MenAreFinisheddebate-details

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

In a modern, post-industrial economy that seems better suited to women than men, many are wondering if men have been permanently left behind. Education and employment statistics point to a clear and growing dominance in women’s status at home and in the workplace. Are men primed for a comeback or have the old rules changed for good?

  • For the motion

    For

    Dan Abrams

    ABC News Legal Analyst & Author of Man Down

  • Hanna Rosin for Web

    For

    Hanna Rosin

    Award-Winning Journalist for Slate and The Atlantic

  • Against the motion

    Against

    David Zinczenko

    Editor-in-Chief of Men’s Health Magazine

  • Against the motion

    Against

    Christina Hoff Sommers

    Feminist Scholar & Author of The War Against Boys

  • Moderator Image

    Moderator

    John Donvan

    Author and correspondent for ABC News.

More about the Panelists
See Results See Full Debate Video Purchase DVD Read Transcript
Listen to the edited radio broadcast

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Listen to the unedited radio broadcast

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Subscribe to the Podcast
Abrams

For The Motion

Dan Abrams

ABC News Legal Analyst & Author of Man Down

Dan Abrams is a legal analyst for ABC News, a substitute anchor for Good Morning America, and the host of Discovery ID's Chasing Justice. He is the Founder and CEO of the Abrams Media network, which includes seven websites and the digital agency Abrams Research. He is also the author of Man Down: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Women Are Better Cops, Drivers, Gamblers, Spies, World Leaders, Beer Tasters, Hedge Fund Managers, and Just About Everything Else.

Learn more
Hanna Rosin for Web

For The Motion

Hannah Rosin

Award-Winning Journalist for Slate and The Atlantic

Hanna Rosin instigated a fury of responses with last year’s Atlantic story, The End of Men, based on her theory that men are losing their dominance and women are quickly rising. A reaction so strong, she is now writing a book based on her findings. Rosin is an award winning magazine writer at The Atlantic and Slate, and founding editor of DoubleX, a blog dedicated to “what women really think about news, politics, and culture.” She lives in Washington, DC with her husband, (meek and cowed) Slate Editor David Plotz, and their three children.

Learn more
Hoff-Sommers

Against The Motion

Christina Hoff Sommers

Feminist Scholar & Author of The War Against Boys

Christina Hoff Sommers, a former philosophy professor who taught ethics, is best known for her critique of late-twentieth-century feminism. She is also known for her extensive writings, among them Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys. Her textbook, Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life, a bestseller in college ethics, is currently in its eighth edition. She recently edited The Science on Women and Science and is preparing a second edition of The War Against Boys.

Learn more
Zinczenko

Against The Motion

David Zinczenko

Editor-in-Chief of Men’s Health Magazine

David Zinczenko is Senior Vice President and Editor-in-Chief of Men's Health and Editorial Director of Women's Health. He is the author of the bestselling series Eat This, Not That! and a regular contributor to NBC’s The Today Show. Zinczenko has appeared as a health expert on Oprah, The Ellen DeGeneres Show, Good Morning America, NBC Nightly News, 20/20, CNN and the Rachael Ray Show.

Learn more

Declared Winner: For The Motion

Online Voting

About This Event

Event Photos

PrevNext Arrows
    PrevNext Arrows

    9 comments

    • Comment Link V Monday, 17 February 2014 04:38 posted by V

      I've just started getting into these debates from Intelligence Squared. I watched the second one on free speech from 2006, and it was excellect. One thing that made it excellent, besides Chistopher Hitchens and Philip Gourevich, was that the editing was kept to a minimum (the camera work could have been better, but that's a different matter).

      In this debate, however, I get the feeling that there were significant chunks missing from this debate due to post-production editing. I understand a desire to streamline the content in other kinds of media, but in a debate, where intricate arguments are constructed, precise distictions differentiated, and rich context accumulated, I prefer not to have clever editing deciding for me what is essential to the debate and what can be "left on the cutting room floor", so to speak.

      I am dissappointed that I was unable to view an unabridged version of this debate, and I hope that is not what I should expect from the other debates I plan to watch.

    • Comment Link Michael Wednesday, 27 November 2013 15:17 posted by Michael

      Commenting at the beginning of the debate (so take this for what it's worth):

      The problem with having a debate motion like this (and like many others I've seen I-Squared use) is that it allows the participants to define the issue and then proceed to argue about the definition. Example: The first speaker here said that she only had to prove that the status quo of "male" traits being the best way to success is over (paraphrasing here). This is not at all what the motion means to me (at first glance), or likely to most people. A debate on this topic could include arguments about the business world (whether it be the marketplace, employment, etc.), relationships, politics. It could refer to academics. It could refer to athletics.

      I get that the motion needs to be "cheeky" (as described by a moderator in an early debate), but when the motion is as overbroad and ill-defined as this one (and others), people end up talking about what they want to talk about and little real conversation occurs.

      Note: I am a man. I don't see as that it has anything to do with the above statements, but I include my gender here in the interest of full disclosure.

    • Comment Link Shaun Roberts Monday, 07 October 2013 11:05 posted by Shaun Roberts

      Of course men are finished. By finished I mean, we've had enough of working for so long, and it's about bloody time women started to contribute - I don't much like the screw you men approach, rather, I think if they just said, don't worry dear, you've worked hard enough, let me do that for you.
      Screw family, screw looking after kids, women are long due a lesson in hard work, decision making, risk taking, office politics and dirty work. Hail the new woman, she will learn to not be so fickle.

    • Comment Link Jeff Shain Tuesday, 16 April 2013 02:48 posted by Jeff Shain

      Could they have picked a more prejudicial and inflammatory title for a debate? Do women want to see men subjugated in business like they have been and is that nothing more than petty vengeance? Why not live and work as equals for once... straight, gay, men, women, minority, majority....let's see how that works out before we start writing off entire genders.

      What an absurd argument this must have been.

    • Comment Link Steven Wednesday, 10 April 2013 09:11 posted by Steven

      I just want to add one more thing to my previous post...

      I don't believe that men or women are superior to each other. Just like one man or woman might be better at a specific task than another person of the same sex, the same applies between a man or woman, but on an individual basis and not as a trait between sexes or race.

    • Comment Link Steven Wednesday, 10 April 2013 08:42 posted by Steven

      The online poll showing that the debate was lost seems more accurate to me.

      It seems to me that since more women are getting degrees (compared to men) and entering the workforce, it stands to reason that they will fill the most jobs. It's as simple as that and doesn't indicate any superiority.

      With the line of thinking in this debate, I could say that when the Hispanic population becomes the dominant race in the U.S. and and those women also graduate college at the same ratio as women today, that Hispanic women would be superior to white women. That would be total nonsense as is the logic of this debate.

      What would happen if all women dropped out of the workforce? We would loose some lawyers, doctors, and a few other professions. If all men were to drop out of the work force, we wouldn't have anyone to build our homes, fix our cars, or design new technology. In fact the entire nation would come to a standstill. Yet we would still have doctors, lawyers, and the other professions mentioned. Men still hold the most important jobs, perhaps not the most prodigious jobs, but the jobs that matter the most on a day to day basis. I value my garbage man a great deal more than I value the mayor in my town.

    • Comment Link Amanda Anastasia Wednesday, 02 January 2013 13:01 posted by Amanda Anastasia

      I think that the panelists are totally unqualified. Where are the sociology, anthropology, history, women's studies, and or psychology people?

      What business do journalists have discussing ideas that require facts and statistics in a historical context . . .

    • Comment Link Ignacio Machado Saturday, 08 December 2012 04:32 posted by Ignacio Machado

      I'm disappointed with this particular debate in all honesty, the motion itself makes no sense. We as a society have decided that men and women are equal in the eyes of the law, are we now going back in history and reversing the roles? If not what is the point of the question? This idea in general is ridiculous and i really can't find the use in even asking the question any more that i can find the use in asking if men are better that women.

      In the end the real question is: does it matter either way? As long as both genders have the same opportunities it will work itself out and asking these type of question can only do harm.

    • Comment Link Charles Gross Friday, 17 August 2012 11:44 posted by Charles Gross

      The agenda of the most radical feminists has never been gender equality, but rather (female) gender dominance.

      In a way, the "debate" is foolish. Let all people compete on an equal footing in all spheres of human activity and let the best person win. I think both sexes are equally important and necessary to the human community.

    Leave a comment

    Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. HTML code is not allowed.