School debate about fertile women being employed

Exactly, debating euthanasia is completely different because the premise isn't arguing whether a particular protected characteristic makes a person less entitled to human rights. It's the protected characteristic that makes the topic egregious in my eyes. A closer parallel would be 'should (insert protected characteristic) people be euthanised'- which is obviously a totally unacceptable topic for a classroom debate.

Great topic to encourage critical thinking in times when children are being made to accept and believe some things with no debate

It's interesting because in one way it's an argument that was had and settled in the legal sense many years ago, but I don't doubt there are still people who think like that, even if they are very careful about who they'd admit it to.

It is just like debating euthanasia

No, it's not. It's more closely akin to debating whether women should have the right to vote or whether they should be subject to their husband's authority if married.

If you are going for government controlled birth then it would have to be done to both sexes.
It may be "cheaper and safer" but sterilising women could arguably make their lives easier and make them more productive as it would remove periods. It may even make some women happier not having to deal with them.

(Just FYI, I am not being serious, just showing some posters how debate works).

It's a debate. It is meant to be controversial. And it is important that the kids see both sides to an argument (even though they will agree with one and in their eyes, one is the correct one).
It is just like debating euthanasia - some will agree with it and there are arguments for, and others will think it is morally wrong and there are arguments against. I remember in debating class being forced to argue the side I wouldn't have chosen myself - it was good for us. Doesn't mean we went on to develop those beliefs.

Says a woman of childbearing age in a management position and no plans to give that up - ever.

Yippee! More "No debate" . Just what we need. Don't think, just follow.

I still remember in Year 6 back in the 90s and we had a lesson where we were being taught how to debate. The topic was if you agreed or not to smack children when they’ve been naughty. I grew up in a house with an angry father who hit us regularly. It was an eye opener for me and made me realise my home life was not normal.

Sorry, I mean AGAINST women working. That side may well sound convincing to kids who don't have the critical thinking skills to analyse what they're hearing if the group arguing against are the better debaters.

My point really is that these topics are so important that kids need (and deserve) to have these discussions in a managed, well-planned way where they're given information from reliable sources. We really shouldn't be encouraging them to form their views on such grave issues from what their classmates say in a debate where anything can be said (and is ENCOURAGED to be said, because one team has to argue for the removal of women's rights)- they just don't know enough to be practically educating each other on topics they're probably just starting to be able to engage with meaningfully.

its a shame that so many of you on here obviously didn’t have the opportunity to debate at school. Might explain why society is becoming increasingly polar

Aww come on it's fine, healthy debate. They could just have easily have done 'Should we bother trying to stop men killing themselves, when they kill so many others too?'

I think it's lazy and misogynistic. It puts the girls in the class in a position of having to defend themselves and to listen to arguments about their value in society.

Women have to justify themselves left right and centre all the time. I'm sick of it. Why do we have to do this to a group of young teenage girls?

@YoullCatchYourDeathInTheFog exactly! The outcome may well be that the group arguing for the position are more persuasive, and the point of a debate is that the team that best makes their points wins. Especially when you hand over a topic that a large proportion of the group won't have the understanding or maturity to critically engage with without adult input- or to properly weigh up arguments made by their mates, possibly quite eloquently!

This is why as soon as my family was complete in my late 20s I always pointed this out, as much as we want to think it's not the case I have seen the choice between 2 candidates and this is always the case.

There was research released this week by the Young Women’s Trust saying 1/5 of HR professionals would not hire a woman they think is likely to have (more) children. So that suggests around 1/5 people would support the teacher’s proposition. I don’t think it’s a bad topic for a debate!

If you do it to one sex you don't need to do it to the other sex, so you might as well save the effort and only do one. Applying the solution to men is far cheaper and safer than operating on women, so if you were going to do it then that's how you'd do it.

The statement is sexist and unreasonable if you believe in it. However debating is all about thinking and putting your point across. They would have had a for and against team if it was in a debate setting and probably has caused some food for thought.

Although I hate this as a debate - and agree with whoever said we should ask if we should employ men of child bearing age!

And what if they get it wrong? What if the brightest and most articulate kids in class are knee-jerk contrarians or god forbid baby Andrew Tate fans? What if the ones who choose to lead the antis are simply not as good, they can only come up with some well-meaning arguments that don't get to the heart of the issue and it just doesn't occur to them that this is dooming all women to dependency on a man or the state for decades if not their entire life (Whether they ever have children to or not) with the accompanying disastrous consequences.

Obviously what you'd hope happens is the teacher steers them towards the right answer by use of the Socratic Method to make them realise why the premise makes no sense, and is in fact a gross insult to the human rights of half the human race. But if they can't be allowed to come to the wrong conclusion and the teacher needs to tip the scales surely it defeats the point of debate.

It's a vile and misogynistic 'debate' to raise with school age kids IMO.

I can't really see how you approach that debate, particularly with this age group, without doing harm. Assuming it's a mixed group, this forces girls to either sit and listen to their classmates arguing to remove their rights or forces girls to argue for the removal of their own rights if they're put on the 'for' team.

In any event, I doubt this age group has the historical or real-world knowledge to argue this meaningfully anyway. Of course we should discuss it, but I'm not sure a debate setup is the right way to do it. It's certainly not a forgone conclusion that the kids will come away having been educated on sexism- that may not be the outcome at all.

We were organised to debate abortion rights at school and a girl assigned to the team arguing against abortion rights was an exceptional debater. I have no idea whether her true opinions aligned with her position, but to a group of teenagers without the contextual knowledge to understand why the right to a safe abortion is so important- she was convincing. For a group of kids without enough life experience to understand the implications of the discussion or a reasonable understanding of the history, the pendulum may well swing the other way, at least for some of them.

In my experience as someone who used to teach PSHE, any discussions of this type need to be carefully managed- ESPECIALLY when they relate to a protected characteristic. Open the floor to any and all contributions where students are encouraged to argue against a group's lawful rights, and the whole thing can take on a life of its own and get out of control quite rapidly!

Sounds like the teacher is introducing the topic in a way that immediately sparks deeper thinking. It's sometimes difficult to get kids to go below surface level with debates.

I once convinced myself I was going to get the sack by accidentally sparking a debate on eugenics when the point that most elite athletes were black somehow lead into evolution and that became maybe black people are evolving faster than white people. I don't even know how we got there and I genuinely shit myself in case some UKIPpy parents came for me but the debate was so good!!

Kids need to learn to get into the nitty gritty, even if the topic is a tad uncomfortable.

Eh? Why is the risk that girls might make poor contributions and be branded ‘feminists’ and not that the boys in the class will feel this kind of false equivalence reinforces their superiority in society?

Eh? I quite clearly said there are girls with a firm grip on these issues. Those are the ones branded as 'feminists', because their views are informed and challenging. They all know women have rights. It might suit some young people to pretend otherwise, however, and there will always be girls falling over themselves to do themselves down. Better it's discussed than not.

There is paid paternity leave now

There is shared parental leave now

I believe that the minimum amount of time a female can have off work for maternity is 2 weeks

Therefore "fertile women" is not just about gender any longer

The thing is that human rights appear to be so up for debate that the government is considering removing them for members of society it deems unworthy of them (i.e. small boat migrants). So I think learning how to debate a topic we'd like to be unnecessary is in fact very necessary. It certainly needs to be carefully done but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

Just what we need in our schools where girls are subject to harassment, sexism and sexual assault daily - a "debate" on whether women should have rights.

Lazy teaching.