NOW Debates Women's Status on The Economist

By Lisa Bennett, Communications Director

In January, NOW was invited by The Economist to participate in an online debate about the status of women in the developed world. The format would be based on the Oxford style of debating and would take place over the course of eight days. We would have a chance to write an opening statement, then several days later we would submit a rebuttal to our opponent's opening statement, and finally we would turn in a closing statement. Along the way a moderator would oversee and weigh in on the arguments made by the two sides; featured guests would be invited to lend their expertise to the discussion; and visitors to the site could post their thoughts, as well. People would be allowed to vote, and at the end the moderator would declare a winner.

It sounded like a great opportunity, so NOW President Terry O'Neill agreed to represent the opposition, arguing against the motion made by The Economist (or "the house"). There was just one little problem -- the motion itself, which stated: "This house believes that women in the developed world have never had it so good." Many commenters agreed with NOW that the motion was poorly framed and conveniently worded.

If The Economist wasn't so set on writing a motion that would result in an easy win for the house, they might have said: "Women today have the same opportunity as men to realize their full potential." Or, they could have been really honest about their meaning and stated: "Feminists should cease agitating for the advancement of women's rights in developed nations and leave individual women to their own devices. The architecture needed for gender equality is in place -- women and girls no longer need any organized form of support to improve their status."

Now, those motions might have made for a really lively debate. Alas, NOW was not invited to re-write the house's motion, so we proceeded with debating. However, we did note that the act of telling someone, "You never had it so good," sends a pretty clear (and insulting) "sit down and shut up" message.

Not one to be quieted, O'Neill addressed the many areas where women still lag far behind men, where women are held back, and their "choices" are limited or shaped by discriminatory practices and attitudes entrenched in our culture.

NOW's opponent, Richard Donkin, made some telling arguments in support of the house's motion, and his sense of humor sometimes suggested that he didn't take the debate too seriously. At times, his tone verged on being downright dismissive. In his opening, Donkin asked: " Is it reasonable today, I wonder, to question whether women themselves know what they want in exercising their career options?"

In his rebuttal Donkin posed this question: "Are women simply going to measure their progress in society by financial comparisons? Isn't that the sort of thing that men do? I thought women were smarter than that." Our opponent also revealed a preference for good old fashioned gender roles, stating: "[M]y fear is that in the battle for workplace equity [women] could lose sight of some of the defining aspects of womanhood."

In the end, NOW did manage to move the voting by three points to our side, but the heavily weighted motion resulted in a lopsided victory for the house. The moderator, Adrian Wooldridge, declared the house the victor (and admitted that he was the author of the original motion!), ending with the assertion that "we live in a different world from the world that produced modern feminism . . . women have been doing well for themselves over the past few decades . . . [and] progressive reformers might be better off finding other dragons to slay than the dying one of gender inequality."

NOW recommends that Wooldridge take one last look at the pieces written by the four excellent featured guests, who provided enlightening data and perspectives that tended to support NOW's position. Lastly, if the moderator thinks the outcome of this debate will convince feminists to pack it in, he's sadly mistaken.

Read the entire debate on The Economist.

Read a feminist analysis of the debate from Fem 2.0.