Women are being treated unfairly in the United States.
Debate Rounds (4)
I would like to debate the issue of sexism regarding females. I believe that women are being treated unfairly in the United States and that reform is a moral obligation. My opponent will argue the opposite. Certain rules must be followed in order to ensure that this debate is rational, fair, logical, factual, and mature. For clarification, this debate only regards women in the United States. I am aware that sexism occurs almost everywhere, but the United States is, in my view, exceptionally disgusting forwards females.
1. There will be no forfeiture. If it occurs, the judges will select the other debater as the winner.
2. All sources will be cited. All formats - MLA, APA, Chicago, etc. - are acceptable.
3. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.
4. Trolling will result in the judges choosing the opposite debater as the winner. Trolling is intolerable.
One: My opponent will accept the debate and acknowledge the rules.
Two: Each debater will present main arguments. There will be no rebuttals in this round.
Three: Each debater will offer rebuttals and any final arguments.
Four: Each debater will conclude the debate with any final rebuttals and a summary.
Time to Argue: 72 hours
Argument Maximum: 10,000 characters
Voting Period: 2 weeks
Voting Style: Judge
Voting System: Select Winner
I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate. I truly look forward to it.
I will begin by addressing one of the key issues in women's rights: the wage gap. According to CBS, "women still earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. For African-American and Hispanic women it's even lower: 64 and 54 cents, respectively." This is most unfortunate. I cannot see how this is not caused by sexism. We are stereotyping when we claim women are unable to work, are weak, and are of less value than men. Why should we pay them less than men when they are working the same job, the same work hours, the same conditions, the same education, and the same experience? Magforwomen.com says, "[g]ender discrimination still exists in majority of occupations and women are still considered below men, despite being capable of competing at an equal level on the grounds of physical strength and intellectual brilliance. Some organizations pay lesser salary, give lower increments and reduce the growth potential of their women employees in comparison to their male employees." I have now proven this point using two sources. It cannot be refuted.
Magforwomen.com continues with the following statements:
"Sexual harassment, male chauvinism, domestic violence are all, at some point in time, a result of sexism. They occur when men consider women as objects of sexuality and as the ones only destined to do household chores."
"Most religions too discriminate against women with their traditions which show women in bad light. Religions show women as objects of temptation and urge men to shun them in order to reach godliness. Ancient traditions and cultures, some followed even today, require women to cover themselves completely, even their faces, in male presence."
"Education, one of man’s bare essentials in the present age, is also deprived to many female students. Even in developed countries, professors think of their male candidates as more capable and tend to ignore the female candidates."
The above three phrases should be considered by my opponent, the viewers, and the voters. They clearly show that sexism is still a part of the United States society. The Huffington Post states, "[t]he situation isn't much better in other areas of high-level management: Despite big gains, women only make up slightly more than 10 percent of big company chief financial officers. And more than one-third of public companies had zero women senior officers, according to a recent survey from Catalyst, an organization aimed at expanding business opportunities for women." This is clearly sexism. I believe we should grant women the same opportunities as men and not treat them as inferior. Both sexes have great potential, but the wage gap and other issues are what restrict women from taking control of that potential. This is absolutely disgusting and inhumane.
"Making matters worse, almost half of all workers are prohibited or strongly discouraged from discussing pay information, according to an IWPR report. That means women workers can't find out if their male colleagues are earning more than they are." Huffington Post provides more examples of sexism, but I believe these are the most crucial ones. I urge my opponent as well as the viewers to view all of the websites in my 'works cited' section so that they can see for themselves.
Here is an example: A man graduates from Harvard at the top of his class. A year later, a woman graduates at the top of her class from the same school. They both have the same education, experience, and credentials. Both apply for the same job. The man, more than likely, will receive that job simply because he is a man. This is hideous and obviously identified as sexism.
Now, why, you ask, is reform a moral obligation? In order to prove my claim that it is, I do not need a source. I do not need to search the internet for facts and data. I must speak the truth we all know. If you are at all human, if you have any empathy at all, you will agree with me. What if it were your daughter or your wife that endures this sexism? What if a great friend of yours goes through this? You will surely sympathize with them, support them, comfort them, and take action.
It is time to realize what society is doing to its female members. It is time to make a change. Will we simply stand there and do nothing, or will we take action for what is right? I do not see how my opponent can argue Con on this debate. Unless he provides sufficient evidence and manages to refute everything I wrote - which I think is impossible - he will be taking the immoral, inhumane, hideous side of this issue.
By the way, "I have now proven this point using two sources. It cannot be refuted," is not a decent or honest statement to make in a debate. Need I only post three sources in dissent to secure this point for myself? My opponent seems to be under the impression that finding an opinion on the internet automatically validates its position. Quoting three statements from a feminist website and then saying "they clearly show that sexism is still a part of the United States's society" is not an argument, and I expect better from any opponent I face.
While I will post strong refutations for the points my opponent make, there is a philosophical discrepancy that reveals itself, and that is the apparent belief of Pro that correlation is synonymous with causation. The fact that women face disadvantages that, as I will show later, statistics clearly show are vanishing quickly, does not imply individual sexism, much less institutionalized bigotry. By this logic, it could be mentioned that men will be sentenced more harshly in court for equivalent crimes (1), and are handed massive disadvantage in custody courts (2), and the conclusion could be made that the system obviously discriminates against men. I would say no, this is not true, although these are problems, similar to the few accurate assessments that Pro makes. To suggest that problems must have a intentional,existential, maleficent cause is basic and misleading, and simply listing issues does not comment in any way on their cause. With that said, I must now respond to the rather stunning misconstruction and single-sourced arguments that Pro makes.
77 Cents to the Dollar?
Originally cherry-picked in the 2010 census, the "wage gap" in the United States simply doesn't exist in the form advocates say it does. The formula for the conclusion was flawed, I suspect intentionally so. The method was simply to take the average money women make every year, and compare to the average men make, and men did come out on top in that category. (3) Indeed, the top ten highest paying jobs are majority male, and the lowest ten majority female, which does not imply sexism in any way. (See "Discrimination and Free Markets)" When the factors are controlled in this parity experiment, this mystical 23 cents suddenly disappears. For example, men work longer at work in a given week than women. (4) Part of the reason for this is the likelihood of women having children, and being expected to care for them, a claimed form of sexism which I will address if my opponent cares to mention it. However, what about when men are forced to take care of children? According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, that when compared, "single childless women to single childless men, the wage gap not only disappears, but instead becomes a wage premium."(5) In other words, when the major maternal factor is removed, women actually make more money in full-time jobs then men.
My Opponent's Quotes
It would seem that quoting a feminist website with insufficient numerical or empirical support does not coagulate into any coherent case, but lest I be accused of shunting aside my duties, I feel obliged to reply. Sexual assault, if not inherently sexist, definitely demonstrates a grave disrespect for fellow humans. However, what this has to do with women being "destined to do household chores" is beyond me, or what this had to do with society. Rape will always occur, in every society, until humans, especially men, stop being sexual, oft-depraved beings. (I suspect that's a long time coming). Indeed, rape in the United States comparatively is far from the worst, not even making the top 100 list of rapes per 100,000 people. (6)
My opponent and I seem to come to a consensus that religion generally is negative towards women, and I condemn the headscarves and ill-treatment females are required to endure in much of the world. With that said, this quote seems to contain no connection to the United States, other than that much of the population is religious. In the United States, religion is neither recognized nor institutionalized, and so cannot be federally sanctioned in this way.
Once again, prophets and professors far to often look down on their famle students in other countries, as the quote makes clear. This is simply not the case in the US, as female enrollment in colleges has officially surpassed male enrollment (7), as well as impressively dominating the educational workforce in America.
Please either review or support quotations that you borrow from website, instead of finding those who agree with you and claiming victory based solely on their opinions.
The Legacy of Sexism
The question will always come up in this type of discussion of how then, if the US no longer practices pervasive sexism, that women still constitute such small roles in big business and other areas of the market? And the answer is simple: they haven't been given enough time. Women in American society have been advancing steadily as a result of the glorious 70's feminist movement, enlightened reform, and to some extent affirmative action. (Why would a patriarchal society apply such a system, by the way). As statistics now prove, mere decades, if not years, await before full gender integration into business and government. 40% of households hold the leading female as their primary breadwinner (8), and the inclusion of women as executives, managers, and owners is skyrocketing at an extraordinary rate. (9) Simply put, centuries of repression have failed to put women down, and we are a living in a new age, free of any kind of widespread misogyny.
Discrimination and Free Markets
Before I cite my sources and wait for my opponent's response, one more thing must be established. With no back-up or evidence for Pro's story, as seems to be a theme, Pro claims that a business will hire a man over an equally/better qualified women as a result of sexism. Not only do the facts not support this rather puerile anecdote, but it is also logically bankrupt. Why would a business, free of the chains of bureaucratic meddling, hire a lesser worker simply because of their sex? As all good entrepreneurs ought to know, better employees means better production, and until this spurious claim of discrimination is defended properly, it should be dismissed.
To conclude, while there is no denying the discpicable history of gender treatment and roles in the United States, to claims the massive, can't-be-missed problems that Pro alleges seem to have no basis in reality. Of course being up to the audience, I believe I have countered every opening argument my opponent presented. That being the case, good luck to my adversary, and I look forward to his next entry.
I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for his response. I must admit, when I started this debate, I was convinced I would win regardless of what my opponent claimed. Now that my opponent has made his argument, I had to reread it multiple times before any refutations came to mind. His argument is splendid and I must concede to the notion that my argument was largely unsourced and weak. I do apologize. In my rebuttals, I intend to defend my arguments and attack my opponent's. I am no longer as confident that I will win, but I shall still attempt to claim the victory. The choice is obviously not mine, for it is the judges'. I do, however, intend to prove to them what I am capable of.
My opponent begins with his preface. I intend to address one line in particular, which is "[t]o suggest that problems must have a intentional,existential, maleficent cause is basic and misleading, and simply listing issues does not comment in any way on their cause." As a matter of fact, my opponent is correct. I simply listed issues women face, while not stating how they are in any way caused by sexism. I do, however, believe my point was implied, but I don't think my opponent or anybody else noticed it. Therefore, I will directly state it: I do not see how my points are not caused by sexism. If they are not caused by sexist discrimination, then what are they caused by? Is this alternative cause logical? My opponent argues that the wage gap is not caused by sexism. He argues that "men work longer at work in a given week than women. Part of the reason for this is the likelihood of women having children, and being expected to care for them, a claimed form of sexism." He then says, "when the major maternal factor is removed, women actually make more money in full-time jobs then men." I must say, my opponent's arguments are great and mine were weak, but the fact of the matter is that sexism is a valid interpretation, given these facts. As I said before, "[e]ducation, one of man’s bare essentials in the present age, is also deprived to many female students. Even in developed countries, professors think of their male candidates as more capable and tend to ignore the female candidates." Sexism may not be the direct cause of the wage gap, but it is a factor that should not be ignored. The lack of education, in comparison to men, implies sexism and should be taken into consideration by my opponent.
Regarding the religious quote, my opponent said this: "With that said, this quote seems to contain no connection to the United States, other than that much of the population is religious. In the United States, religion is neither recognized nor institutionalized, and so cannot be federally sanctioned in this way." I fully recognize the first amendment and that religion is not recognized or institionalized in the United States, but many people act this way. The TEA Party, for example, is, in a sense, founded upon the Bible and is, in my view, extremely sexist.
"Once again, prophets and professors far to often look down on their famle students in other countries, as the quote makes clear. This is simply not the case in the US, as female enrollment in colleges has officially surpassed male enrollment, as well as impressively dominating the educational workforce in America." I grant my opponent this.
"With no back-up or evidence for Pro's story, as seems to be a theme, Pro claims that a business will hire a man over an equally/better qualified women as a result of sexism. Not only do the facts not support this rather puerile anecdote, but it is also logically bankrupt. Why would a business, free of the chains of bureaucratic meddling, hire a lesser worker simply because of their sex? As all good entrepreneurs ought to know, better employees means better production, and until this spurious claim of discrimination is defended properly, it should be dismissed." I see my opponent's case here, yet I do not agree. I must concede to the notion that "better employees means better production", which is true - I intend to be an entrepreneuer one day, so I should know this - but men are not always the better employees. Sexism is declining in this society, which is great, but it is still not obliterated. Men, as I have shown, can obtain certain jobs more easily than women simply because of gender.
My argument and my rebuttals are both weak, I must concede. However, I tried my best with the limited time I had to write this. I am afraid I will lose this debate, and if my opponent does win, I shall accept it, but I tried and that is what matters. I tried. I look forward to my opponent's refutations and, eventually, the outcome of this debate.
Ameliamk1 forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeitured and thus failed to provide any rebuttals. In the first round, I specifically stated as rule one, "There will be no forfeiture. If it occurs, the judges will select the other debater as the winner." I simply hope that the judges make the right choice when the voting period begins.
Ameliamk1 forfeited this round.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.