The Instigator
Red_Fox
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
idisagreewithyou
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

"Women" couldn't recognize EQUALITY if it slapped them in the face

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2019 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,049 times Debate No: 120343
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

Red_Fox

Pro

In the next few rounds, I will put forward several SCENARIOS OF EQUALITY that "women" don't normally recognize or appreciate. Your task will be to unmask the inequality within them or demonstrate their irrelevance.

I used quotation marks for "women" in the title because I don't mean women. I refer to the few women (and fewer men) who make sweeping claims about "obvious and significant inequalities" between men and women--even when referring to present day USA. If you are one of these people, Please join me in this discussion about equality.

In Round 1 let's begin by defining "equality" via general principles.

My understanding of EQUALITY is based in the American ideals of "life, Liberty, And the pursuit of happiness. " That is, Equal people have equal freedoms and opportunities, But not necessarily equal results.

This is because EQUALITY also includes the duality of "choice and accountability. " First, Equal people are allowed to make their own choices. Second, They are expected to accept responsibility for the consequences of those choices. Blaming others for bad consequences due to foolish decisions is decidedly NOT equal.

However, This EQUALITY is tempered with a measure of justice. That is, Rules themselves cannot impair the preceding ideals of EQUALITY. However, There are few "rules" in most of the scenarios that I will put forward. What rules exist between a man and a woman in a romantic relationship? What rules exist between competing retailers, Or between a retailer and a potential customer? What rules exist between a husband and a wife?
idisagreewithyou

Con

I define EQUALITY as everyone having equal opportunities without outside forces putting unfair barriers on someones pursuit of happiness based off of characteristics a person cannot change e. G. Sex, Gender expression, Race, Sexual preference etc. I would consider the latter to be oppression, I believe that any law, Rule or regulation that specifically targets any subset of people unfairly (even unintentionally like voter ID laws) to be oppressive and should be abolished for us to have a fair and equal society. But I agree that people shouldn't blame others for their own actions. Look forward to a response.
Debate Round No. 1
Red_Fox

Pro

For Round 2, I will focus on Economic issues in my SCENARIOS OF EQUALITY.

=== Scenario 2. 1 - Poverty ===
Bethanie and Fred fell in love, Got married, Then had 2. 2 babies. Bethanie has outside employment while Fred is a homemaker to support the family. Unfortunately, They later divorce. Fred gains primary custody of the children. Bethanie is not a deadbeat mom--she pays child support and alimony on time (in full) and visits on weekends. Fred and the kids are left in poverty, But Bethanie is not.

--- Discussion ---
This is what EQUALITY looks like under the weight of DIVORCE. Divorce is a primary cause of poverty among all people, Especially for children and their primary care givers. When a family is intact, All wages buy consolidated needs: combined meals, 1 home, Overlapping transportation, Long-term savings. After divorce, Costs balloon (disparate "fast" meals, 2 homes, And separate transportation). No matter how high child support and alimony are set, The standard of living always suffers even after savings end.

=== Scenario 2. 2 - Office Meetings ===
Burt and Rita are in a brainstorming meeting with other men and women. Everyone freely shares ideas and defends questions and concerns. In a few cases, Similar ideas are put forward by two people. When Burt offers his idea, It is unclear to a few people. Another person restates his point so the rest understand. A few minutes after Rita shares her idea, Another person suggests a very similar one. The "similar" idea is accepted better than Rita's. At the end of the meeting, Rita and Burt are both fuming.

--- Discussion ---
This is what EQUALITY looks like in corporate America today. Many times ideas look better on the second pass (even if no one gives the originator credit). Many times one (or more) person re-explains when the group doesn't understand. These two "helps" regularly happen to both men and women. It seems that women do most of the complaining about it, Though. This indicates to me that women dislike the help more than men, But is not evidence of sexism.

=== Scenario 2. 3 - Promotions ===
George and Barbara have equivalent jobs in a company. One is energetic and outspoken; the other is hardworking and humble. The outspoken one is very eager for more hours, Harder work, And a promotion; the hard worker is focused on achieving the "mission" of the company but is less concerned about pay. No surprise at year end that the outspoken one is promoted and the other is not.

--- Discussion ---
This is what EQUALITY looks like in the American economy. Some people do what it takes to to get paid more. Some others openly denounce monetary interests. Still others crave a promotion but expect it to come to them without effort. These rules seem reasonably EQUAL. Women may fall into the 2nd and 3rd categories more often than men. If so, This is a reflection of choice in 2019 USA not of discrimination.

=== Scenario 2. 4 - "Women's Work" ===
Pauline and Sanders grew up in a large American city did well in high school and got accepted to a good University. They each faced options for career path. Pauline decided to pursue a degree in English Literature. After graduating with honors (and with $50k of debt) she realized her degree didn't prepare her for any specific job. In the end, Pauline went to work as an entry level "administrator" in a Healthcare company. Sanders' choice was no college--he preferred to jump right into a "career" in construction.

--- Discussion ---
This is what EQUALITY looks like in the American workforce. Men and women choose worthless degrees to "follow their passion. " 2019 USA presents every man and woman with unlimited choice in career path. The idea that those free decisions are somehow constrained by sex discrimination appears quite preposterous on its face. This idea suggests that men are able to make good decisions but that women are not. Women and men are making their best choice (for them) based on individual interests, Preparations, And values.
idisagreewithyou

Con

2. 1
I haven't heard anyone make this argument ever so I think it's fair to skip this one, If you feel this is unfair you can let me know.

2. 2
But "this happens to both men and women, It's just people notice it more when it happens to women" just isn't the case (4) in most scenarios, I know it'll be easy for you to right this bit off because it's hard to document this kind of thing but the general consensus among academics seems to be in my favor on this issue.

2. 3
But isn't it weird that women are statistically more likely to be in the latter position (6), Are women just naturally in this position? Well from what we can see from the Nordic countries, If you take away certain barriers women face you will find more equality among the sexes in pay and work (4), From what we can observe from these countries, Women being in the latter position is primarily (and more likely completely) at the fault of their environment. Chocking this up to "choice" is very reductive, We do not have absolute free will, Are actions are generally shaped by our environment, So politicians
and political commentators should push for change or policy that creates a better environment for people to make optimal decisions.

2. 4
I think I agree with you on this one, Although I haven't heard anyone I respect make the affirmative I will concede that it's baseless.
Debate Round No. 2
Red_Fox

Pro

I will respond to your rebuttals in Round 5, But why did you skip 2. 1 linking poverty to divorce with kids?

In Round 3, I will focus on Marital issues in my SCENARIOS OF EQUALITY.

=== Scenario 3. 1 - Chores ===
Charles and Roberta got married in a typical whirlwind of romance and foolishness. After a year, Roberta awoke to the fact that Charles does significantly fewer chores than she--even though they have equivalent careers. True, They never discussed their preferred apportionment of household duties, But she now feels demeaned by the imbalance.

--- Discussion ---
This is what EQUALITY looks like in no-effort relationships. Feminism suggests that this situation is not Roberta's fault, Rather it is a female-hating culture. Actually, She bears a majority of the blame. Each spouse does what they choose to do. He is not oppressing her or forcing her to do more. If she wants to rearrange the balance, She needs to be "strong" and TALK to her husband about it. Or she can just do LESS.

=== Scenario 3. 2 - Growth ===
Huey and Violet both had strong career plans when they married. Surprisingly to both, When their first child was born Violet decided to play mommy, Not return to work. Huey feels resentment over her unilateral change in plans.

--- Discussion ---
This is what EQUALITY looks like in the real world. Agreements from youth are immature and change. Huey has several options to choose from: accept the new status, Be angry for a long time, Divorce his trickster wife, Etc. But each option has consequences. Which will make him the happiest? I a husband is the one who changes his mind about child care or work-life balance, It does not make him a misogynist any more than Violet.

=== Scenario 3. 3 - Child Care ===
Fran and Parker signed a prenup regarding dual careers, Assets, Chores, And sex. After each birth, They both take 6 weeks off from work, Then promptly outsource child care to a "preschool" for infants, Which is of course staffed only by women.

--- Discussion ---
This is what "EQUALITY" looks like in the feminist worldview. Somehow, The subjugation of poor women by rich women is never mentioned. If feminists really wanted employment parity, They would require daycares to have 50% male workers (The Guardian puts it currently under 2%). If feminists really wanted female equality, They would not degrade any woman with the inhumane task of "caring" for other people's children.

=== Scenario 3. 4 - Chivalry ===
Jen and Sean are not married, Yet over time their relationship has become strained. Their arguments routinely become quite vicious. In one of these, Sean holds a door open for Jen, So she slaps him across the face. Sean's response is to hit her back. (Please note that most abusive relationships are between unmarried couples. UPenn's "Dating Partners More Violent. . . " says it is 80%. )

--- Discussion ---
Seemingly, This is a SCENARIO OF EQUALITY. So many complaints about inequality are based in real-world differences between most-men and most-women. Physical differences like this one are the easiest to see but they are not the only ones. Somehow, Feminism expects the patriarchy to apologize both when men are different-winners (stronger) and different-losers (protecting, Chivalry).
idisagreewithyou

Con

2. 1 Because I don't think it's an argument anyone's making.

3. 1
The argument isn't generally that it's unfair women have more chores. Rather, It's unfair women are considered carers while men are considered providers, As a consequence of this attitude women tend to do more chores than men. No one is arguing that individual men are oppressing women, Rather the culture we have favors male dominance and feminists see this as cancerous.

3. 2
The reply to this will be similar to my first one, Individual women who want to leave work to play mommy isn't cancerous on it's own, But the culture plaguing our society of men being providers and women being carers is what needs to be dismantled.

3. 3
I don't understand how you don't see feminists getting angry at this. This is an example of, Again, Women carers, Men providers, And most feminists hope to dismantle this attitude. Obviously we wouldn't get to a 50/50 split (unless we use quotas but I'm not a fan of those), We probably won't get a 50/50 split on anything, But it would be nice to see more men signing up for positions similar to child care.

3. 4
If a man slaps a woman back, I can't speak for most feminists but I wouldn't blame the man in that scenario. Chivalry is considered sexist because it lets men assume the role of protector of a particular woman, And for the reasons I've stated above, Attitudes like this one is cancerous and is, Thankfully, Dying.
Debate Round No. 3
Red_Fox

Pro

In Round 4, I will focus on sex issues in my SCENARIOS OF EQUALITY.

=== Scenario 4. 1 - Check You Out ===
Carlo (he's hot) and Bernice (her, Too) enter a bar with perfection. The guy at the bar, Gary, Notices Bernice's body; the woman at the bar, Wanda, Notices Bernice's hairdo, Jewelry, And shoes, And that Carlo is good looking; the gay guy at the bar, Anthony, Notices Carlo's body.

--- Discussion ---
This is what EQUALITY looks like while ogling. Comparing Gary and Wanda, It seems to feminists that "men sexually objectify women, " which supposedly is a form of oppression. It is just as true that women objectify men and women in non-sexual ways. Should this also be considered oppression? A revealing second comparison (Gary and Anthony) expands our understanding of men. Men sexually objectify whoever is sexually attractive to them (regardless of their sex). In other words, Women are being treated the same as men (by men). Sounds like equal treatment but different interests.

=== Scenario 4. 2 - Drunk Sex ===
Fran and Gilbert get a bit buzzed at a party. In the course of events they engage in what is clearly consensual sex. But in the morning, In addition to having a headache, Fran is aghast that she did it with him. In fact, She begins to think he took advantage of her. Somehow Gilbert sees it differently when he is accused of wrongdoing.

--- Discussion ---
This is what EQUALITY looks like under the influence. Sexual misconduct is not a function of regret but of consent and intent. Similarly, If a woman reluctantly agrees to have sex with her boyfriend based on his continued requests, That is not sexual misconduct on his part either. (She should consider dumping him, Though. )

=== Scenario 4. 3 - Rudeness ===
Josh attends a social event with the express purpose of hooking up with a chick. Doris attends the same social event with the express purpose of hooking up with a guy. At the event, Josh walks up to Doris and says some version of "Let's have sex. " Doris blows him off (obviously) and recounts this moment to all her friends over the years as an example of sexual assault.

--- Discussion ---
This is what "EQUALITY" would look like if men and women were the same. Not many dudes would be offended if the roles had been reversed. So in a way, Josh's behavior is required by the anti-chivalry standards you mentioned in 3. 4. Regardless, While Josh failed in his clumsy, Boorish, Attempt at humor, Doris was not sexually assaulted.

=== Scenario 4. 4 - Withholding Sex ===
Jen and Sean (from 3. 4) got married, But their relationship often fell back into its strained status. On a regular basis, When Jen is upset, She refuses to have sex with Sean. On the flip side, When Sean is upset with Jen, He does what? There is no equivalent (and moral) punishment that Sean can levy on his wife. The best he can think of is to hide all her credit/debit cards and her smartphone.

--- Discussion ---
This appears to be a SCENARIO OF "INEQUALITY, " with the woman having a significant and enduring superiority over the man. If I were the male version of a feminist (a "masculinist"? ), I would argue that men have been oppressed for centuries by women's capricious sexual dominance, And that their tyranny has been growing in a "cancerous" fashion for over a century.
idisagreewithyou

Con

idisagreewithyou forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Red_Fox

Pro

=== Equality ===
To recap, We agreed in R1 that equality is about opportunities as long as there are no "unfair barriers, " and that blame for one's choices should not be deflected onto others.

=== Responses to your rebuttals ===
You have agreed with most of my scenarios, Chalking many things into the choice category with me. However, You have introduced two other considerations that I'll review.

--- Choice explains Career path but not Promotion path ---
You immediately agreed that modern women are totally capable of choosing a career for themselves (2. 4). But on the topic of pursuing promotions (2. 3), You hedged on modern women's capacity to overcome "their environment. "

The cultural script is not "gendered" on the topic of promotions. All people (male and female, Young and old, Black and white, Straight and gay) are encouraged to get as high and as rich as they can.

You provided an article on the topic, But it doesn't really support your point. First, It notes that 91% of men and 94% of women weren't promoted. That seems very close to comparable. Second, The study does not account for variables in ambition (the choice component). Third, The final sentence says that men and women are paid comparably despite this promotion difference.

--- "Cancerous" Culture ---
Cancer is not an appropriate metaphor. Cancer spreads rapidly. The "carer" idea has not been growing at all.

Cancer kills the body. At its zenith the carer idea did not damage society. Anthropologists like Margaret Mead claim that men have been free riders through most of history. So the culture you despise actually is a significant improvement over historical trends: it introduced the provider idea for men.

So why use the "cancer" term? I think you really mean a superlative version of "bad. " But where do you get the right to judge my culture?

That said, Using a severe term like "cancer" also allows you to condone radical measures akin to chemotherapy. To me, Feminism does seem similar to chemotherapy: harsh, Deadly, Inappropriate for non-life-threatening problems.

=== Conclusion ===
Your responses in R3 bely the problem with the oppressed-woman narrative. Equality is not your goal, Which is not a problem because equality has already been achieved. Your real purpose is to achieve feminist dominance in the culture. But even that is a farce because it has already occurred. We ALREADY live in a Feminist Culture.

Look around. Women are equal to men in all the ways I've stated. In other ways women are more than equal to men. The disparities found in areas of female-domination are huge: like 20% for college degrees. The disparities in areas of male-domination are small: as in 5% for promotions and wages.

In an unpredicted way the feminist culture we have now has hurt society in that it takes the pressure to contribute back off of men. Feminism has largely eliminated incentives for men to marry. That alone allows men to avoid real work. Even when men do marry and get jobs, They can take a back-seat to their wives. Counting careers, Housecare, And childcare, Women in feminist households do astronomically more work than their husbands. Husbands in "traditional" families contribute a much higher share of effort. "Girl Power"?

Lastly, Why is it that women did not need to achieve military dominance to achieve their equality goals? Because when the women complained, This misogynist society readily made accommodations for them. This is not the behavior of oppressors.

Take society off chemotherapy. It is not needed any more. . . And perhaps it never was.
idisagreewithyou

Con

idisagreewithyou forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by idisagreewithyou 3 years ago
idisagreewithyou
I'm sorry I couldn't make it to the fourth argument, Please continue with the fifth.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
Bethanie and Fred had 2. 2 babies? I think you should be discussing another problem. . .
Posted by idisagreewithyou 3 years ago
idisagreewithyou
@Red_Fox
Sorry I forgot to state this, I have a list of sources in my account comments that you can check out, It's hard to source in debate or in the debate comments. Check (4) and (6) in my account comments.
Posted by Red_Fox 3 years ago
Red_Fox
@idisagreewithyou, You have put "(4)" and "(6)" in your posts a few times. Do they refer to websites? If so, Please post them here, I'd love to look at them.
Posted by politicsfortherun 3 years ago
politicsfortherun
@idisagreewithyou True, And I know that. But I also know how I feel about it. And I believe women have the same rights as men. I just think we need to stand up for them when people are sexist.
Posted by idisagreewithyou 3 years ago
idisagreewithyou
@politicsfortherun please follow the debate before you decide your position, You might find a perspective you wouldn't of otherwise considered.
Posted by politicsfortherun 3 years ago
politicsfortherun
@kajo_smh And how am I not intelligent? Because of a few spelling errors? Get off my back. And I agree with the pro side, Women do have rights and choose to fight for more, While they already have the same ones as men. I"m saying I disagree when it comes to sexism. When men are sexist, Women need to stand up for their right. Which is where the Pros argument isn"t strong. And that would be where the Con is right. The point is that women have all the same rights as men, But they fight for more, Which in their own way, Is sexist to men.
Posted by kajo_smh 3 years ago
kajo_smh
Okay, So first of all. I agree wit pro because from what I've seen, The singular woman here, Isn't too intelligent. They lack the ability to properly capitalize. Most people would learn this in grade school, So I wouldn't know why this person wouldn't. And uh, It makes no sense they say that they agree with the pro side but then say they're wrong. I can tell they aren't very intelligent lmao.
Posted by kajo_smh 3 years ago
kajo_smh
Okay, So first of all. I agree wit pro because from what I've seen, The singular woman here, Isn't too intelligent. They lack the ability to properly capitalize. Most people would learn this in grade school, So I wouldn't know why this person wouldn't. And uh, It makes no sense they say that they agree with the pro side but then say they're wrong. I can tell they aren't very intelligent lmao.
Posted by politicsfortherun 3 years ago
politicsfortherun
Ok so before I begin, I would like to say, I ama woman, So you will have to hear my standpoint. Ok, So first off, Pro, I hate your title. There are a million other things you could have with put instead of that. That right there, Does not in ANY WAY want me to vote for you. My opinion, Is torn between the two. I am not a feminist and I do believe women have rights and they just always fight for more, Which is where I agree with Pro. Where I agree with Con, Is, Some people today are still sexist! And that, I do NOT support. That"s where I Agree with Con, Because when those situations come about, He"s right! But that"s not all the time. Sexism is extremely looked down upon, So it doesn"t happen very often. But, When I go vote, I will be voting for Pro. But Pro, I want you to know, I hate your argument. I hate the way you worded things. You made it seem like women were stupid people who don"t know what their doing and are downright just dumb. YOUR WRONG. I agree with Your position completely, But I must say, You did a horrible job of stating your opinion. Please be nicer next time? You might get a better reaction.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.