Pro-Female Affirmative Action

Sorry for the bad organization. Could you possible tell me the appropriate response time to post a response? I fear I delayed it too long. Questions: Why should female affirmative action be practiced? (Did you refer to "card faced down" as setting your case later?) Responses: "I deny it. My opponent claims that society is male-dominant. As men are the ones who typically have salary-paying jobs, this is, in a way, true. However, how does it favor males? Is there any incident in which a woman is not promoted while a man who deserves the promotion less receives it? Does such a situation exist? On what basis does this favor males?" Well, bringing the idea of a promotion shifts the focus of affirmative action to the individual. I would say the the stereotype, implied from the sheer number of males in salary-paying jobs, may deter females in both the individual and systematic sense. 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. There are exceptions, but these cases are analogous to "few women promoted". "There's always the option of equality. Could you please explain how this system is male-dominant, and why that means that women are being disadvantaged?" Overlooking stereotypes tend to be a positive feedback system. Bit like a circular rock constantly changing position on two sides of a hill- the rock when on ones side, tends to fall towards that side. 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. The current situation is disavantagious for the females in terms of stereotipical inhibition. I'll also discuss the notion on how this gives females less social power in my arguments. Arguments: "Pardon me, I'm not quite sure of the format I should take, so I'll just support my position by responding to your arguments." "The only real reason that there is a difference in the wages of men and women today is because of the traditional family style. The woman usually stays at home, perhaps with children, while the man works." The traditional family system is paternal, a characteristic observed from the agricultural revolution. The man supports the family money or food-wise, while the wife takes care of childern and home, analoguos to your decription of the traditional family. "However, this does not warrant a claim that women are disadvantage." Well, this does limit the power of the women in social sense. Prior to the paternal family system, there was the nomadic family system. In this system women played an important role in food gathering/ supporting the family since gathering systems outputted little food. Therefore, women had voice in society obvously because they held an important role. They could also get together, establishing a sense of group for the women, another natural human behavior. However, in the agricultural family system, women were restricted more to their homes in comparison to the nomadic system. (Very true in Democratic Greek Societies; women could not voice their opinion on their right to vote together because they were restricted to their homes.) Their primary function became domestic roles, birthing childern, taking care of house etc... But this is long term investment (i.e. children). The importance were not immediately observed as with the food/money, possibly leading to the placement of importance on male roles. (You need to live, to see the long term investments) In the modern age, the situation has been ameliorated considerably, partially because of activists, but this took a long time. 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 is disadvantaged. Women gained new household powers such as child rearing, etc, but it serverly restricted their social power as shown above. "For one thing, a study revealed that single men made less than single women." And your inference is that this concludes to equal "promotion", therefore no need for pro-female affirmative action. If so, I would disagree. The higher pay can be a result of simple filtering. If the woman was not outstandingly good, she probably was 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. The assumption, if you made one, is lacks serious consideration of other cases. Suggestion from data is fine, but important facts such as "There are less women than men in the salary-field" needs to be taken into account. "For another, women usually only have a part-time job because they usually assume the role of housekeeper, so they can't make as much money as a man or woman who doesn't." This actually supports, "the higher pay can be a result of simple filtering". So there are less women in full-paying or more-paying jobs. "Finally, between a husband and wife, it doesn't matter who makes the money. They both spend it equally. In fact, the wife usually makes about 80% of the purchases between the two of them." Yes. 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. The spending of the money or earning the money is definitely important in the sense of power. Men gets imcreased importance simply because they earn money. Also, why is who spending money considered when the woman is in restriction of the home, lacking social influence and power? Thank you for such a good debate. If there are any unclear parts feel free to question.