the motion of the debate is as such "There is nothing wrong with treating women as the weaker sex since this often works to their advantage. " I stand as the opposition - therefore my proposing view point is that "it is wrong to treat women as the weaker sex + and being treated as the weaker sex doesn't always result in exploitation."

Please help me out. i need point on the 2 parts of my question which is

: It is wrong to treat women as the weaker sex

: Being treated as the weaker sex doesn't always result in exploitation of it.

Currently i have thought up of the following:

Mentally, Females have a comparable range of .. idiocracy to being a genius.. compared to males

Males and females show average differences on subsections of IQ tests. Males are better on some sections, as spatial questions, while females are better on reading and some other verbal skills. The net result is that overall average IQ scores are calculated to balance out for males and females.

Another meaningful difference is in variance. Male IQ is more variable than female IQ. In other words, females tend to cluster around average scores, while males are somewhat more spread out, with more of them scoring at the very high end and the very low end of the IQ scales. This has been cited as a reason why more geniuses like Einstein or Mozart (and also school dropouts) are males.

•Meaning tat there are a more of idiot males as compared to idiot females and there are as more smart males than females
•But across jobs there would be a variance of gender speciality and should be prejudiced towards the gender that best suits
it - now this is not because they are the weaker sex bt because they are more capable is a particular field

Although the statistics show that at each and every level of family income, for every level of fathers' and of mothers' education, and for each and every one of seven ethnic groups, males had higher G scores than females, it also showed that there are males with say IQ 100 and females with IQ 100, thus jobs which requires a certain prerequisite should not wipe out the choice of females who are just as comparable as the males

If they are viewed as the weaker sex, they would be prejudiced upon and won't get jobs - this is wrong - cuz we can't tap on the capability of the females in which the males are less apt in.

so it is not necessarily that they get jobs because of special treatment on them, could also be that they are capable and tats why.


And the special treatment to them as the weaker sex doesn't always work to their advantage

•Cuz of their special allocation to several jobs ppl will doubt their ability
May lack the power to command when they have authority
I don't think you are arguing the opposite in your statement 'it is wrong to treat women as the weaker sex + and being treated as the weaker sex doesn't always result in exploitation' as this means that sometimes they benefit from it. Surely you should argue that it DOES result in their exploitation or that it isn't to their advantage. Not being exploited is a good thing.
Oo OMG i missed tat out.. okok i got it! thx alot! i should be really firm in my stand! not let those propositions find a loop hole.


Could u help me out in finding another point? i am really at wits end. have been an hour of hiatus
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Well, to argue the opposite you need to argue that we shouldn't treat women as the weaker sex, as to do so often disadvantages them?