Female should be treated equal to their male counterparts

Yes, Men and women are different biologically, And physically, But I am making the argument that men ad women should be treated the same, Not that that they are the same. I've already acknowledged that your argument is normative--that is, Being treated the same ought to be the case. However, It is a concept that has utility only in its mere statement. We are not the same; therefore, We do not treat each other the same. This isn't necessarily bad as being treated differently is not the same as being treated unfairly. The argument about reproduction is actually a decent one. The only thing is the world we live in today, We have absolutely no trouble reproducing. The argument isn't focused on the trouble of reproducing; it's focused on the scarcity of reproductive contribution. Once a male inseminates and fertilizes a female, his job is done. It therefore was more practical to risk males in politics and combat. If you risked women in politics and combat, You'd be risking not only half of your population, But the future of that population were they to be with child. If we lived in a time where humans were at danger of going extinct, I could see your argument being valid, But we don't. Therefore your argument holds not water. While true that advanced technology has facilitated population growth, Higher life expectancy, And reduction in the risk of entering the labor force, The risk, However diminished it may be, Is still primarily associated with females. Should advance technology allow for the gestation of a fetus without its mother, The culture of risking women may become more prevalent. But until then, I don't see this imperative going away. The fact that you stare at women and see differences is your problem. Not theirs. It's not a problem at all. It just is. The fact that Jill has breasts and hips doesn't mean Jack should treat her as a sexual object. What else would it mean? Breasts are used to nourish a baby once it's born. Hips are an indication of woman's fertility and use in bearing children. Human beings are sexual. Typically, Jill is the object of Jack's attraction, And Jack is the object of Jill's attraction. The difference is that Jill's body plays a larger role in reproduction. This role makes her body into a composite of sexual parts. This is however not to be confused with object-sexuality. Jack is not treating Jill as some inanimate object by lusting for her--far from it. If anything, Males tend to liken inanimate objects to females, Not the other way around (e. G. Cars. ) This is an extremely bad analogy. Children have brains that are not developed. They are easily controlled and need to be protected. This is not true for women. Actually it's not. I've given you the most compelling reason women need to be protected. Furthermore, There have been studies conducted resulting in finding similar psychological profiles, Particularly as it relates to fear, Anxiety, And embarrassment, Between women and children. I can cite these source upon request or in the comments section. And if development differences in the brain are the standard by which we determine differences among human beings, Then it suffices to state that there are differences in how the male and female brains have developed particularly in the top and mid regions of the brain, Respectively. Females have more activity in the mid region, Which tends toward emotion, And males have more activity in the top region, Which tends toward reason. You stated that women were indeed allowed to vote before 1920. This is, In fact, True. However, The placces where women were allowed to vote were very, Very few. In fact the only states being Wyoming, Colorado, And Utah. That isn't true. Women were allowed to vote in California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Etc. There were few states in the West which didn't allow women to vote. Whether the standards were lowered for women to be able to fight in ground combat or not, Women should still be able to have the same opportunities in the military as men do. The standards were in fact lowered. Women having the same opportunities as men in the military is contingent on the military's goals. I'm not denying some women can just as there are some men who can't. If the military believes that it has an advantage by inducting more men than women into the service, Then that is its prerogative. I stated that marital rape was not officialy made illegal until 1993. Do y realize that while sex was a right to each person in a marriage, The number of women who forced their husbands to have sex is more than likely very, Very few. Did I presume incorrectly that your statement was submitted in context to this debate's subject? That is, It would serve as an example of how women weren't treated equally? It may very well be the case that women had it worse, But you stated that it disgusted you that marital rape remained legal until 1993. As far as I know, It was legal equally to both men and women. And we can dispense with any discussion on the effects of rape. I have no intention of arguing against them. My intention is only to argue of that the disparate incidents of marital rape between the sexes has no bearing on the legal scope on former conjugal rights. You claim that 1 in 52 women will be raped in their lifetime will be raped instead of 1 in 5 because of a biased college survey. It's not a claim. It's hard to be misled by publications like the HP and DB since I don't read them. I can offer my citations in the comments section. Regardless of what you call it, Sharia Law endangers and belittles women Exploring Sharia Law requires more focus than I have characters. Another time. However, One fact remains. When women who have worked full-time year around re compared to men in the same exact scenario, Women make around 80 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Everybody has their own opinion about the wage gap but the facts remain. The gender wage gap favors men by approximately 20%. End of story. I went to university for Mathematics and Economics. I've studied the relevant material. Yes there is a gap, But it can controlled for when one takes education, Hours, Time flexibility, Parenthood, Preferences, Etc. Into consideration. Chauvinistic discrimination has yet to be discovered. We are entitled to equality and non-discrimination. No, We're not. We discriminate all the time. It may just be that you don't like the reasons others discriminate.