Pro-Female Affirmative Action

"Could you possible tell me the appropriate response time to post a response? I fear I delayed it too long." Just respond whenever you can. If it takes a while, then it takes a while. As long as you get it in before time is up, it's good. "Did you refer to 'card faced down' as setting your case later?)" No, it's my preparation for a counter-argument. "I would say the ... stereotype, implied from the sheer number of males in salary-paying jobs, may deter females in both the individual and systematic sense." This implication is incorrect. Many people cite unbalanced gender ratios in jobs as an obvious sign of stereotyping. However, this is only caused by traditional family roles, which women can easily choose to avoid. How does this deter women? The stereotype is false. A woman is just as likely to be hired as a man, assuming that they have equal qualifications. The thing is, fewer women apply for jobs, and they take maternity leaves more often, so they aren't in the quickly visible workforce. "In relation to the stereotype, many African Americans during times of slavery did not dream of becoming a famous orator or writer partially because of social prejudice result of stereotypes, external and internal - It prevents one by self-inhibition and external prevention." Again, you assume that such a stereotype exists. It does not. "There are exceptions, but these cases are analogous to 'few women promoted'." It is also analogous to "fewer women try." "In order to prevent the stereotype from persisting or getting worse, pro affirmative action, pushing the rock up the hill towards the top middle, must be done." Wait, to stop a rock from rolling over on one side of a hill, you push it off the other side? To get the rock on the top of the hill is simple. Apply equality. The rock may seem to move slower, but, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "Delay is preferable to error." A steady application of equality will be better than rushing a bunch of Pro-Female policies, which would send the rock off the other side. It should be Pro-Equality. "The current situation is disadvantageous for the females in terms of stereotypical inhibition." Again, there is no stereotype. "Well, this does limit the power of the women in social sense." The women choose to stay at home while the man works. "However, in the agricultural family system, women were restricted more to their homes in comparison to the nomadic system...." You imply that women are restricted to their homes, like in the times of the Greeks. This is false. There is currently no law that favors any gender. Women are allowed to roam wherever they please. They just choose to stay at home more often than men. Women frequently attend presidential speeches, campaigns, and Tea Parties. "As you stated, women are still expected to perform the role of a traditional paternal family in a general sense. Because the paternal family system restricted women's social power and function in society, women [are] disadvantaged." Wait, so because women choose to "disadvantage" themselves, we should fix that? They should just stop making a "disadvantageous" choice. "Women gained new household powers such as child rearing, etc, but it serverly[sic] restricted their social power as shown above." They chose to restrict their own social power. Women frequently go against their "expected" role, which is expected. "If the woman was not outstandingly good, she probably was deterred." Why would she be deterred? "Or, few, but perhaps many in this limited scope of few high-pay women, are not married for the sake of proving paternal family systems wrong." They could easily have a maternal family system. There are some stay-at-home dads. However, this still shows that when marriage is not applied, women make more than men, so Pro-Female Affirmative Action would not make sense, as women are making more, and there is obviously no stereotype going against them. "The assumption, if you made one, is lacks serious consideration of other cases." According to Thomas Sowell's data, single women make more than single men. The most obvious cause is a lack of stereotyping. "Suggestion from data is fine, but important facts such as 'There are [fewer] women than men in the salary-field' needs to be taken into account." Again, this imbalance is caused by paternal family systems, not stereotypes. "This actually supports, 'the higher pay can be a result of simple filtering'. So there are [fewer] women in full-paying or more-paying jobs." No, it doesn't. The women who don't get married make more than those who do. Are you saying that women who have the ability to make more money don't get married as often? "Perhaps even women in the agricultural paternal family system made more 'food' or household 'items' out of raw resources or money the men brought home." We aren't talking about work right here. We're talking about general spending. "Men gets[sic] imcreased[sic] importance simply because they earn money." Women can also make money, if they choose to. However, they don't choose to tackle high-paying jobs as often as men. "Also, why is who spending money considered when the woman is in restriction of the home, lacking social influence and power?" This implies that the woman is required by law to stay at home, which is false. A woman can easily have social influence and power by going about and doing what she wants. Now, to provide some examples: Situation A: A man and a woman are applying for a job. They both have equal qualifications. They are both single. They would both do equally well in the job they are applying for. So, should the employer: A) Hire the man? B) Hire the woman? C) Try to find more specific details that could put one of them above the other. I'm thinking that the answer is (C), because it promotes equality. Situation B: A single man is competing with a married woman for a job. They both have equal qualifications, except the woman has kids, and therefore has more restricted hours than the man. So, should the employer: A) Hire the man? B) Hire the woman? I'd go with (A), because the man has more qualifications, and would bring more profit to the employer. I'd like my opponent to choose his own answers for the above two questions. In conclusion, a stereotype against women does not exist. Women can make just as much money as men, but they choose not to, for family reasons. My opponent still cannot list a situation in which Pro-Female Affirmative Action is necessary, or even applicable. Therefore, Pro-Female Affirmative Action does no real good, and should be abolished.