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

By equality, I mean both #2 and #3 of the ways you listed-- equality under law such that women's equality is protected and assured as well as societal equality, which is not legislative but rather ideological. Yes, we shall exclude those who do not fit into the binary gender system (ie: hermaphrodites, transvestites, etc.). By Life of Brian debate, you mean the male desire to personally bare children? Sure, its out. Physical differences may be used, but you MUST cite your sources. I don't think it needs clarity, but I will say it now rather than later-- sources must be credible. Wikipedia is fine, as are other fact-based sites and peer-reviewed pieces. But please, no junk science or rambling bloggers. Shall we begin? -PAST- First and foremost, society should indeed strive for equality, regardless of how possible or impossible it may be. This belief is fundamental. By nature, there are differences between all of us-- color, size, intellect, talents, etc. And by nature, some want only power while others want something more-- community, efficiency, progress, etc. Specifically with regard to gender, it is in the best interest of society to protect and uphold the equality of the sexes. Why? When women are treated as equals, afforded the same rights as men and allowed/encouraged to be productive members of their society, society as a whole does better. More progress is made on the macro level and people are more empowered on the micro level. The world we leave to our children is a more promising one than the one our parents leave to us. Overall, the system works better under equality. In the past, we (ie: society) have tried operating under a system whereby women are not equal to their male counterparts. This ranged from the inability of women to own land to women being barred from education (particularly higher education). Less than 100 years ago, women could not vote in the US. Even after that, women had to fight to break into formerly male-dominated fields such as medicine, law, science, and the military. And even now, women have to fight just to earn the power over their own bodies-- the choice to plan their futures and their families. While this is only the briefest of overviews of the history of women's rights, it also touches on several valuable issues. First, I am interested to hear your justification for any and all of these inequalities and even more interested as to why/how it would be beneficial to reinstate them. Second, I can offer valid evidence supporting the validity of each of these steps forward. Owning Land: this marks one of the first sizable steps forward for women's rights. Going back several hundred years, land ownership is, and has traditionally, been a big deal. Owning land means freedom from the debt of a landlord. It represents the ability to live off of the land as well-- to raise livestock and/or crops and potentially sell said crops/animals for profit. Land can easily be passed down through families as a way of maintaining these benefits from generation to generation. All of these being said, disallowing women from owning land seriously undermined these benefits. Widows, daughters, mothers-- all were at the mercy of the ranking man in their family. Land was often lost within a family because women were not allowed to inherit it. Not only would this devalue all of the work put into obtaining that land, but also leaves a less certain future for younger generations. The is no reason why a female cannot take ownership of land, live on that land and use it as a livelihood. As I see it, this was a big first step. It meant independence. Access to Education: Even after women were generally allowed to own land, there were countless other barriers to equality. Among them was the reluctance of society to educate women. Now, as a side note, I would like to point out that refusal to educate certain populations is, across cultures and across eras, a favorite tactic of the subjugating population. It was practiced with slaves, Blacks, immigrants, women, etc. It is a well-established way to keep the less fortunate down. And it is wrong. Women deserve the same educational opportunities that men have. Though there are patterns of strength areas for each gender, general intelligence does not differ significantly between men and women. Thus, the argument that women are not as smart and thus less deserving of education is void. Further, with their educations, women contribute just as fruitfully as men do to society. Women have risen to prominence in science, politics, medicine, law, education and many more fields. This is not to say that men do not likewise contribute, for they certainly do. My point however is that women have an equal capacity to make use of their intelligence, education and training. And given that fact, it can only be detrimental to society to prevent such achievements. Conversely, the added contributions of women only serve to better society. It is important to note that educating women a) has not detracted from the education of men, b) serves as a positive and sustainable economic stimulus (I'll be happy to expand upon this if need be), and c) increases the intelligence of your average member of society. Educated women are more likely to make more money, they tend to plan their families and keep them to more reasonable sizes, they live longer and healthier lives and leave a stronger, more positive legacy. If you would like to read more about this, I direct you to the UN's plethora of resources on the topic: http://www.un.org... Voting and Politics: Having established that women are a) intelligent enough to be educated along side men and b) are thrifty enough to contribute significantly to society, it stands to reason that women ought also have equal say in that society. Disclaimer: this is NOT a discussion of the best way to run society, it is an examination of how to function under the society in which we currently live and/or in prominent societies of the past. Ie: I do not want this to delve into anarchist/statist discussion. That is for another time. Thus, disenfranchising women, not unlike refusing to educate them, is an effect way to keep their voices suppressed, but neither fair nor advisable in the framework striving towards the best society possible. Given that women represent HALF of the population, their opinions, proposals and needs have just as much validity as men's. I would love to hear any worthy rebuttal to this. Healthcare and Family: I suspect that a keystone of your argument against the equal treatment and protection of women is their biological role and the evident difference between men and women in that regard. I fully plan to explore that in the coming round. For now though, I wish to focus on the societal end of health and well-being of women as it relates to familial roles and expectations. As you may or may not know, up until the mid to late 1800s, (particularly after the "revolutionary" findings of Ignaz Semmelweis) the most common causes of death among young women were related to childbirth. In fact, many young women entered childbirth expecting not to see the other side. Advances in medicine and microbiology have since changed that fact drastically, but there are of course still risks. That being said, it is within reason that women would want to and ought to have the right to plan their families. The burden of gestating a child, birthing a child and then spending the next 2 decades raising said child is a serious one indeed. The choice is not a light one, and as you probably know, many women are left to do it alone. Thus, it is also within the realm of fairness that women ought have the right to control her own body and her own life. Any stance against this is simply bigoted. As I am about to run out of characters, this thus closes my Round 2.