Christina stands up like the only adult among a bunch of children. She is the only one speaking with her brain and with facts, rathen than with feeling and perceptions.

A group of people that look different but think the same is not diversity.

Christina Hoff Sommers: We need to treat men and women like human beings Nelufar Hedayat: Yeah, this woman's views are problematic.

Christina is objective, logical, and has a good understanding of what worked not just in America, but other countries of the world. While the green girl chose to argue opinions and feelings, Christina argued facts, logic, and history. She clearly is the winner.

Christina Hoff Sommers is a real feminist. I hope my daughter grows up and becomes like her.

What a waste of Christina's time. A huge pile of woke refuse hurled at her, the only genuine intellectual in the room.

Randa speaks like a textbook liberal saviour intersected with a victim complex. Disparate outcomes do not equal discrimination. If she is so concerned with lack of female and ethnic (?), foreign (?) people in parliament why didn't she change her trajectory to become an MP? As always Ayishat stole the show with her nuanced and well thought out responses.

They should invite Camille Paglia

That Egyptian Australian woman complains about Australia being a hateful country - a suggestion: the arab lady in green dress can go to Egypt and see how _fair_ and decent things are in Egypt. These are privallaged black / Arab women complaining about hardship? Oh Please!

1) They mentioned the PHD of the other speaker but not Christina's PHD hmm sus.. 2) Not much gender diversity on the panel.. sus.. 3) No mens rights activist on the panel.. sus.. 4) The first vote was shown twice yet the second vote (which is the most relevant one after everyone heard the arguments) was only showed once Christina swayed the audience even though they started out against her position they ended up in favor of it which goes to show not many people hear another perspective outside of establishment feminism to begin with. Christina is certainly great and she did very well here but, for a wider range of diversity of thought try this debate with at least one man and a anti feminist like Karen Straughan, Paul Elam, Dr. Janice Fiamengo, Steve Brule, Hannah Wallen, Alison Tieman, Harry Crouch or John Davis from NCFM.

Good effort at running a civil debate between opposite views. Presence of no men at the debate is a win for Randa team as they have already successfully established that whatever a man says is mansplaining.

[" In this world there are the social engineers and the socially engineered "]

Good job Christina!

1:03:05 Christina: "It's not practical!" Randa: "But who cares?"

Inequality in the workplace is one of the most bizarre narratives I’ve heard. Companies need to make money and profit. That’s what they are there for. You’re telling me that the ceo men in these companies did not earn it. They compete in a cut throat competition, countless overtime and sacrifice to win that title. The person who gets the job is the person who ensures the companies greater success. But the inequality narrative suggests that companies would sacrifice success and profit for the sake of the sexist, tyrannical patriarchy. Sorry. That’s why I know the narrative is bullshit. Money rules. Not men. Not women.

A conversation free conversation between Dr. Hoff Sommers and Ayishat Akanbi would be a delight. They are not exactly in accord but could have a productive and nice exchange.

It seems the debate itself was biased from the beginning

I love how we live in the best country in the world where a woman taking care of her family is looked down upon because of this reason. WE ARE ALL EQUAL ONLY A FOOL WOULD ACT LIKE THEY KNOW WHATS BEST FOR EVERY PERSON.

What a huge disconnect between the votes on the show and the comments on this page. Virtually everyone in the comments below thinks Summers made the best arguments

Gender equality is fine to talk about, provided men don't have a voice. Like in this debate.

Christina Hoff Sommers is a better writer than speaker, but she has better arguments overall.

Hilarious that this guy was brought in to relegate the discussion when they were doing fine by themselves .

Lol, why are they all speaking about "gender equality" as if it's an actual, quantifiable thing? Equal in what regard(s)? You can't make any two people on this planet equal in every way, as we are all inherently different, what hope do we have of making every man and every woman all equal to each other? Do we even want to live in a world where that's the case? So long as people have different personalities, they will pursue different goals in life. Quotas are bullshit, the only way to eliminate discrimination (deliberate or otherwise) would be to have fully anonymous job applications. But this means an employer has next to no information on the personalities of the candidates, which is unfair on them from a business perspective. Christina Hoff Summers understands that quotas are a giant leap backwards, Ayishat Akanbi is gradually being redpilled and will soon come to this conclusion also. Randa Abdel-Fattah is an entrenched radical who hasn't thought all this through very much, so I can only hope for her.

The reason Christina is more privilege because the culture she came from , and that culture is white European culture . Not her skin . And I guess that culture is a bit better for women

Cant a quota work against womem as well? For example, if theres 20 positions open for a job and it has to be 50/50 gender split, what if only 10 men apply and 30 women? And vice versa for women. Shouldn't it be simply based on competency and character?

They are trying to fix a problem they cant clearly define. Other than not enough women in power roles....what is the actual issue other than Men Bad?

This is a debate that cant be globalised. Christina stands for western society and shes 100% correct. But muslim societies have it different. Religion plays a MAJOR part in that. So maybe deal with those beliefs first 😉

They dont want equal treatment, they want special treatment

This is more like a fancy multimedia installation with fragmented narrative. Cool?

Can u start the debate already.... too long an intro.

The point chronically overlooked in these discussions. In liberal democracies, women are voting for men as political leaders. Persuade the polity that your ideas are valuable, and you will gain support.

Start: 29:00 you are welcome

Wow Christina is great and the girl next to her is kinda ok, but the rest of the show is pure propaganda!

It'll be interesting to see what society is like in 10 to 15 years and what people will think about the issue then.

So one moment Randa Abdel-Fattah is just stating statistics, and not taking a side. Then when Christina states facts and stats, it's apparently "offensive"? Is she aware that offense doesn't mean anything at the end of the day? It's not a counter to a good point well made.

Why the views are so less this ia amazingly best

In a modern mechanized society it is within the realm of possibilities for people to do vastly more than ever in history. However the only way to ever align pay to absolute equality is to take away freedom of choice in vocation, personal life or upend the economic structures of pay ignoring difficulty factors, training, potential peril and a whole host of never talked about factors. In a word “ the more equal a society, the less free that society. In my computer programming classes I always explained to my female students that if financial reward was their thing and dangerous “roughnecking” was not their thing, they needed to code or other related activities being one of the highest earning vocations. Most did not like it and the boys heard and went for it. Here is another dilemma that I identified. If you need 100 coders and 100 boys apply , then they get the top going rate, but if 1000 apply less is paid not needing to draw the talent. Now if the girls in my class took my advice and made up the 1000 balance which over saturated the labor pool , the wages come down and it looks like the industry did it to exploit women. One thing is true. Once you land a job and perform admirably they are not cutting your wages so get there first . Most of all live “your” life, not what a bunch of ill-informed activists tell you that you should and be unhappy with the path you took in life.

I loved this conversation!

The MORE you say/repeat a lie…the closer people get to accepting it as their NEW TRUTH…the opening or introduction to this conversation is a disgusting reminder of just how far some are willing to go in bending truth and ignoring reality….those of us that feel beholden to the Truth and see reality as a comforting touchstone by which we can live our lives, however challenging they might be….we will not say that black is white and that 2+2=5…..we will not make ourselves mad so that the mad can live in a utopia for the disturbed

Just getting started and this already seems like it's going to be a feminist based debate. You said that you have three women that want change in our culture meaning that we need change which we don't. We are completely capable of earning our respect. Earn it.

It bothers me they had 3 on one, and the one couldnt speak well......HOW CONVENIENT??

How does this only have 11k views?

10:37 "Equality is a pretty simple concept." Is it though?

I suggest we need more quota's for force female bricklayer. No sorry, we are only interested in top power positions not in free acces for all women in all areas o life.

I’m curious 🤔 If ur a woman and u agree with Christina Hoff Sommers please comment If ur a man and agree with Christiana Hoff Sommers too please like

54m20s. A young feminist who is admitting that gender imbalances arent always due to discrimination? Why does this feel like a relief or a victory instead of a necessity for being on this kind of stage having this kind of debate? Sommers is charitable in saying she agrees, considering that she and many people who talk about this issue have repeated this over and over.

43:37 the crime can happen in ANY country, even in the most civilized, not an argument at all. You need to show overall statistics and facts, rather than pointing out about single crime that happened recently.

Don't want to be that "guy" but is it a bit hypocritical that all the speakers are women when the debate is about gender equality?

They're filming in Qatar... uh... yes

I like her reference to her factual feminist episodes!

This "debate" was extremely dispiriting and sometimes annoying. Most of what was said by the presenters were very slanted and a lot of what was argued by the debaters have been argued over and over again in the past and Christiana was in the right. Yet, here we are still arguing for the same misandrist rubbish.

Well…..you can vote,& you can be in the military and EVERYTHING in between.If being a victim is your life goal,only YOU can change that. You are NOT going to change OTHERS for YOUR PROBLEMS….i e Issues.

1h24m20s. "Patriarchy oppresses muslims." - a really smart academic, allegedly.

The woman in green refuses to see the world for what it is . But how it make her feel and her emphasis on fairness . Sometimes equality is not fair

The happy to be a victim Randa who is in such a rush to impose quotas without a modicum of understanding of the repurcussions because she only reads authors she agrees with, scares the hell out of me. And, of the 3, she is the one who looks so sad and defeated. She has not smiled in years. Maybe feminists like her are so exposed to dark and negative thoughts that they now suffer from chronic depression.

It's like taking an asprin for headaches due to your brain tumor. Problem with quotas is that it's not scalable. You can fix an issue created over 5000years with a quota system. Most power structures were not intentionally created to oppress women, power accumulation is typically self serving. It probably means that more men have been power hungry for a longer time...... The stats based on outcomes are also misleading, you need to consider the proportion of each "gender" persuing a position then compare it to the outcome to determine the level of inequality. Public office representation is the worst example, if office holder were democratically voted in, what's the mechanism to fix it? A state or city can only vote in a certain gender and not the candidate with policies that benefit you most? Look towards education (upward mobility) and correcting socially acceptable biases for a solution.

What exactly do you want? Talk talk talk will resolve nothing. This is how to communicate with men.

I think women often time disregard and disrespect the advancement women are achieving in other fields, such as medical, government, education.Most of the managerial jobs are perform by women, and most of the workforce is formed by women.

Honestly there is gender equality for men too in terms of military and only men having to go in certain countries and also like they get advantages for like entrances in clubs etc. it’s prevalent with both genders. Women lack the job opportunities and pay gap is perhaps different

societies were and are organized to allow women as great an access to all areas of society while increasing child survival rates to as high as possible... the balance has always been womens and childrens safety and survival as the prime reason for how we organized society... not male oppression of women and children... technological advancements have risen the child survival rates/quotients so high and made the world a much safer place that now women can and want to participate in the workforce where it was once much much more dangerous... where once men went out a wrested the wolf outside the door to keep it from wen and his children technology turned the wolf into a puppy... women today o not understand that it was once a pack of wolves and men were sparing them from it for their survival and that of our children the prime mover of inequality has been biological differences not opressive structures the structures change as technology removes the differences in performance based on biological differences they take time... women need to change their hypergamous natures if society will remain intact and producing healthy children... other wise the divorce rate will continue to explode or the marriage rates will fall sharply and boys will be left without fathers and fall further behind

Women: the largest voting block in the US. Also Women "we need more Women in politics".... Seems like we have a relatively simple solution to this problem.

Very poor framing of the topic. They should have started with what the definition of equality is and if they were talking about developed and democratic nations or developing nations. In the absence of clear definitions, this debate became too abstract and centred on emotions rather than facts and actual data. Also, Aiyshat and Christina had more nuance to their arguments than Randa did. The latter has to check her saviour complex.

After watching so many videos from Jordan Peterson this videos seems stale. It lacks convincing evidence. The conversation is started with an automatic assumption that there is biases, and that it is systemically oppressive - a cajole.

propaganda at the beginning of a debate is a great way to keep it objective.... lol.

In present days if you’re talented and have strong personality - you will take any job. It is not the race or identity that defines top position at work (eg Margaret thatcher), it is your ability to be on the top. Patriarchy often mix up with hierarchy. What’s the point to give rights to a woman who can’t achieve top results at work? Maybe she is good at something else? It’s not her gender that important but her ability as a human

Facts vs opinions

What a treat for that little black girl in the middle😂 She really enjoyed it. I'm jealous

I support gender equality, across the board 100% .. Not to be confused with gender privileges were either gender can cherry pick but pure equal equality between genders, not a bit under or over... let's make woman =to men, girls= to boys and so on... I'm with it..

So when she said “don’t Mansplain”1:36:38 ”. She lost me. Men are no longer allowed to add their opinion if it differs from her/their perspective… ???!? Other than that, an interesting dialogue. Reality, there is systemic racism, systemic classism, systemic misogyny… man (humans) we are evolving….

Sad, but true- women will possess true equality when we can be as mediocre as any man. Especially true for persons of color. Equal opportunity got me the OPPORTUNITY to do my male dominated job in 1978- but I performed the job for 40 years with the (eventual) support and training of my male coworkers.A sense of humor is probably as important as any other skill when succeeding in what can be seen as new territory. Good luck young adventurers!

Ayishat doesnt really say much and is more of an observer here. Kudos to her for not being needlessly radical, but she wouldve been better as the moderator rather than a debater.

1h24m. As a matter of priority, it is absolutely shameful to criticize the treatment of, and discrimination against, muslim women who travel to non muslim countries, particularly as the prof herself admits some bias is unconscious. That is one of the most obscenely privileged statements made in this whole event.

The connector and his canned cpmments at the end were worthless and failed to address the major shift in the votes. The host and her sign off 'i couldnt have put it better myself' in response to the commenter criticizing hoff sommers' focus on the usa and saying they shouldnt fight each other completely ignored the fact that hoff sommers herself said that the topic could not be generalized to the whole world. North koreans obviously arent worried about gender quotas. In some places i will not mention, women cant even go out without a male escort. This whole event was devoid of intellectual merit and i feel sorry for the debaters, even the lady i disagreed with, because they deserved to have their voices aired on a serious platform. There were more moderators commenting on the debate than there were debaters ffs.

Women, men allows you to have any right🤷🏾‍♂️ women complaining is like looking at a Charlie Brown cartoon 🙄

Love Christiana Hoff Sommers

As far as women and all their yelling about equality.  When was the last time you ever saw a "cart girl" at -10 below at any shopping center?  When was the last time you ever had Jane the "Roto-Rooter girl" cleaning your drains?  When was the last time you ever had Lilly-the "cable girl" fixing your cable or dish?  When was the last time you saw "Pam the Plumbs"-crack, bent under your sink?   When was the last time you ever saw Sally the power company gal climbing a power pole?  On and on you get the picture. They only want the pay, not all the job opportunities that are available! 

Women cant beat men at chess. There is currently one woman in top 100 best chess players in the world so when u say ceo of top 500 companies are mostly man, rightfully so. I dont care about meeting quotas. If u do a good job and you're a woman then all power to you. Don't cry sexism because of numbers not being where ud like them just in the same way its not sexism that chess has 99 men on top 100

Stand up where ever you are in the world and look around you, now point at one thing a women made or invented? cant do it? don't worry I can't either.

Kudos to Christina. She’s clearly “outnumbered,” but is more than holding her own by appealing to logic, common sense, & facts/studies while staying in control & keeping an even keel.

There were/are an awful lot of statistics slung about at the beginning of this that make very strong, very leading assertions. I therefore say the following as a scholar and a scientist: [Citation Needed] I would VERY much like some context on virtually ANY of those. "X million out of school"? In the US women have a NOTABLY higher ratio higher degree attainment. Are you taking a worldwide median? The GREATEST idiocy I can see in a situation like this is normalizing the issue across the world scale. Every day that the fiction that there IS a one-size-fix-all is perpetuated is a day of lost effort. I can assure you:what works in Indiana is guaranteed to be different than what would work in India. EDIT: And as an aside: regardless of where I personally come down on the issue, I felt it was an interesting and well executed debate. At no point did I find myself "over it" even when listening to what I believe to be an intrinsically-flawed and myopic analysis being vocalized. What DID make me pause the video, and indeed, the reason I will be navigating away from it, unfinished, as soon as I post this addendum, was the naked agenda and misrepresentation of data FIVE MINUTES AFTER YOU SHOWED A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT (and NEWER) set! Your "post-show" completely diminished and marginalized both your speakers and your viewers' collective intelligences. Sorry, but to me that makes me now see this entire production about sensationalism, views, and likes/social media proflagation. You just undermined the sanctity and value of this entire endeavor, in my eyes at least. The inference I am forced to draw at this point is that you didn't choose your panelists to brainstorm together as a diverse, multi-talented representative sample. You chose them because, between the three (esp those 3, considering the sheer distance between their respective positions'), you'd be guaranteed to have at LEAST two at constant odds. Worse, because you select a gradient of such positions, you're aiming to - indeed, banking _ON_ - the idea that one guest will cause the viewer to respond with abject distaste to she who has the inverse of the viewer's philosophy, AND offers an echo chamber in the other corner. I'll pass on being demeaned and marketed to - poorly - in an effort to drum up outrage. Way to fight those stereotypes, folks.

How is everyone is these comments defending Christina 😬😬

The older woman with logic facts n common sense made the others show why emotions n feelings DONT heko anyone but white liberals mostly women that a fact.

Wow a debate without facts and evidence

This is the wrong question. It should be: "Happiness - is Gender Equality the answer?" And the answer is "no"

Randa Abdel-Fattah That sounds like a name from a country which celebrates women’s rights. I wonder if she ever asks herself why she’s in Australia. “Particularly in Western countries” - are you fucking kidding me? Most non-Western countries don’t even have debates on gender equality. They’re busy throwing gay people off roofs. And quotas are intrinsically discriminatory. You can’t positively discriminate in favour of one “identity group” without negatively discriminating against others.

Not sure the women I. Green think that because in the last years Australia we come immigrants than automatically 25 percent of the elected will be immigrants? What about first Askari g to the new culture. how about thank I get the new culture. These thinks takes time . Also what if these 95 Anglo think about the benefit of all Australia and not one group ( her case Palestinians or Egyptian) and therefore are better ?

Christina 💯👌

Why for a debate about gender equality doesn't the sponsor hire an unattractive woman as moderator? I have no problem with Ghida, but by the standards of equality and dismantling the patriarchy, shouldn't they choose a moderator who does not appeal to cisgender male sexuality?

While well-intentioned, quotas can achieve little more than hiding the symptoms of a fundamental mismatch between our legacy societal structures and our actual current context. Historically men were expected to provide the interface to the world outside their family, including bringing in sufficient external resources to support their family as a cohesive unit. The work women did in that context, particularly in domestic and community spheres, was either unpaid or paid poorly. In that context, "women's work" was valued highly, just not with money, because money wasn't really a relevant currency within the family and community. You don't negotiate with your kids about how much they get to eat in return for doing chores. You feed children because they need food. Chores, too, are about much more than 'paying' for one's supper. Looking through this historical lens, it's easy to see why and even how men arranged their affairs in the 'outside world' in a way that made sense to them in the context they were in, much as women responsible for managing households structured things in the way that made sense to them in the context they were in. Overall, children were fed and raised, people could fulfil their responsibilities, and a workable balance was achieved across society. As an organising structure, what we now refer to as 'patriarchy' made quite a bit of sense at that time, in that context. Not perfect by any means, but largely functional and fit for purpose. In today's context, however, at least in the western world, those legacy societal structures no longer make sense and are no longer fit for purpose. Rather than arguing about quotas and remuneration, I would suggest, we need to tackle the harder problem of reconsidering what work actually needs to be done, and what the appropriate structures are for doing it. As an example -- what (if any) is the appropriate form of national government? Does voting FOR an appealing candidate still make sense? How about voting AGAINST the least appealing candidate? How about sortition -- selecting at random from prequalified pools of candidates (like selecting juries) -- for people to serve in well-defined capacities for limited time periods? How about utilising a trustee or steward structure for official positions, rather than a competitive ideological or party-based one? How about voting on policies in areas one has a stake/interest in, rather than deferring all decision-making and thought to a representative? How about revisiting the subsidiarity principle in light of our current information technologies, ensuring that decisions are made as close to the citizen as possible? I suspect that if we did this admittedly harder work, in the process we'd dissolve most of the symptoms that plague us so.

Lots of bla bla bla 🥴💨

Are there any women here?...Only man is a stock photo.

1:11:27 Just look at the society it may not be a whole group😘

What is this crap KZfaq is showing me?

Poor debate.

This is incredibly lame

Woman in green is so stubborn and combative and says nothing of substance.

why hasn't the only man in this debate got a comfortable seat - imagine the uproar if it was reversed !!!!

..the chick wearing that green striped couch cover, why she wear so much make-up?? Emotion based thinking definitely decreases from left to right while, correspondingly, critical thinking increases.

Christine is basically saying "yea look other countries have it worse just be cool with what u got here"

I didnt understand Christina's argument about quotas for trans too. Like yes, why not? And does she not egnoladg discrimination exist??