Difference between revisions of "Men are Obsolete (Munk debate)"
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | This highly offensive notion was the title and subject of a Munk Debate in |
+ | This highly offensive notion was the title and subject of a Munk Debate in 2013.<ref>http://ideas.time.com/2014/01/02/men-are-obsolete/</ref> |
While the question was ''about'' men the organisers saw fit not to include any men in the debate. Apparently they ascribe to the notion that only women are entitled to discuss gender issues. |
While the question was ''about'' men the organisers saw fit not to include any men in the debate. Apparently they ascribe to the notion that only women are entitled to discuss gender issues. |
||
| − | The ''affirmative'' team was comprised of [[Hanna Rosin]] and [[Maureen Dowd]] with the negative team being comprised of [[Caitlin Moran]] and [[Camille Paglia]]. |
+ | The ''affirmative'' team was comprised of [[Hanna Rosin]] and [[Maureen Dowd]] with the negative team being comprised of [[Caitlin Moran]] and [[Camille Paglia]]. Monk debates poll the audience. If more than 50% vote in favour of the motion (for the pro side) then the motion is carried. In this case, the motion was carried and Monk declared that men are obsolete.<ref>https://munkdebates.com/debates/gender-in-the-21st-century</ref> Some commentators suggested that a number of men in the audience voted affirmative to keep their female partners happy. |
The above Munk debate was followed by an article in TIME by the same name by Rosin.<ref>http://ideas.time.com/2014/01/02/men-are-obsolete/ Men are Obsolete</ref> |
The above Munk debate was followed by an article in TIME by the same name by Rosin.<ref>http://ideas.time.com/2014/01/02/men-are-obsolete/ Men are Obsolete</ref> |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
*[https://munkdebates.com/debates/gender-in-the-21st-century Men are Obsolete at the Monk Debates] |
*[https://munkdebates.com/debates/gender-in-the-21st-century Men are Obsolete at the Monk Debates] |
||
*[http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/he-who-pays-the-piper-calls-the-tune-or-does-he/ He who pays the piper] |
*[http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/he-who-pays-the-piper-calls-the-tune-or-does-he/ He who pays the piper] |
||
| + | *[https://omny.fm/shows/the-munk-debates-podcast/be-it-resolved-men-are-obsolete Audio of the Monk Debate] |
||
| − | *[https://www.amazon.com.au/Are-Men-Obsolete-Debate-Gender/dp/1770894519 Men are Obsolete, on Amazon] |
||
== References == |
== References == |
||
Revision as of 09:43, 11 December 2020
This highly offensive notion was the title and subject of a Munk Debate in 2013.[1]
While the question was about men the organisers saw fit not to include any men in the debate. Apparently they ascribe to the notion that only women are entitled to discuss gender issues.
The affirmative team was comprised of Hanna Rosin and Maureen Dowd with the negative team being comprised of Caitlin Moran and Camille Paglia. Monk debates poll the audience. If more than 50% vote in favour of the motion (for the pro side) then the motion is carried. In this case, the motion was carried and Monk declared that men are obsolete.[2] Some commentators suggested that a number of men in the audience voted affirmative to keep their female partners happy.
The above Munk debate was followed by an article in TIME by the same name by Rosin.[3]