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

women today have too much rights

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: 1/22/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,979 times Debate No: 44409
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




we definitely need to get rid of all of the special rights, laws and privileges that women currently have over men e.g.

-VAWA law
-Don't have to register for Select Service
-Female criminals serve less jail times for same crimes
-Affirmative actions & quotas for women
-Tons of "women only" stuff, like: "women only" scholarships and Women's Business Ownership Assistance
-Far more research and funding are going into women's health than men's.
-Education system favor female over male
-Women can opt out of parental responsibilities but men can't
-Bias divorce laws

etc..etc.. a few of many..many.. examples


Well, I cannot disagree that laws which give women the advantage over men exist. Before we come to a conclusion, we must think back as to why this is the current situation. According to history, laws have been written which give men complete control over women. Not just too much rights, it was much more than that.
People around the world have come in unison to strive towards 'equality'. When we assess the current situation, it is quite clear that no gender is dominating over the other. Using common sense, in order to equalize 2 things one needs to decrease the amount of the higher and increase the amount of the lower. The same logic applies but in a far more complicated way.

Putting in simply, yes it is possible to just give women the rights that men have. But history has affected too much of our judgement of women, one would rather pick a man than a women for a thus laws which women a slight advantage can be accepted.
Debate Round No. 1


"Modern" textbooks and recommended literature often go to extremes to remove male role models as lead characters and examples. In her book "The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn", Diane Ravitch cites the example of the state of California rejecting The Little Engine That Could as an approved reading book because the main character was male.
"It's not that grownup society is hostile to boyishness as such. On the contrary, grownups eagerly encourage risk-taking and adventuring -- provided only that it's done by girls. There's no shortage of books for young readers about wars and western exploration, about mountain-climbing and bravery during floods and hurricanes. But the protagonists of these books are usually 10-year-old girls. Pick up a catalogue of the children's books published in the past two or three years. You'll find Seeing Red, the story of an intrepid Cornish girl who saves her village from Napoleonic invasion, and The Ballad of Lucy Whipple, about a young girl's adventures in the California Gold Rush. There is Grace the Pirate, Behind Rebel Lines: The Incredible Story of Emma Edmond, Civil War Spy, and the Daughters of Liberty series, which tells bold stories of girlish derring-do during the Revolution.
"Stories for boys are no longer permitted to be so exciting. Here is a publisher's blurb for a book about a boy who courageously 'defies teasing to remain enrolled in ballet class.' Here's another about 'Lame teenager Shem' who 'finds manhood in the Michigan wilderness with the help of an old Indian woman.' And a third: 'Doing volunteer work at Santa Barbara's Sidewalk's End, a day-care facility for children of the homeless, Ben witnesses an instance of physical abuse and -- for the best of reasons -- decides to take matters into his own hands.'"

"... boys must always have girls with them, doing everything they do -- indeed, almost always doing it better. You hear many complaints that boys today don't seem interested in reading. Who can blame them?"

Some "experts" decry what they see as "violent" plots or themes, and rail against children being exposed to such books. But are books about monsters, fantasy, super-heroes or other stories with "action" or violence actually damaging? And is there a gender bias issue at stake here, with many such books often being enjoyed by boy readers? We don't have the answers to those questions, but here are some interesting perspectives:

Boys' Violent Tastes Harmless: Psychologist by Anne Marie Owens, National Post (Canada), June 24, 2003 "The author who raised the first alarm about boys and violence in North America says we should stop worrying about boys indulging in war games, wrestling and fantasy play and begin embracing their low-brow tastes. Michael Thompson, the psychologist who wrote the groundbreaking book Raising Cain and several other best-selling books about boys, told a gathering of librarians from across North America that 'snobbery and elitism' are too much a part of the prevailing attitudes toward boys. ... 'A good choice is a book that a boy takes deep pleasure in reading, and nobody can tell a boy what that book will be.'"

In Praise of Violence by John Podhoretz, Weekly Standard, October 7, 2002. This is a review of a book, "Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence" by Gerard Jones. Excerpts: "Killing Monsters is a book that demanded to be written, if only to provide a moment's respite from a piece of conventional wisdom that goes almost completely unchallenged. Over the past thirty years it has become axiomatic that depictions of violence in popular culture are utterly without redeeming merit. Critics on the left (such as Peggy Charren of Action for Children's Television) and critics of the right (such as Michael Medved) are in full-throated agreement on the evils of fantasy and fictional violence as depicted on television, in the movies, in comic books, in popular music, and in video games. ... In the book's most original and telling insight, Jones suggests the problem arises from a failure to comprehend the nature of childhood play, which he believes is almost entirely metaphorical. ... At every moment, the play of children is shot through with the knowledge that they are playing. They are not powerful. They are not big."

Progressive Ed"s War on Boys by Janet Daley
Just when you thought nothing new could be added to progressive education's long catalog of failures, yet one more has come to light"and it is a particularly grave and far-reaching failure. For progressive ed, I would argue, is responsible for the epidemic of underachievement among boys in British state schools, now so deep and widespread that it is taking on the proportions of a national crisis. Where boys had once lagged behind girls only in the earlier years of primary education"and then only in English and history rather than in math or science"they now keep falling behind in both English and mathematics through the entire course of their schooling, as national test results clearly show. Where once boys could have been expected to catch up with girls academically by the age of 12, and to exceed their performance at public examinations by the age of 18, their performance now falls further and further behind with every passing year.

Experts and pundits have blamed this poor performance on everything from the influence of street culture and the media, to the lack of employment prospects for working-class boys, who once would have been absorbed into manufacturing, to the declining number of male schoolteachers who could provide role models. But the real culprit is the radical shift in teaching methods and in the content of the school curriculum that progressive education has wrought. To understand why this should be so, consider just exactly what progressive educators hoped to accomplish"and how, in the process, they explicitly rejected male virtues and values.

Progressive ed's "liberation" of the British classroom and curriculum had an unashamedly and overridingly political agenda. To the extent that British progressive theorists spoke in terms familiar to American progressivists"of raising the child's "self-esteem" and sense of self-worth"they understood these words in the context of class. Rather than encouraging working-class children to see the inadequacies of their own deprived social backgrounds and to aspire to go beyond them, schools would embrace and idealize "anti-elitism," in the name of delivering children from their feelings of class inferiority. It seemed to occur to no one that this inverted snobbery would lock deprived children into the limitations into which they had been born, opening no wider perspective or experience as an escape route out of the notorious passivity of working-class attitudes. What this meant was that state schooling was giving up on social mobility in favor of the virtue of class solidarity.

London Times, June 13, 1997.
"The poor performance of English boys in relation to girls, particularly in reading skills, is a relatively new phenomenon. ... Today, significant differences between girls and boys are still dramatically apparent in English tests at the ages of 14, 16 and 18. ... However, there is one English-speaking country that is very similar to England but where no sex differences in reading exist. That country is Scotland. is important to note there is one major difference in educational policy between the two countries [England and Scotland]. While 1960's child-centered methods of instruction have radically reshaped the teaching of reading in England, in Scotland methods have remained more traditional and phonics-based. It may be that code-based methods of reading instruction are more advantageous for boys than other methods."


You have brought in the aspect of literature into this argument, and correctly used the word 'modern'. There is a higher preference to have a woman,as a protagonist,in a story, as you say. If we take a look at the works of literature in the past ( dating back to many centuries ago), having a man as a protagonist was much preferred, women were barely involved in the stories, like Hercules et cetera. Don't you think that a shift of preference is more in accordance with justice rather than a simple 'hostility to boyishness'. It's only right to give women their identity back, to truly bring out their individuality.

Even then, it is simply not true that women, in general, have 'too many rights'. Let's take an example of the middle east, where women are not allowed to drive, they are not allowed to show too much of skin which means covering their entire body even though it may be uncomfortable. This is not the case with men in this specific region.
These 'rights' have been given only to women mostly in the west, the existence of additional rights will try to heal the scarred mind of our past and bring in a new judgement of women in general. Thus, we cannot complain than women have more rights than than they deserve, in fact they deserve more.
Debate Round No. 2


this is the last argument so i'll make it short

"Let's take an example of the middle east, where women are not allowed to drive, they are not allowed to show too much of skin which means covering their entire body even though it may be uncomfortable." i'm sorry but you're wrong, the only country that bans women from driving is Saudi Arabia. please check, how many countries are there in the middle east? as for cover MOST of the body, it's a matter of religion. "mostly in the west" no that is not true either, most countries have women only rights too. feminism used to be a movement to achieve equality between the genders. i'm okay with that. but now what do most people think when they hear the word feminist? that's right, women who thinks men are inferior. now i don't think that we should go back to suppressing women. but as i said before feminism is about bringing equality to the genders. so i think we should remove the women only laws, if there are men only laws we should remove them too.


LawInspector13 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by batgirl125 6 years ago
Women do not have "too many rights." Come on. Companies usually would prefer to hire men over women, whether it be because of bias or afraid that the women will take a maternity leave..... Besides, men had infinitely more rights than women for.... oh, I don't know, thousands of years? Women do not have too many rights, and even if they did, keep in mind women had to face thousands of years of oppression and feelings of inferiority
Posted by LawInspector13 6 years ago
Darn it, I was out of town. Oh god.
Posted by LawInspector13 6 years ago
Thus, we cannot complain that women have more rights than they deserve, in fact they deserve more.* Little typo there, sorry.
Posted by fkmfkm 6 years ago
Dude come on you have 9 hours left
Posted by 2Sense 6 years ago
"too much rights"
*too many rights*

Check your grammar before you post. Anyway...
Laws and regulations do not need to be tipped in favor for one gender or the other. That's not the problem. The problem is society's self-constructed interpretation of "gender" and what it means for a woman to be a woman and a man to be a man. This idealistic notion towards the distribution of xy chromosomes is so deeply ingrained in our society that we begin to assume that one gender is "meant" to behave in one way and not the other. It's conditioning, not reality. There probably isn't an objective truth to what it means to be male or female. More likely than not, the definition varies from culture to culture throughout the globe. Therefore, rather than trying to limit the rights of one gender, both genders should have equal opportunities across the board and be able to explore and decide for themselves what they are capable of and willing to do and not do.
Posted by kbub 6 years ago
Look, pretending that women have equal rights in the status quo is another form of sexism, though a subtle and more complex form. VOWA is important because 99% of rape is male against female. Nearly all women have received sexual advances against their will. Nearly 25% of women will be raped during their lifetimes.

I'm not going to bother citing how modern racism and sexism functions by advocating that whites and men are being discriminated against, but please trust me that it is. It covers up the actual issues that are occurring and justifies the halting of progress for minorities as well and discrimination toward the same, as well as covering up societal racism and sexism by saying: "Look! We the majority are being discriminated against, so your arguments are invalid!" Such arguments allow a culture to comfortably turn a blind eye to what is actually going on.

Furthermore, I don't think I should have to demonstrate that persons of color are discriminated against more than white persons, or that women are being oppressed more than men. If I do, then this argument is probably a waste of my time. (If you've managed to turn a blind eye to that for so long, I suspect there is no reason for you to listen now).

I honestly think you have genuinely good intentions, and truly want equality. However, I've seen what culture can do to people's beliefs. I'm sure you've seen as well as I the kind of ignorance that comes out of people's mouths. Do I think you are smart? Yes. Do I think that you are ignorant? No, not you exactly. But I believe you are a product of a culture of ignorance. Remember, Civil Rights are very new.

I am here to recommend that you rethink your stance, and educate yourself on these issues. Look for academic articles on racism and sexism. (Do not look at your favorite internet news.) Sociology, psychology, and women & gender studies are good starts. You don't have to heed my advice; who has time to do extra work anyway? But remember your respons
Posted by conservativelogic 6 years ago
If men and women are equal, then equality can be reached through equal opportunity. If you believe that discriminatory laws (in favor of women) are necessary to have equality, then you are saying that women cannot compete with men on an even playing field. A fair system rewards those with the best credentials and doesn't factor in gender or ethnicity. Arguing against equal opportunity is sexist.
Posted by kbub 6 years ago
I'm fed up with this world.
Posted by Orwell84 6 years ago
Before women were allowed in the U.S. military carrying a man off the field of battle on a cot was a two person task. In basic training only 3% of females could perform this task. To fix this problem the amount of people required for carrying a man off the field of battle was raised to that of a four person task.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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