Women belong in the kitchen

Since my opponent failed to make the BoP and definitions, I shall. Being: (of a thing) be rightly placed in a specified position. Pro: That women belong in a kitchen and nowhere else. By definition, this means that the only right place for a woman to be is in the kitchen and it is wrong for her to be anywhere else. Con: That women do not belong only in a kitchen. I will start my arguments and refute in the second round. ==Argument I: What we would miss==Women are a very important part of the world. If we confined them only to a kitchen, there are multiple contributions we would miss that would make the world a much worse place. For example, had Rosa Parks been confined to the kitchen, she would've never made a significant contribution to breaking the color barrier. Aside from playing a major contribution in breaking the color barrier, women have made contributions to science as well. For example, many women have researched cells and have led us to better understand them and the basic building blocks of life [1]. Women have also discovered diseases and developed cures. Needless to say, this plays a contribution that could not have happened if a women was solely confined to a kitchen. Last, this would play a bad role on the annual income of the family. The average full-time man makes about $49,398 in America [2]. The average woman makes less, but still at a respectable $37,791 per year. Now, say the man works half-time and the woman works half-time, so one can stay at home in the morning and the other can stay at home in the afternoon. Together, they earn about $43,000 a year, respectively. But if the woman did not work and only stayed in the kitchen, the man would have to either work full-time or get a worsened cash flow. Thus, it is more beneficial (to her family) for a woman to not be fully confined to a kitchen and help the male work. Thus, if we took the path pro is suggesting:-The color barrier would not be broken/taken longer to break-Scientific contributions would be not as common-Cash flow would decrease. ==Argument II: The effect on America==I'm taking this way to seriously, but here we go. Continuing on from my other arguments, if women were only in the kitchen and not actually working, jobs in America and around the world would decrease dramatically. Women actually have more jobs than men [3]. That means if women were to stop working and only make men sandwiches in the kitchen, there would be a job shortage which would have a bad effect on the U. S economy and force less qualified men to get jobs. Then, we would have multiple equal-rights groups protesting if women were found to only rightfully be placed in the kitchen. These groups would be constant due to the big shockwave of your idea. This puts strain on the government and men. Strain is not something we need right now with all of the problems the government has. Third, this idea isn't exactly a cakewalk for men, either. If women are cut from their household duties and are only assigned to cook, then men would have to take up the woman's normal chores. After work, you would have to pick up groceries, sweep the house, do the laundry, pay taxes, etc. If your idea is not proposed, then this will not happen and an equality will remain in the house. And also, what if your wife's cooking REALLY sucks? So technically, if women really only belonged in a kitchen:-Jobs would significantly decrease-Economy would take major, possibly unrepairable, blow-Would spawn multiple equal-rights group-Put a strain on the government-Would make a man's life harder-Would REALLY suck if you hate your wife's cookingSince this is a debate with three rounds of arguments, I will wrap my arguments up here so my opponent can refute it all. I wish my opponent luck, and hand the debate over to him! [1] . http://www.britannica.com...[2] . http://www.catalyst.org...