Women should not be allowed to vote or have authority

As you can see, most of Pro's assertions are not facts, hence why he offers no evidence confirming his problematic accusations. On the other hand, it is easy to dispute his claims. For instance, he opens the round by claiming men "think in straight lines while women think in circles. " I assume the trasnslation of this argument is that men are rational while women are not. Rationality describes using reason and intellect to weigh options on the path toward achieving a stated goal. When emotions and desires cloud an individual's ability to think logically, that individual can be understood as acting irrationally. This can include emotions such as jealousy and anger. Of course, men are known as being more prone to jealousy, anger and violence than women [1]. They're also more inclined to infidelity which is certainly not often rational or conducive to protecting the nuclear family as Pro suggests is of paramount importance. While it's true that, on balance, women are better at recognizing and dealing with emotions, there is an inherent value in that ability. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum has written about emotions as a form of intelligent thought: evaluations of the status of one's current life in light of one's goals. In this perspective, emotions actually guide rational thinking. They are used as tools of measurement to assess a certain situation. Positive emotions show us that things are working well, and negative emotions show us that something is wrong. This kind of information is crucial to critical thinking thus an incredibly valuable asset to women [2]. Women are also known to be better at communicating than men, thus their emotional intuition should be recognized for its utility [3]. Further, let's consider a scenario in which a man and woman were both up for a particular role. In situations where the woman was clearly more competent and qualified, to dismiss her candidacy on the basis of her sex would be a futile endeavor. It would be deliberately selecting the inferior individual which could inhibit and stifle the success of the overall goal. This is completely irrational in itself. Pro offers us no reason to assume that women are "fickle," however, being open-minded and willing to comprimise is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it is probably a virtue in terms of governance. I also posit the notion that feminists are "filled with fury and intolerance" as an unsubstantiated assertion. Feminism aims to obtain equal rights and value for women in society; any so-called fury or intolerance is only in response to perceived inequality and oppression. Pro hasn't provided any examples of women using their authority to punish men. Pro suggests that there is a government conspiracy to help women be independent of men in order to destroy nuclear families. First, let's acknowledge that the government (I assume we're talking about the U. S. ) is comprised primarily of white males [4]. This means that "angry feminists" aren't only to blame for government policy. Indeed, men vote, so their considerations are taken into account and laws protecting single mothers stem from the views of society as a whole. Both men and women acknowledge that women, particularly mothers, deserve certain protections under the law. This includes receiving monetary support for child care. There is nothing about this notion that suggests women shouldn't be allowed to vote/hold power, considering these ideals are already in place despite a male-dominated political sphere of influence. The same logic applies to the abortion issue. Pro writes, "When men were in charge of the family, society was much better. " I'll assume for all intents and purposes that he's talking about society before the 1960s (when abortion was legalized and certain laws became more liberal). First, was society really better off prior to 1960? At that time, America embraced blatant racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and other oppressive ideals. It was considered legal and morally permissible to rape your wife or beat your children. If a girl was raised in a family where her father was abusive, psychologists note that the girl would typically grow up and marry a man who was also abusive. However women have learned over the past several decades that any kind of abuse, including verbal, emotional, financial and physical should not be tolerated. Women now having the social and legal support to terminate relationships that are unhealthy for them and their children should be considered beneficial for society, and our evolution to dismantle authority imposed by aggression. Regardless, women having more independence in society and the repercussions thereof (for which you could argue both positive and negative, depending on the perspective) do not support the idea that women should not vote or hold office. Keep in mind that just because you are a woman does not mean you will necessarily hold a particular point of view. For instance, while a voting bloc for women is arguably apparent, it can grow or shrink depending on a host of factors: race, age, marital status, even geography. Grouping all women together and thinking they will vote a certain way (progressive or Democratic) is wrong. They are not a unified voting bloc [5]. --- Now that we can see Pro has thus far failed to meet his burden in verifying the resolution, I will make just a few key arguments outlining why women should be allowed to vote and hold authority. In commerce, a report on global businesses called "Women Matter" by McKinsey and Company suggests that the firms where women are most strongly represented at board or top management levels are also the companies that perform best in terms of growth and earnings [6]. In politics, we know that women politicians tend to be among the most productive and persuasive ones in the country. The American Journal of Political Science shows women do a better job at securing money for their home districts and shaping policy. They sponsored more bills and attracted more co-sponsors than their male counterparts. The female politicians' bills also made it further through the legislative process and got more media attention. The authors say this is because women do a better job at "logrolling, agenda-setting, coalition building and other deal-making activities" [7]. Former president of Ireland, Mary Robinson notes "Women are actually more inclined towards that more modern leadership, which is collaborative problem-solving, enabling, consultative, not just trying to assert a kind of hierarchical power. " Robinson is living proof that this feminine style of leadership can be both effective and popular. Halfway through her term as president, she had an unprecedented approval rating of 93% [8]. Here in the U. S. , the majority acknowledge that women are competent enough to vote and hold office given our increasing attainment of higher-education and other social prestige [9]. Women see the world from a different vantage point than men and often seek to tackle different issues. When they are part of the decision-making process, a greater diversity of voices and perspectives are heard. This is beneficial to everyone. [1] . http://www.psychohistory.com...[2] . http://www.psychologytoday.com...[3] . http://cltampa.com...[4] . http://www.diversityjournal.com...[5] . http://www.theatlantic.com...[6] . http://www.mckinsey.com...[7] . http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com...[8] . http://bigthink.com...[9] . http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...