Debate.org is closing and the website will be taken offline on May 30, 2022.
Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account. For more information, please refer to our FAQs page.
The Instigator
Ionizer3
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
F100
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Women and Men should work separately in professional settings

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2019 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 638 times Debate No: 121357
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Ionizer3

Pro

Today's society is focused on providing equal opportunities for both genders, And a working environment where both genders can contribute equally, And compete with each other on fair terms. However, I would like to challenge this paradigm, And I raise the question: Is competition and cooperation between the genders in professional settings productive, Or should they perhaps work separately?

Point 1: Sexuality
There is a sexual element between women and men, Which is detrimental to productivity in a working environment. It's not difficult to see that sexual attraction between the genders can cause tension. The attraction between the genders can be detrimental to task oriented focus, And is always the underlying cause for sexual harassment. It's not possible to switch off the sexuality while at work, Which means that sexual attraction is always present in working environments where both genders are present.

One of the main arguments against this, Is that mature adults should be able to control their sexual desires. But this is not primarily a question about control of sexual desires, But a question if sexual attraction in general hinders productivity. My opinion is that any sexual attraction, No matter if it's controlled or not, Hinders productivity by simply being existent. This is because sex and competition are fundamentally different, And can't coexist harmoniously. And since most working environments require competition of some sort, This becomes and obvious issue. For instance, In Mao's China, This problem was solved by having women and men wear the same clothes, And prohibiting make-up for women. Essentially, There was an attempt to transform women and men into sexually neutral humans. This is evidence that the underlying sexual element is a real issue.

Point 2: Hierarchies
Men organize hierarchies among each other. These hierarchies are created according to competitions. Men are on average more competitive than women. Men more often engage in what we call power struggles. These power struggles in modern society do not reference to physical fights usually, But confidence testing. Men are prone to challenge each other, And these challenges determine a mans position in the hierarchy. This is possible because of the absence of sexual attraction between heterosexual men. Since sexual attraction hinders effective competition, It means that men and women can't engage in such power struggles. This therefore means that women do not have a place in male hierarchies, Which are based on exactly these types of power struggles. Because women are absent from such hierarchies, It means that their presence requires a different social order. Either men have to adapt to women, Or women have to adapt to men. However, This is unproductive. None of the genders can effectively adopt the opposite genders style of competition and communication. The reason is that men and women are inherently different. Although it't possible, It doesn't mean that it's effective. And since this debate is about whether women and men can effectively compete, This is a reason why they should work separately to enhance productivity.

I want my opponent to be serious, And as objective as possible. The goal of this debate is to discuss the issue at hand in a civilized and serious manner.
F100

Con

History has seen a shift in the patriarchal regime practiced by societies, And we now live in an age where we can claim that women are no "less" than men. We live in an age when women are occupying public office, Serving as presidents and prime ministers, As heads of conglomerates and judges, And police officers. Gender equality has found its way into nearly every domain in employment. In such a situation, I strongly believe that separating men and women will only serve as a deterrent to women and to the fundamental of gender equality. In fact, We only stand to promote such equality, By ensuring that men and women work together, As this would encourage women worldwide. Symbolically too, Putting men and women in different workplaces would quite strongly assert that they are not in a position to work together, That they cannot be seen as "equals".

My opponent has raised the issue of "sexuality" - the fact that the opposite sexes would experience a kind of relationship that would hinder productivity. In fact, There is more to a mature control of one's desires than my opponent has portrayed. In reality, There are men and women working together in almost all imaginable fields of work. Take law enforcement - in such serious jobs, To think that the sexual attraction of the opposite sex would inhibit or even compromise domestic security is preposterous. We should be able to assert discipline in our workspaces. Furthermore, If any such inclination were to upset productivity, There would be a far greater loss in productivity in a men-only space, Ironically from the absence of the opposite sex, Which studies have found leads to at least 2 times the initial productivity. These studies have shown that men tend to work harder, And smarter, In the presence of women. Clothing men and women in the same way could also tarnish the dignity of women.

Furthermore, My opponent asserts the issue that "hierarchies" pose to achieving gender equality. The very usage of the term "hierarchy" is detrimental to the ultimate purpose of this debate - establishing gender equality. However, Keeping the irony aside, The very idea that men would compete only with other men to form a sort of "hierarchy of competition" seems to assert that women can't do the same. In a working space involving 2 genders free to interact and work together, We expect competitions among everyone present. We should NEVER expect one gender to monopolize or form some sort of hierarchy. There is no "gender style of competition". In a workplace, There is the daily race waged among men and women, With no specific camps drawn. Gender equality can only be achieved by letting the 2 genders work in harmony, Not be promoting divisions through gender specific competition and such hierarchies. The debate is not about whether women and men can effectively "compete" - it deals with, At least as far as this round goes, How "productive" a join working environment would be. As I have asserted before, The very idea that allowing men and women to work together would decrease productivity is baseless - if anything, The opposite is true.

I wish to reiterate my stance - men and women SHOULD work together to build up a culture of intersexual harmony. The existence of so called gender specific hierarchies would only inhibit those women seeking an equal position in society. I think it is necessary to remind everyone that women have not yet reached a point where they can claim equality - women are still threatened domestically, Have fewer opportunities, And are continued to be discriminated against, Especially in underdeveloped societies, The way forward certainly isn't in further separating the 2 genders.
Debate Round No. 1
Ionizer3

Pro

In the previous round, My opponent has made several arguments that I disagree with, And which I also don't think are adequately supported by neither reasoning nor facts.

The first argument that my opponent presented, Was that having men and women work separately will only be detrimental to the gender equality paradigm. My opponent stated the following: "Putting men and women in different workplaces would quite strongly assert that they are not in a position to work together, That they cannot be seen as equals". My opponent has the fundamental belief that men and women have equal abilities, Which is true in a lot of cases, Although not all. However, Having men and women work separately doesn't undermine gender equality. In fact, Having men and women work separately is just an acceptance of the fact that men and women are different, And that they work, Compete, Cooperate and communicate in different manners. To deny this, Is to deny both research and evolution. It has been proven that men and women use different parts of their brains in situations where both sexes were meant to cooperate. A study has also shown that "male-male pairings exhibited greater cooperation than the mixed-sex pairings". 1. This evidence suggests that viewing men and women as "equal" is not scientifically based. In addition, There are several evolutionary explanations to this phenomenon.

My opponent also suggests that discipline is supposed to solve the sexual problem between men and women. However, Discipline can't remove the sexual element completely, Which also means that it doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that there is a sexual element, Which can't be removed, That can potentially lead to distraction and tension in the workplace. The problem is much deeper than what my opponent suggests it to be. There are even articles where women give advice to fellow women about constructive ways to handle the issue. The following article also states that denying the sexual element between men and women in the workplace is simply foolish. 2.

Furthermore, My opponent states that there is no difference between the way men and women compete. However, Psychology has shown that men, On average, Score slightly higher on aggression and disagreeableness. This will not surprisingly have an effect in the way men and women compete. Famous clinical psychologist and intellectual Jordan Peterson says in one of his videos that special training was required for certain women in order to gain the required personality traits which made them more suitable to compete and work in highly male dominated environments. These personality traits where exactly aggression and disagreeableness.

Summarizing all of these facts strengthens the idea that men and women are significantly more different than what our modern society suggests. And my stance on this issue is to simply recognize those differences, And I propose that perhaps men and women could work more productively if they were allowed to work separately in separate departments. Contrary to what my opponent believes, I don't believe that this would undermine gender equality. It would only highlight the factual gender inequality, And respecting those inequalities by providing fair and suitable environments for both genders to flourish in their respective environments, Without having a constant competition between the genders.

Sources:
1. Https://www. Apa. Org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-137-6-881. Pdf
2. Http://www. Nocryinginbusiness. Com/PDF/TheSexFactor. Pdf
F100

Con

Firstly, I wish to quote a remark made by my opponent.
"Having men and women work separately is just an acceptance of the fact that men and women are different. . . "
While this statement is, Ultimately, A scientific fact, It would be unwise to contest modern ideals with such a fact. Persecution and disregard for women over thousands of years, And the unthinking assertion of patriarchy has only inspired more and more women - now women empowerment is key to national growth. Consider the following statement, Which was obtained from unwomen. Org - ". . . " for example, Increasing the female employment rates in OECD countries to match that of Sweden, Could boost GDP by over USD 6 trillion. . . . . ". In fact, I even have statistics that claim the very opposite that my opponent has stated. According to the World Economic Forum, Women work "10% harder" than men in offices. Further, Women accomplish such high productivity, While manning nearly 54. 9% of the tasks. All of these facts, Fortified by the reputable credentials of the WEF, Are enshrined in the State of the Workplace report on gender. Hence, It is in fact women who are more productive than men in most cases, If not as productive. In fact, From the very same report that my opponent has referred to, Released by the American Pathological Association, We learn that " Women are expected to assume a domestic role (or occupational role) that involves a great deal of interpersonal relationship skills. Accordingly, Women are"or at least are perceived as"more communal in orientation, Less selfish, More caring, Friendly, And emotionally expressive (Eagly, 2009). On the other hand, Men assume social roles of high status and power and so they are"or are perceived as"more independent, Assertive, Ambitious, And dominant. " This is completely in contrast to what my opponent has to say about women's professional skills - ". . . Special training. . . . For certain women in order to gain the required personality traits. . . . . Make them more suitable to compete and work in highly male dominated environments. " doesn't quite concur with what the report has to say. But this is hardly a debate on the skills of women with respect to men - I am here merely to say that women have no "shortage" that would not allow them to compete and collaborate with men in the professional domain, Just like men have no relative "advantage".

Before I conclude, I must highlight a statement my opponent has made, That is quite worrying, Especially given the long history of discrimination against women I have recalled before - "Contrary to what my opponent believes, I don't believe that this would undermine gender equality. It would only highlight the factual gender inequality. " The term "factual" seems to be used in poor light here - of course there is the biological difference between men and women, Which is a universal truth. Any other difference or inequality is anything but factual. As I have reiterated through evidence previously, Even the supposed "less productivity" of women compared to men highlighted by my opponent is incorrect. If anything, There is only one way to ensure women, And society understand fully the truth of gender equality - the way forward is to allow men and women to participate equally in development and progress. A comment has been rightly made in the context of this debate - while there is the OBVIOUS biological difference between men and women, The very fact that they share the Earth together should mean that they must work together, Not separately.
Debate Round No. 2
Ionizer3

Pro

In the second post I have seen that one of my arguments has been misinterpreted by my opponent. Firstly, The report which I posted says the following: "Women are or at least are perceived as more communal in orientation, Less selfish, More caring, Friendly, And emotionally expressive (Eagly, 2009). On the other hand, Men assume social roles of high status and power and so they are or are perceived as more independent, Assertive, Ambitious, And dominant. " Then my opponent says that this contradicts what I wrote, And says the following: "This is completely in contrast to what my opponent has to say about women's professional skills -. . . Special training. . . . For certain women in order to gain the required personality traits. . . . . Make them more suitable to compete and work in highly male dominated environments. Doesn't quite concur with what the report has to say. " Regarding special training of women, This was not my idea. This was actually something that psychologist Jordan Peterson said. In addition, I don't see how the statement I posted contradicts the report. In fact, They are in perfect harmony. According to Jordan Peterson, The women he trained, Had to develop the "assertive, Ambitious and dominant" personality traits which were necessary for the women to possess in order to survive in those highly male dominated environments. And these traits fall under the category of disagreeableness and aggression, Which is what I stated in my second post.

In my first post, I wrote about male hierarchies, And how men organize groups between themselves. My opponent said the following: "The very idea that men would compete only with other men to form a sort of hierarchy of competition seems to assert that women can't do the same. " Women don't form hierarchies in the same way men do, And I said that this is the reason why women can't participate in the male hierarchies. The underlying reason for this, Is that both genders have different styles of communication and cooperation. Here is what the report says: "In male groups, Cooperation is maintained primarily through dominance hierarchies (Geary, 2010). Although such hierarchies tend to involve some degree of interpersonal conflict, They evolved specifically to facilitate social cohesion. " This proves my statement about male hierarchies in my first post. Furthermore, The report also states: "Indeed, Developmental research finds that boys
and adult men are more tolerant of interpersonal conflicts than girls and adult women. " This supports my claims that women will find it challenging to participate in the male hierarchies. The reason is that women have less tolerance for interpersonal conflict. In other words, Men are more thick-skinned.

My opponent also says the following: "I am here merely to say that women have no shortage that would not allow them to compete and collaborate with men in the professional domain, Just like men have no relative advantage. " The report certainly shows that women do in fact lack the qualities that are required to compete and cooperate in a highly male dominated environment. This is also the reason Jordan Peterson said that special training was required for women to develop those qualities that they lack, Relative to men. Then again women have other qualities which men lack.

Furthermore, My opponent seems to defend ideas which I have not even challenged. My opponent spends a lot of time defending women's place in the workforce in general. I never even argued against women being in the workforce. I argued for the idea that men and women should work separately because of their differences. Indeed, The data shows that they are significantly different in how they operate in a work environment. Then naturally, Separating them could be an interesting experiment. It would certainly remove many of the challenges that are present in the workforce today.

I want to thank my opponent for an interesting debate.
F100

Con

I'd like to consolidate my argument in this round.
1. I support a joint working space, Where men and women can participate together, Fruitfully. Not only would this, In principle, Lead to the enforcement of gender equality, Which is necessary in today's world, But it would also remove the still persistent "patriarchy" that is asserted upon women. I have also given evidence to prove that women are in fact more productive than men. This is purely a moral reason - we cannot afford to continue segregating workforces based on gender - the age for that has passed. We now require both sexes to realize their equal position, And the need for their equal participation and contribution to growth.

2. In response to my opponent's arguments of hierarchies formed by males, Which supposedly prevent females from working, Or being able to work with them, I wish to cite an excellent study conducted by Marianne Schmid Mast of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. Now this study acknowledges male hierarchies, But proves that female hierarchies DO exist, Unlike what my opponent has said. The research concluded that females too tended to group together to form hierarchies, Especially considering the egalitarian model of work. Furthermore, My opponent's words, ". . Women will find it challenging to participate in the male hierarchies. " seem to reflect the sort of male-dominance we are all wary of. In an environment with equal numbers of women and men, There is no room for the mutual domination of one hierarchy - research (from the American Pathological Association, Which I have referred to in my Round 2 argument), Women's greater interpersonal relationship skills would obviously lead to hierarchies. They have greater co-operation, According to the report. Why then must we doubt women's hierarchies? Regarding Jordan Peterson's "special training for women", This becomes obsolete when we are considering equal environments, As proposed earlier.

3. Throughout these 3 rounds, My purpose has been to realize the "difference" my opponent keeps mentioning. I have pointed to how women are more productive than men, That they can form hierarchies too, That their interpersonal skills sometimes even exceeds those of men. Should we still doubt the relative capability. Women and men have differences. This is natural. But these differences must only extend upto the level of biology, Or must be irrelevant to the economics of work today. My proof shows us that women have no limitation that would "differentiate" them from men.

The fact is, Women's emotional skills or "characteristics" do not sync with those of men. But so far, We have not really seen any shortage of productivity by allowing them to work together. Take countries like Saudi Arabia - these countries had initially barred women from working together with men. Even these ultra-religious nations are moving toward gender equality, And equal employment. Picture this - millions of dollars are spent annually to conduct economic analyses and obtain recommendations from economists - even then, Men and women continue to work together.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by unforward 3 years ago
unforward
As interesting as it sounds, You would be going against the rules of society in general. Because men and women do actually live in the same earth.
However. There is the distinction between what kind of work you are talking about.
In teaching for example it should not be an issue, Since teachers have to be like the guardians of future generations, Not as predators.
Also, Sexual attention or some preference to a certain person of the preferred gender can actually drastically improve productivity at times as well. It all depends on the type of work we are talking about. Always. Otherwise, You cannot put a rule for them all.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.