As long as the United States is a patriarchal society, women will not be truly equal

And thank you, Dear Opponent, for your HIStory lesson haha. To Answer Your Quandaries: -"Inequalities in one sphere are likely to get reproduced in other spheres of society if they go unchallenged. Today's inequalities are translated into the inequalities of tomorrow as daughters inherit the same discriminatory structures that oppressed their mothers" --Naila Kabeer (2005): Gender equality and women's empowerment: A critical analysis of the third millennium development goal 1, Gender & Development, 13:1, 13-24 There is a strong correlation in the modern world between underdeveloped third world nations and large gaps in gender equality. Much of the developed Western world-- the US, Europe, Australia-- maintains some of the highest standards of gender equality alongside high GDPs and standards of living. Meanwhile, much of Africa, the Middle East and South Asia engage in societies where gender equality is non-existent. Women have few rights compared to men. Additionally, in these societies, GDP and per capita income are very low, life expectancy is low, children per woman is high, education is scarce, so on and so forth. These are all commonly agreed to be measures of quality of life. In places where women are 2nd class citizens, quality of life for everyone is lower. Now, I cannot say which causes the other to improve. However, the correlation is undeniable. Education-- I'm surprised you aren't familiar with this slice of history. Women were barred from higher education well into the 1800s in the US (much longer elsewhere in the world). Further, separate is NOT equal. We proved that with race and the same applies to gender. And the separate schools you are likely thinking of did not teach the same things. They were "finishing schools." You are welcome to read more about this on your own: http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://www.nwhm.org.... a) If a man loses his job, scholarship, etc. to a woman, that means she was a better candidate. If men wish to blame women rather than their own shortcomings, and mope instead of improve themselves in order to be more qualified in the future, that is their choice to self-perpetuate the problem they face. It is simple competition. b) As any simple economics class will proclaim, unemployment is rarely if ever a problem so simple as too many people in the work force. Further, even from that point of view (which is oversimplified to the point of being incorrect), it make sense to get rid of the less competent and/or efficient workers, not just the women. This argument is thus invalid. c) If half the population is uneducated, then yes, we will be stupid. But you must realize that we DO strive (or at least some of us do) to create an educated populous. Hence public education? Please refer to my previous paragraph and the subsequent links for further information. Having children and/or prisoners vote is, while interesting, an entirely different debate. I will say this though: prisoners violated the legal codes of the land and thus must take their punishment. If voting means that much to you, don't break the law! Also, children are not responsible for themselves. They cannot earn money, they do not pay taxes, they are not even legally liable for themselves (there is a smaller group of 16 and 17 year old to whom this may not apply, but that is 1/9 of all children-- a definite minority!!) As for maternal death rates during or caused by childbirth, I direct you to good old Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Please read the section on the 20th Century and if you wish, follow the link about puerperal fever. It proves my point. 40% is supremely high. Even skydiving is safer. Your Arguments: 1. I concede that women are, on average, physically weaker. However, speaking Darwinianly, it is not always about being stronger. Being smarter can be equally or more valuable. And here, there is no gender difference. 2. I would like to see some valid source(s) on how/why having a menstrual cycle makes women biologically and emotionally vulnerable (separate and apart from physical strength of course, as that is addressed and concede in #1). 3. There is nothing "dirty" about menstruation. Again, if you have legitimate (ie: recent.. not from 1700) sources to say otherwise, I'd love to see them. But this is a commonly debunked old myth that men and women both laugh about now a days. Please look into it. Further, I would like to know how you know what 1940s and 1950s wives thought/felt about their position in life. Again, how exactly do you know what motivated women to work (selfish vs. societal motivations)? Sources please. I concede that SOME women enjoy being full time caregivers. Some women enjoy it part time. Some do not enjoy it at all. And even those who enjoy caregiving may ALSO enjoy a professional pursuit. There is nothing improbable about that. In fact, think of nursing, teaching, etc. Those actually go hand in hand. Others such as law, business, etc. complement caregiving in a way that offers balance to one's life. But no, we're not lions. Men don't get a group of ladies to bang and do their hunting.. except in Utah lol My Arguments for Present Structure: -"Where women's role in society is defined purely in reproductive terms, education is seen in terms of equipping girls to be better wives and mothers, or increasing their chances of getting a suitable husband. These are legitimate aspirations, given the realities of the society. However, they do little to equip girls and women to question the world around them, and the subordinate status assigned to them" --Naila Kabeer (2005): Gender equality and women's empowerment: A critical analysis of the third millennium development goal 1, Gender & Development, 13:1, 13-24 This really nails down what I am trying to say. Beyond that, it seems that you are proposing that men are "meant" to work while women are "meant" to exist in the domestic sphere. However, I have seen NO outside source for that yet. I will argue quite differently. Though women undeniably bare children and are traditionally smaller in stature, this does not preclude them from further utility in society. Many modern jobs (particularly those that earn the most money and/or respect-- banking, business, law, medicine, professorship) are equally well suited for men and women. It more more a question of PERSONAL skills, talents, etc. Additionally, just because men are hairier, larger and stronger, this does not preclude them from successfully raising children, keeping up a house, cooking, etc. In fact, many men have succeeded in these realms. Not to mention that a strong, present male influence in the life of a child can be endlessly positive. I don't just mean a dad who sticks around (as opposed to leaving), but a dad who takes ownership of his role in his child's life. Presently, I think we are moving towards a system by which both men and women have the capacity to work and earn money OR stay home and raise children OR find a balance of both (which is arguably best regardless of gender). I fully support this type of system and I see no valid reason why gender roles ought to REgress back to the standards of the past. Every family is different. Some require only 1 income while others truly need 2 (depends on part of the country, profession + pay grade of each parent, # of kids, lifestyle, etc.). I am not actually saying that there is ONE perfect mold for how to run a family, but rather that flexibility, particularly when it comes to gender roles, allows for the greatest number of options such that each family may find its happy balance :-) That concludes my thoughts on present structure, and I look forward to hearing yours and moving on to Round 4! Thank you Good Sir and good luck.