask him to make it more clear before I effectively refute it.

Your last statement is just... come on, man. You show no evidence or studies of your claim that women distract men. At least, the "distractions" have had no notable effect on overall employee productivity and is thus not a problem. Also, why do men think they are superior? I as hell sure don't. The only way we can change the minds of these men is if we let the women have a higher status so that the men can see the women are of equality to them. Your last sentences are just not suitable for a debate.

You state that men would not have to worry about distractions in a workplace. However, I have shown that men would have much bigger problems if your idea is presented (i.e extra chores, significantly downgrading economy, etc.) And what about the women that are of a good influence to men? If a women is confined solely to a kitchen, then male performance would downgrade, not upgrade.

Thanks, and I await my opponent's rebuttals!
Debate Round No. 2


Ok it seems like you are intentionally misinterpreting the things I say. I know I'm being brief to save time but if I say "women should stay in the kitchen" I obviously don't mean that they should stay in the kitchen and never come out, it simply means they should be stay at home moms. I also didn't say that all women should quit real estate positions, I said all women should quit, leading to the drop in real estate prices. I also didn't say that EVERYTHING should go back to how it was I was just saying that it should go back to how it was in terms of the balance in money making in a family where the man brings home the dough.

I can rebut the economic argument because I agree that if women quit very suddenly it would cause chaos that's why this will be a slow process where almost all women (except the few who are very intelligent) quit and become stay at home moms


In the last round, my opponent concedes his BoP, saying women "quitting their jobs would become chaos." I am not misrepresenting his argument, but I rather made a BoP by definition, and took the title literally. If anything, my opponent should've either changed the title or made the BoP clear in the first round.

I do not have anything to refute, as my opponent pretty much told me everything he meant (saving it for the last round instead of the second round.) My opponent did not uphold his BoP, and thus he can not win. I thank you for the debate, and I thank the reader for reading!
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by shneeba 2 years ago
I meant I cant***** not ican rebut his economic arguments in the 3rd entry
Posted by Luke_Krog 2 years ago
Sure do wish the Pro was joking
Posted by Luke_Krog 2 years ago
Please don't ally the Christian demographic with the pro Pokemonzr.
Posted by shneeba 2 years ago
Read my profile Pokemon I'm not Christian I'm Shinto so suck a dick
Posted by Pokemonzr 2 years ago
Man pro is so stupid. Typical right wing conservative Hard Christian for ya.
Posted by shneeba 2 years ago
Argue me!!!!!
Posted by sockmonkey 2 years ago
I am ready to argue I think you are being mean
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded and did not use any sources
Vote Placed by XLAV 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro keeps on changing the resolution and BoP. Pro should have clarified his resolution and stated his BoP on the first round. Conduct goes to Con. Con had better arguments and Pro keeps on changing the resolution. Arguments to Con. Con gave sources to back up his arguments, Pro did not. Sources goes to Con.