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

To directly refute your entire first argument... "There is a strong correlation in the modern world between underdeveloped third world nations and large gaps in gender equality...." Maybe, just maybe, gender equality is a luxury of the civilized world, hmmmm? You point out that gender equality doesn't exist in third world countries. I would posit that because of their strife, gender roles are necessary for their survival, as it is more efficient. I will say that gender equality is an effect of the political and economic status and not a cause. Additionally, I'm not sure if this was your attempt to answer "what societies would you consider women to have been treated as equal?", but you certainly didn't do this... you said which have more/less.. but you didn't point to one that you would consider to be equal (it could have even been a fictional one, or one described by some feminist/scientist/whatever.. something we can reference as a structure for "equal" society) "Women were barred from higher education" -- Litchfield Female Academy "Further, separate is NOT equal." Never said it was equal, as that's not what i'm arguing for... just saying that women were allowed to be educated as well.. even if the education they are given is different then the men. Again, it was more of a class issue than a gender one. Rebut a) In talking about the SATs, "While females represent more than half (53.5%) of test takers, their total average score (1496) is 27 points below the average score for males (1523). " [1] There are "1.3 females for every male undergraduate" [2] Why are there more women in college then men if men score 27 points higher than women on SATs. They must be getting some advantage from somewhere to equal out the inequality in SAT scores. Rebut b) Keynesian unemployment is what we're dealing with (more workers than jobs) "not just the women." I don't think I argued to get rid of all the women.. I argued that gender shouldn't be a criteria at all for employment. Rebut c) "Hence public education?" Public education is to indoctrinate, not educate. We want people to be able to think good enough to do their job, and nothing more.. it's simple politics. The only reason I brought up children/prisoners voting was because I was discrediting the fact that just because it's XX% of the population, doesn't mean they should have the right to vote... you never gave me a reason for it, outside of they are half the population. Men aren't half the population, should we lose the right to vote? "maternal death rates", "It proves my point" - You didn't have a point, so until you define that... I got nothing My old Arguments: 1. "Being smarter can be equally or more valuable." Are you saying women are smarter? If they are equally smart, and men are stronger, then we are the dominant group 2. "menstrual cycle" - PMS.. look it up 3. "menstruation" yes, it would be unsightly to bleed in public all the time... try going without feminine hygiene products through your cycle and see how well you do in public. "I would like to know...1940s and 1950s wives thought" - I've talked to my grandmother/great-aunts? That's a small sample size, but it's what I know "what motivated women to work" - there were no men because they were off at war... they were pretty much FORCED to work. That's common knowledge, anything I source wouldn't talk about their mindset in a way that mattered "those who enjoy care giving (I meant for one's own family) may ALSO enjoy a professional pursuit" - my point is they are mutually exclusive.. you can't obey two masters Your argument for Present Structure: "the subordinate status assigned to them" -Different role doesn't mean subordinate... they can have a separate gender role that isn't a subordinate one "meant to" - they are "meant to" in the sense that it is what would be best for society as a whole.. For children to have mothers to care for them. This is what we're talking about: "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" I disagree, because of the current structure, I think we're moving towards a system where both parents are forced to work to maintain a middle class lifestyle. In '77, 66% were dual income, now its 79%. [3] True, there are people in the upper class who can continue on a single-income family; most families: in order to buy a house, save for retirement, put their kids through college simply cannot do so on a single income. I think this is a DIRECT result of women in the workforce. As women in the workforce becomes the norm, defended by their desire to be equal, it is forcing other women, who would rather raise their kids, to enter the workforce on the dream of keeping their house or putting their kids through college. Society is as society allows itself to be. If we as a society simply adhered to single-income households, society would inherently structure itself to allow single-income families to live comfortably. The problem shows itself here- if everyone was living as single-income families; the majority would be middle-class and be able to "make a living". However, families who broke that standard and lived in a dual-income household would gain an economic advantage (which obviously would bring other perks)... however as more and more families jump on board of the dual-income households, it looses it advantage (price of housing/school/etc increases because people can pay more)...in fact, in order to maintain the same standard of living... everyone would have to become dual-income households... and still everyone lives in more or less the same quality of life that they did if everyone was single-income. All things become equal again. So, assuming that is true (an increase in employment doesn't directly correlate to an increase in production)... with all things being equal (as I've tried to explain)... do I need to argue that single-income is better? I don't think I should have to, but if so.. I will argue that in R4. Additionally, this does not argue for whether the single-income member is the mother or father... I would much rather appreciate an agreement that single-income is better than dual-income. Other info on the present: I think we are living in a paradoxical age. We are trying to allow everyone opportunity (you get to work) without submitting them to responsibility (taking care of your family). The conclusions of this will most likely diverge. These two ideas must be properly balanced. Either, opportunities must be restricted, or responsibilities must be alleviated. I'm not sure in which way we will go. Just as the backlash (in a positive way, I think) from our parents divorces have led us to delay marriage, future generations growing up without a parent at home, being raised by day care, nanny's and schools will have a backlash. In what direction it will go, I'm not sure. We could conclude that parents should raise their own kids, and alleviate their economic responsibilities, or we could conclude that the state should take responsibility for the kids and allow everyone to pursue their dreams. (The US seems to be leaning towards the state taking responsibility, which I currently oppose without many other changes being made) Also, [4] talks aout how single-income is better because it allows a safety net of that second person. Not really something I was going to argue for, but I agree with it. [1] http://www.usatoday.com... [2] http://www.nber.org... [3] http://www.bankrate.com... [4] http://www.billshrink.com...