frh2b

Note: There was one paragraph of your original argument I missed but I believe are addressed, directly or indirectly, in the following. This paragraph is the one near the end about strength. I will also reiterate, in regards to the last paragraph of your original argument, I did note a male dominated society need not be authoritarian.

“I would say its legit.” — I did not say I disputed whether or not the quote is “legit”. I only said I did not know from where it came and then pointed out I was referring to something slightly different.

“If a man is denied by a woman, it doesn't mean that he will never have kids!” — I never said otherwise.

“No woman can decide who will and who will not reproduce.” — She can decide, however, who will reproduce with her, which most certainly influences society in the way I describe, rape excluded.

“Also you base your argument on the fact that women are more selective and cautious towards sexual intercourse. That is true but when it comes to reproduction in real world, that doesn't hold much importance, i'll explain how.” — “You base your argument on the fact … that is true but when it comes to reproduction in [the] real world, that doesn’t hold much importance”: So, facts do not hold much importance in the real world?

“Majority of the kids are conceived after marriage. women who conceive before marriage usually say that it was a mistake,so, i will not include that because in this case it wasn't her decision to have the baby.” — Since the trend in, for example, the United States has been towards more and more non-marital births, ignoring such births risks selection bias. Cf., http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.pdf. Sticking with the United States, when we factor in 99.1% of women age 15-44 who have ever had sex have used any contraceptive method, the claim “women who conceive before marriage usually say that it was a mistake” rings quite hollow. Cf., http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf, table 1.

“Now, in my experience, everyone who wants to get married, eventually does get married.” — Your experience does not match mine and I doubt it matches the experience of everyone reading this debate. Nonetheless, as I noted above, marriage is already quite irrelevant to the topic and trending more so. However, for the duration, I shall presume it is relevant.

“women maybe more cautious towards sex but when it comes to marriage, i would say men and women are equally cautious and prudent.” — Such a statement, even if true does not automatically translate into equality of reproductive influence. For example, since people change, one spouse may decide post-wedding they do not want children or do not want children with their particular spouse; the spouse which changes may be male or may be female or both spouses may change and that change may be in such a way one spouse says, “I used to want children but now that ____, I don’t think it would be a good idea.” As such, the regulatory power remains even within a marriage and, as noted in my opening remarks, the balance of that power tends to lean in male-female marriages in favor of females.

“even if a man or a woman gets rejected, they find someone else.” — This statement still leaves the balance of reproductive power in favor of the woman for the following reasons: when a woman rejects a man, she has obviously exercised what we might call a “reproductive veto”. While a man rejecting a woman also exercises a reproductive veto, its influence on society is not as great due to the tendency towards greater selectivity of potential mates by women in the first place. As such, a woman has tended to already “filter out” a sizable number of male potential mates before either she or he even finds themselves in a position to reject the other. In contrary fashion, having the lesser tendency to filter out female potential mates, a man logically must have less overall reproductive veto power as a result.

“so, people get married if they want it.” — As I have shown this is neither true nor relevant.

“now, i don't know about your or other societies but where i live, every married couple tries to have a baby” — This statement is a rather bold one. Are you saying, where you live, if two people in their 60’s get married they try to have a baby? What of couples where one or both spouses are infertile; do they still try to have a baby? Your marriage-based argument is coming across to me, and possibly others, as increasingly fallacious and, as I have said, irrelevant.

“and most of them are successful.” — The success rate of attempts is far from relevant because a couple where one or both partners were incapable by any means of producing children from the DNA of both were not going to reproduce anyway.

“please keep in mind that my argument is based on the majority of the population and not every single person.” — I have never said otherwise.

“so in short, most of the reproduction in the society happens after marriage.” — Even if true, as I have noted above, such is irrelevant to the question of whether or not women, thru the nature of reproduction, possess a built-in advantage in the influence of society of which must be accounted in order to obtain net gender equality.

“majority of people who want to get married eventually do get married, may not be the person they intended, but they most of the time find someone.” — This statement does not, by itself or in combination with your previous statements, as I noted, negate the fact a women can decide whether or not a particular man reproduces with her, rape excluded.

“unlike sexual intercourse, when it comes to marriage men and women are equally cautious about choosing their partner.” — You are still conflating reproduction and marriage. Having shown such conflation and the basis for it to be fallacious and/or erroneous. I will not repeat my arguments to date on the conflation here.

“after marriage almost every couple tries to have kids.” — Given the rise of childless-by-choice couples and examples of couples I mentioned earlier, this statement is irrelevant.

“in this process we never see a distinct advantage to women.” — Being “fruit” of the immediately preceding “poisoned tree”, this point is also irrelevant. However, even if it were relevant, this statement would not help your position because the general trend has been to recognize the right of women to refuse sex with their spouses as can be seen in the growing list of countries to outlaw marital rape. Note: I can provide a list of such countries, the years they criminalized such, and citations in the comments if anyone really wants them. As such, married women and unmarried women are on equal footing with respect to sex with their significant others and, consequently, with respect to reproduction with them.

“Without their mothers they wouldn't have come into being, that's true, but out of everyone who has kids, did they do something radically different? it was just a matter of luck that their child turned out to be an amazing icon.” — This argument implies, in order for for a mother to have “real influence”, her child must “do something radically different”. Yet, as we see illustrated in “It’s a Wonderful Life” and various “what-if” stories (the best ‘what-if laboratory’ we have available absent the ability to alter history), the absence of any one person from a particular place and/or time in history can have profound consequences.

“Also, might I point out that everyone who you have mentioned here are men? I am not saying that women are incapable of greatness but they were not 'allowed' to achieve it. of-course there are several women iconic figures now, but if you look back in history, you'l find women icons to be quite a rare species.” — I was referring to the importance of the mothers of these men. However, if you prefer, I could just as easily reference the importance of the mothers of Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, Golda Meir, Rosa Parks, Marie Curie, Eva Peron, Florence Nightingale, Susan B. Anthony, Margaret Fuller, Emily Pankhurst, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Queen Elizabeth the First, Verity Lambert, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Helen Keller, Joan of Arc, Cleopatra, Queen Victoria, Eleanor Roosevelt, Sappho, Mary Magdalene, Boudicca, Mother Theresa, Catherine de Medici, Catherine the Great, Jane Austen, and the Virgin Mary, just to name a few, as well as others to discredit the assertion “women icons [are] quite a rare species”.

“when we say influencing something, it means being able to change the course of action of something.” — Agreed.

“In a male dominated society, all the positions of power are occupied men.” — No, in a male dominated society, certain factors are tilted in favor of men with remaining factor either balanced between men and women or titled towards women in such a degree as to not overwhelm the factors titled in favor of men. These factors titled in favor of men may include some positions of power but do not necessarily include all positions of power. As a parallel illustration, consider a legislature. Each seat in the legislature is a position of power. If a legislature is said to be “Zestybus dominated”, it does not mean all seats are held only by members of the Zestybus political party. Such a phrase may mean a majority of the seats are held by Zestybus members, it may mean the positions of primary power are occupied by Zestybus members with members of the Pegmode party holding the other ~99% of seats, or it may mean something else altogether depending on the institutional dynamics of the legislature. Likewise, a male dominated society does not mean “all the positions of power are occupied men”; it may mean a majority of such positions are occupied by men; it may mean the positions of primary power are occupied by men; or it may mean something else altogether depending on institutional dynamics of the society.

“Be it in the government or the household. men and men alone are able to make decisions which govern the course of action.” — As I noted in an earlier round, this condition is not required for a male dominated society.

“how women can influence the policies of an institution by saying no to sex is beyond me. Perhaps you can give me a practical example for the same?” — Asked and answered but I shall recap in case you missed it. Women influence an institution by weighing in on who will exist to make such policies. As an example, if the mother of the next would-be Adolf Hitler were to choose to withhold sex on the particular day which would conceive him, the genetic component which influences his personality would almost certainly be different due to the various factors involved with sperm selection in the reproductive process. Since, as noted, women have an inherent tendency to be more selective and, consequently, influential in the reproductive process, women have a greater sway than men in the personality of the people who make up the set of policy regulators of a given institution. One example which readily comes to mind is Marie Curie; without her, research into radioactivity, the subsequent development of x-ray machines, and their eventual establishment in hospitals would have taken longer. All else being equal, no Marie Curies means one less researcher working in just the right field at just the right time in just the right way. This lack of research focus means less development of the particular field would have occurred and the benefits gained from it would have been slower to come, if at all. Meanwhile, the people whose lives were saved because Marie Curie did exist would have possibly died and their effect on their society would have been different compared to our society. Over time, as such differences compound, the course of history between these two timelines diverges more and more and the effect on society by the mother of Marie Curie having sex when she did becomes more and more pronounced.

“you say that women have an inherent advantage of controlling reproduction. But what about the inherent advantage men have? isn't physical strength an advantage? Men have an advantage over women, physical strength.” — Does physical strength influence society as much as the control of reproduction? Even if it did, your argument does not take into account the fact a number of women are stronger than a number of men while the number of men able to conceive and carry children thru a full pregnancy in the same fashion as women still remains extremely low, if not zero. Consequently, the two concepts are not comparable. However, even if it were the case, technological advances are rendering the effect of those differences moot. Today, using a combination of various tools and/or devices, some of the most delicate females, if not all, can lift as much as the most olympian male bodybuilder. To date, however, men remain incapable of engaging in reproductive activities and the results thereof without women. Although cloning may potentially be such an option, that course of action has its own ethical, safety, and efficacy issues to say nothing of the fact it is often, if not usually, illegal in places with access to such technology.

“This is what led to a male dominated society and pushed women to a condition of slavery in earlier times.” — Actually, anthropological evidence suggests most prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies were relatively egalitarian, and patriarchal social structures did not develop until many years after the end of the Pleistocene era, following social and technological innovations such as agriculture and domestication. It is primarily the Aristotelean belief men are inherently superior to women, the Aristotelean belief men are perfect while women are imperfect, and the spreading of that belief by Aristole’s student, Alexander the Great, which is thought to have lead to the disenfranchisement of women. Conversely, Herodotus left a record of his shock at the contrast between the roles of Egyptian women and the women of Athens in which he observed Egyptian women attended market and were employed in trade, might sit on a local tribunal, engage in real estate transactions, inherit or bequeath property, secured loans, and witnessed legal documents while Athenian women did not. Likewise, in medieval Europe, male domination was not absolute, as female Empresses (such as Theodora) and Matriarchs (such as Helena, the mother of Constantine) enjoyed privilege, political rule, and societal honor. Consequently, the “‘Men are stronger’ lead to female slaves” notion is not held up by historical records.

“And now to ensure the net equality women rights and women empowerment programs have come into being.” — The securing of women’s rights and establishment of women empowerment programs does not exclude the possibility a society with net gender equality would have male domination; all they would do is help to ensure, as I noted in a prior round, the degree of male dominance does not stray to far from whatever the ideal “some male domination” is.

“so, men have an advantage over women and women have to be given extra advantages and rights to achieve a 'net quality', not the other way round.” — This being a conclusion of false premises, I see no need to address this point at this time.