The Instigator
Free_Human_Being
Pro (for)
The Contender
Wastruth
Con (against)

Are Western Women More Privileged Than Men?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Wastruth has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 753 times Debate No: 95810
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (33)
Votes (0)

 

Free_Human_Being

Pro

This debate has transpired because my opponent told me that a feminist who repeatedly calls men rapists and says kill all men is completely justified - He says it's a joke . I stated that if rape jokes are wrong by her very own decree, then she is in fact, joking about rape and guilty.

My opponent claims she was joking and also justified because he claims she's punching up, which of course is fancy rationalization speak for simply claiming positional victimhood in order to continue to say or do something that would not only be wholly unacceptable were the genders swapped, but also met with vigorous protest and calls for dismissal - All of which the feminist female in question is completely immune to.

Could it be women are more privileged than men?

I believe it to be so obviously axiomatic, that we are here to prove our respective cases.

My requirements for this debate are that any claims must be accompanied by the highest form of proof. Anecdote, opinion pieces, and books by unqualified peoples are not admissible and are an instant forfeit. Noveau phrases and unqualified sociological terms will also be dismissed. Psychology journals and neuroscience are completely acceptable.

Here are the facts for men vs women in the west as they stand:

Average male life expectancy = 76
Average female life expectancy = 81
prb.org/DataFinder/Topic/

This shows women live longer than men. I would argue LIFE is the most precious commodity available to a human being, barring statistical (sociopaths) outliers. The most important thing to human beings is the lives of loved one. Nothing can be substituted or even comes close. Life is all we have and women categorically have more than men.

Privilege - Women

Murder Victims By Gender

Male = 77%
Female = 23%

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1635092
According to a 10 yea study involving a massive 215,273 victims men were well and truly the majority of murder victims.

I argue that this is huge. Life is fundamentally important and the right to live is to most precious and agreed upon human right. Murder is the highest form of crime, ergo; there is no coming back from it, no therapy that can solve it's ill, and women are less likely to experience it.

Privilege - Women

Occupation

It's an all too common tactic of deceit to look at men in America and commit the Apex Fallacy - This is where you assume the minuscule amount of men in government and corporate positions relative to your general man are in any way indicative of the average male worker.

The reality for males is they are more likely to work longer hours in more dangerous jobs, with more travel time and more unpaid overtime.
hse.gov.uk/statistics/tables/index.htm

This results in men making up 20.75 times the amount of workplace deaths as women. This isn't a few percent this is 2000%.

Privilege - Women

Suicide

3 out of 4 suicides are men
afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

I don't think I need to say much more on this subject.

Privilege - Women

Spending

Only a brave person could dismiss the claim that women spend more money. A cursory look at a mall will tell you which gender the majority of shops are targeted towards, in fact this is consistent in the west.

Women account for 85% of all consumer purchases including everything from autos to health care:
91% of New Homes - 66% PCs 92% Vacations 65% New Cars

Companies predominantly market to women and this gives women enormous consumer power.
Women consume more luxury goods, take more vacations and spend more money on entertainment in every medium except sport
Women own the majority of personal wealth in America

Mindshare Market Study /Ogilvy & Mather
BMO Wealth Institute Report
Privilege - Women

Women's health gets more funding than men - Even though men die in all but a couple of ailments at higher rates.
.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/mars-vs-venus-the-gender-gap-in-health

In conclusion, women spend more and die less = Privilege
Wastruth

Con

I agree women live longer and that's were it ends. The rest of your argument is the same old tired sexism women have to put up with from misogynist all the time

Women have babies so they need more health services that's not sexism

Women live in something called a rape cultural which you're contribution to is noted

1 in 2 women are raped, abused or assaulted , let that sink in for a minute. It's disgusting how this is allow d to happen in a partriarchy where men have all the power.

You really need to learn about feminism because frankly you look like someone who knows nothing about the subject and it's embarrassing. Think about this, do women want to enter those dangerous jobs because of sexism? That's the problem, you don't consi both sides of the story.

Women are afraid to enter these jobs because of a he risk of harassment and as I already pointed out... Rape culture

Your making assumptions that are not true, just because men die earlier that's not necessarily as big a deal as you make out
because everyone dies, but many wome die in childbirth

Women spend more becaus patriarchy pressures them to look a certain way and men can just wear suits

Women only earn 77cents that men earn

Women are expected to look after the kids

Women still get asked what they were wearing instead of telling men not to rape

Men still treat women as objects and many only want to have sex with a woman with no intention of getting to know her or learning anything about her mind

In summary women suffer from rape and societal expectations that men don't and we live in a rape culture and still a patriarchal society
Debate Round No. 1
Free_Human_Being

Pro

The claim of "rape culture" is weak. We live in a society where rape is illegal. That in itself should be more than enough to debunk the idea of a rape culture, as pertains to Oxford dictionary's definition of culture. Above and beyond this, rape is considered one of the most heinous crimes in the world second only to murder (the very crime men suffer 3 times more of than women).

Rapists are denigrated and ostracized by society in general. Rape is a statistical outlier, no matter how many false guess statistics from bias and disreputable sources may try and lie about, the fact is sexual assault occurs in .00076% of the population, of which rapes are an even smaller proportion of that number.

It's just completely illogical to call something that happens in .00076% an epidemic maintained by a cultural perpetuation in a country where rape is illegal and viewed with the highest level of disgust
http://www.aic.gov.au...

Do you have any proof women don't enter male fields because of fear from any other source that's not blatant feminist fear mongering? Could you provide a source(for anything) that shows women in general don't make occupational choices of their own volition at rates different to men?

The truth is, men still bear the burden of expectation when it comes to income. Almost no female has to worry that if she loses her job, there's a chance she might lose her home and children. Men do not have this privilege that women do. This must verily perpetuate a male's need to earn and increase earnings. Men are routinely shamed by women who point out other higher earning men and their accumulation of assets and provisions for their families.
It's little wonder male suicide rates are so high.

Your weak diatribe against men and sex is nonsensical. No person is required to have feelings or anything more than sexual attraction to another human being they find attraction. Any other projection you make is arbitrary.
There is no patriarchy. Women are the majority voters in society. They are the majority of consumers, so if the argument is that government and CEO's have power, that power is to be acquiesced to the dominanant women force. In fact, the very dictionary definition of patriarchy that requires a male head of house, is completely untenable to the truth. The majority of children are mother raised and this figure is higher in single-parent families. Women make the majority of household decisions.

Children's teachers are mostly female.

There is no proof that male influence holds any more weight or power than the most proven factors or the mother's.
Patriarchy is completely debunked.

The is no discriminatory wage gap, which is why EVERY TIME someone tries to prove one, they offer some collation that does not include all the measurable differences in men and women's work. To prove a wage gap requires a study of men and women in the same job, same age, same training and qualifications and all the same hours work, overtime, travel expectations, sick leave, take home work, operating at the same level of output efficiency.

No such proof exists in one single job, let alone a conspiracy of all workplaces. Also, if women cost less to hire, no workplace would hire men and crush their opposition. It's just completely nonsensical.

Women choose to look after the kids, where men usually get zero choice.

Can you point to a single court case where a female was asked what she was wearing. This strawman canard is trotted out, but is rarely and actual factor. Also, teach everybody not to rape. A women's privilege to not be considered a rapist because laws don't include made to penetrate. That's systemic legal sexism against men to privilege women criminals.

In conclusion - You have proven nothing and rattled off debunked talking points and offered no proof and had obvious emotional reasoning. Women clearly have more privilege when they have more LIFE & Life is everything
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Free_Human_Being 7 months ago
Free_Human_Being
It was certainly interesting and thank you for your participation.

Trust me when I say I read every single wage gap study I can find. I certainly have learned enough to write my own book on the subject, but what boring read that would be. Lol.
Posted by stephematician 7 months ago
stephematician
It was interesting how this whole debate played out. It focussed on one of the weaker points that either side could claim, for which I was too eager to defend from criticism.

I think next time I participate in a debate, I'm going to work much harder to work through the broader discussion.
Posted by stephematician 7 months ago
stephematician
You keep running back to the same shelter that there is no "burden of proof". You keep saying that studies are just "guessing" the value of the co-variates you mention. That this is somehow 'fudging'.

You mistake assumptions for guesses. Assumptions are necessary for both quantitative analysis and constructing logical arguments. They are fundamental to science (aside: and of course they should be challenged when it becomes obvious that they are failing to explain observations).

None of this change the fact that you have absolutely bugger all evidence to support your "guesses" at the values. Some of the evidence you presented is unfavourable to your "guesses" (re: overtime) without you even realising it.

Also, let's discuss your take on the Bartolucci paper:

"The whole thing is an exercise in correlation fallacy based on guesses."

Really?

I'll accept that there is certainly a discussion to be had about whether some of those variables you list might explain rent-splitting or are more likely wrapped up in productivity (as discussed in the paper). Or even maybe a valid criticism of the model used.

It would have been excellent of you to present something along those lines to support your argument. It speaks volumes about how little intellectual effort you're putting in to understanding this issue that you didn't.

I can tell you one thing for sure. There is a simple reason why not all those variables are available in one study; measuring all those variables on a large enough scale to draw statistically valid conclusions would be _prohibitively_ expensive, especially given how little the effect size of some of those variables would be.

Because of this, by your own terms, you will never have proof that there isn't one. Nor that there is.

We're at an impasse.

Luckily for me, this hasn't been a waste of my time. I learnt about search-match labour market models at least.
Posted by Free_Human_Being 7 months ago
Free_Human_Being
I have been very generous with my requirements because I have not requested many other variables which also can affect wages: travel requirements, promotion negotiation, solitary options, commission bonuses, referral bonuses and finders fees, personal money spent on work peripherals, field training requirements, on call hours, same hours during the same days (same hours is deceptive as someone working midnight shifts may earn more than someone working day shifts), uninterrupted experience, same city, executive position in same job,.

To fudge numbers it's really, REALLY easy to make a "reasonable" comparison.

All I have to do is compare:

Same job
Same hours
Same company
Same qualifications upon hiring

Now to many, this is completely reasonable and any further factors is just nitpicking right?

So let's compare them and there's a 20% difference.

They might have:
Same job - Different duties

Same hours - Different times of the day, knowing full well men work more late shifts and late shift may pay more.

Same qualifications upon hiring - Nothing to say someone can't gain further qualifications, thus changing their inherent value, all without being counted.

Same company - Different cities (or Countries) - Differing areas have a direct result on pay rates.

This is why the highest level of proof is required. Simply complaining about factors doesn't make the need for them to be examined moot.

It's easy to prove a wage gap using dishonest methods, but when ABSOLUTE honesty, integrity and proof are required, it seems one study with all factors, let alone a widespread summation of all workplaces, seems too hard an ask.
Posted by Free_Human_Being 7 months ago
Free_Human_Being
As far as I'm concerned, you need to show a study that includes the exact figures of:

Men and women

Same job
Same hours worked
Same unpaid overtime
Same take home work
Same Experience
Same wage negotiations (frequency & results)
Same amount of leave
Same workplace targets
Same ongoing education (if it exists and is relevant to upskills)
Same qualifications
Same tasks performed

If any of these variables are not met with complete disclosure the study is flawed and not worth considering as any one of these can affect wages, but more than one almost certainly will.

Enough diversion on your part and DO NOT ask me for any more proof - You make the claim - You prove it. These are normal debate rules.

Show me the study and figures, because I'm not reading all your speculatory claims from now.

If there's evidence it should be extremely easy for you to find ONE study which you have failed to do.

You surely must understand that you've barely come close to doing this for one study, how on earth do you propose this could be extrapolated to a pattern?

Men and women don't earn the same amount because of a number of variables that never get counted, because the people performing these studies can simply compare aggregates and get away with it or at best they can compare a few factors leaving out several and nominate the value of the ones they leave out to zero. This is science. This is not right.

Surely you know this.

Surely you require a higher standard of proof for yourself, let alone to hold value in arguing for such things.
Posted by Free_Human_Being 7 months ago
Free_Human_Being
It's not reductio ad absurdum at all. Your use of that is a red herring fallacy and that fact that you're resorting to this means you've clearly lost.

Now you're resorting to change the era of your argument too. Post hoc ergo propter hoc

I see what you're doing and I assume neutral observers can too.

"What is the breakdown of hours worked overtime is when occupational segregation is considered? "

Maybe if they prove such a factor is occurring in the referenced study it's worth mentioning, but right now you're making an assumption about something that is another argument and may not exist in this circumstance.

Could you reference the part of the study where they show the same wage negotiation frequencies, objective observation measures, and the notations.

Could you provide the exact figures for the UNPAID overtime both sets performed.

Could you provide the exact figures for workplace targets.

"You have not shown that women are meeting workplace targets less than men"

I don't have to. Again and this will be the last time I state this before you look incapable of understanding the basic requirements of what proof is - If targets could be a factor, which at this point is inarguable; YOU must show that the targets are the same.

"here's an interesting one that discusses whether productivity differences (along with hours etc) can explain wage gaps."

Nope. The whole thing is an exercise in correlation fallacy based on guesses. Again and it's NO surprise that the lack of input variables can lead the result. Any formula leaving out the things I'm arguing about is irrelevant, though may still prove my point that the less evidence you have, the more you can argue any outcome.

The more I ask for, the more you seem to get bemused by the idea of proving your point.

Again, you have to prove all the same factors across every single occupation and you can't do it for one without changing the argument.
Posted by stephematician 7 months ago
stephematician
You are resorting to reductio ad absurdum, fail to recognise that you are claiming a departure from a known historical effect (women have had a wage gap for quite some time, and so the proof that the legislation was effective in ending it rests with the 'no wage gap' side) and apply double standards to the evidence that 'counts'.

These are not helpful behaviours for determining the truth of a matter.

Overtime hours worked:
What is the breakdown of hours worked overtime is when occupational segregation is considered? The overtime characteristics are at least partly explained by occupational segregation as the facts you cite mention. Never mind that it shows that the proportion of women in the study performing unpaid overtime is roughly the same or slightly _higher_ than men who perform unpaid overtime.

Salary negotiations:
The effect size in the experiment is not great (it is a significant but _small_ effect), and the proportion who did negotiate their salary under the conditions where there was an observed gender difference is too small to explain the wage gap. This also doesn't provide evidence for how common ambiguous wage negotiation terms are.

Workplace targets:
You have not shown that women are meeting workplace targets less than men, so you have not provided any evidence that this explains the wage gap. Although I am able to find evidence in productivity differences (see below)

References:
While I could provide more - here's an interesting one that discusses whether productivity differences (along with hours etc) can explain wage gaps.
Bartolucci, Cristian. "Gender Wage Gaps Reconsidered A Structural Approach Using Matched Employer-Employee Data." Journal of Human Resources 48.4 (2013): 998-1034.
APA
Posted by Free_Human_Being 7 months ago
Free_Human_Being
I'll do what your study does - I'll guess the difference in variables ISN'T discrimination. There you go, that's the same level of proof you offered me. Oh, but hold on - I can prove that the missing variables under almost all circumstance DO lead to differences in wages:

Men negotiate better salaries:Published: Andreas Leibbrandt & John A. List, 2015. "Do Women Avoid Salary Negotiations? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," Management Science, vol 61(9), pages 2016-2024.

Men are pressured by their partners to earn more:
http://cw.routledge.com...

Meeting workplaces targets increases earnings
http://web.mit.edu...

Unpaid overtime affects earnings:
http://edoc.hu-berlin.de...

Men do more overtime:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca...

Gosh, it's almost as if the differences in the wage gap can be explained and proven without it being discrimination.

At this point, I've shown ample evidence. You've shown a 44 year old study that guesses at the things it was either too lazy or to bias to include, all of which I've well and truly countered as per your request - Al the whilst not being required to.

At this point your best proof wasn't any at all and was only one job in a foreign country. I simply can not see how this can point to a pattern across the board.
Posted by Free_Human_Being 7 months ago
Free_Human_Being
I'll do what your study does - I'll guess the difference in variables ISN'T discrimination. There you go, that's the same level of proof you offered me. Oh, but hold on - I can prove that the missing variables under almost all circumstance DO lead to differences in wages:

Men negotiate better salaries:Published: Andreas Leibbrandt & John A. List, 2015. "Do Women Avoid Salary Negotiations? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," Management Science, vol 61(9), pages 2016-2024.

Men are pressured by their partners to earn more:
http://cw.routledge.com...

Meeting workplaces targets increases earnings
http://web.mit.edu...

Unpaid overtime affects earnings:
http://edoc.hu-berlin.de...

Men do more overtime:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca...

Gosh, it's almost as if the differences in the wage gap can be explained and proven without it being discrimination.

At this point, I've shown ample evidence. You've shown a 44 year old study that guesses at the things it was either too lazy or to bias to include, all of which I've well and truly countered as per your request - Al the whilst not being required to.

At this point your best proof wasn't any at all and was only one job in a foreign country. I simply can not see how this can point to a pattern across the board.
Posted by Free_Human_Being 7 months ago
Free_Human_Being
What you're ostensibly asking me is that even though your study doesn't compare men and women in the same exact jobs with all variables accounted for the same - The differences don't matter, the guess it's discrimination. Just because they include some factors, they're not enough - They might be for you because you want them to support your argument.

Telling me that even though they have essential factors missing like unpaid overtime, >>>work efficiency<<< , wage negotiations, pressure to obtain higher salaries from partners, cases won, performance bonuses, continued study, advancement - But those don't matter, because discrimination and that I need to prove that those differences don't matter because you're making the claim.

What?

Hey Stephmatican - The bottom of the ocean has aliens, because I assume it to be so. You don't agree? - I'm, gonna need you to provide a detailed map of the ocean floor . Such tautological reasoning from rhetoric logic is logically fallacious.

Under no debate rules am I expected to disprove a claim you make with evidence when you fail to provide it yourself, even worse when your own evidence makes a guess in the absence of a lot of variables that would make a difference and have been proven in other studies to make a difference.

Negotiation of wages is a factor that affects wages - Your study ignores it
Work efficiency has a huge effect on wages - Your study ignores it.
Unpaid overtime has a huge effect on promotion - Your study ignores it.
Meeting workplace targets has a huge effect on wages - Your study ignores it and many others.

But it must be discrimination. lol.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.