Instigator / Pro
12
1500
rating
9
debates
38.89%
won
Topic
#4165
The Gender Wage Gap is not an example of patriarchy.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Barney
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1815
rating
50
debates
100.0%
won
Description
Gender = Defined here as only men and women, for that is what the "wage gap" is centered around.
Wage Gap= Differences in earnings between men and women, calculated by taking ALL full-time male workers and ALL full-time female workers, calculating the average, not accounting for several different variables.
Patriarchy= A (supposed or not) system of power that benefits men and subjugates women.
PRO'S BURDEN: Prove that the wage gap is not an exxample of patriarchy.
CON'S BURDEN: Prove that the wage gap IS an exmple of patriarchy.
Round 1
Thank you very much @Barney for accepting this debate. I look forward to a rigorous interaction...
I. DEFINITIONS
As described in full description.
II. ARGUMENTS
A. The Gender Wage Gap does not exist, at least not as most people think it does
First, we have to answer some questions:
How is the wage gap calculated?
The gender wage gap is calculated by counting ALL adult full-time (more than 35 hours/week) female workers, of all proffesions, ages etc, adding their earnings (usually monthly) and taking the average. The same is done for men. So, we can understand that a female MANAGER is counted in conjunction with a female BARWOMAN. Plus, a female BARWOMAN is compared with a male DOCTOR and a male MANUAL LABOURER.
Can the pay gap be explained?
Since the 1980s, economic scientists have proven that (recent sources quoted at the end), this figure is JUST a number, as it doesn't take into account;
A) Differences in working hours
B) Differences in productivity
C) Differences in character traits
D) Differences in paid and unpaid leave
E) Differences in career orientation and choice
etc
For these variables unaccounted for, the wage gap stand at a 12-17 cents deficit, according to the study.
However, IF we run a multivariant analysis on the statistic of the pay gap, it turns out that discrimination is just ONE of EIGHTEEN factors at play, accounting for less than 1.5% of the total pay gap. If we take the 14 cents figure, this would mean that discrimination only accounts for 0.21 cents of the difference.
The rest can be attributed to the aforementioned factors.
CONCLUSION: Just a number, reflecting (mostly) different choices, not discrimination.
III. EXPLANATIONS
"Differences in character traits".
According to the OCEAN acronym describing personality, men and women portray differences in:
A) Aggreeableness
B) Neurotisicm
Both of which are found in higher degrees in women.
QUOTE:
"The Big Five Personality Traits
- Openness to experience. Sometimes called intellect or imagination, this represents the willingness to try new things and think outside the box. Traits include insightfulness, originality and curiosity.
- Conscientiousness. The desire to be careful, diligent and to regulate immediate gratification with self-discipline. Traits include ambition, discipline, consistency and reliability.
- Extroversion. A state where an individual draws energy from others and seeks social connections or interaction, as opposed to being alone (introversion). Traits include being outgoing, energetic and confident.
- Agreeableness The measure of how an individual interacts with others, characterised by degree of compassion and co-operation. Traits include tactfulness, kindness and loyalty.
- Neuroticism. A tendency towards negative personality traits, emotional instability and self-destructive thinking. Traits include pessimism, anxiety, insecurity and fearfulness. "
What do higher levels of neuroticism and aggreeableness mean for women?
A) Less likely to be antagonistic (thus seek higher pay or be competitive against rival company, a triat desired at the top positions of companies)
B) More likely to be emotionally unstable and have higher levels of stress, pessimism, insecurity and fearfulness. This means that such people (in this case most women) cannot lead a nation/company as well as people with lower levels of neuroticism could (in this case most men). Why? Because in order to be a leader, you have to be able to set your emotions aside, think logically and not have your judgement impaired by anxiety, pessimism and insecurity.
OF COURSE, this does not mean that ALL women are incapable to lead (well), it just means that less women are as capable leaders as men, so few will rise at the top and stay there.
IV. SOURCES
ARTICLES;
SCHOLARLY:
(Those are just SOME of the scholarly sources I could find using JUST Google Scholar.)
CONCLUSIONS: If we run a multivariant analysis on the gender pay gap, actual discrimination is PRACTICALLY non-existent and quite rare, and the wage gap's figure is either eliminated or greatly diminished.
Awaiting for your response.
Preamble:
I give pro credit for his cunning. A little bait and switch, then a strange limiting definition for the pay gap to be used as a straw man without dealing with the real issues.
The problem is I know this issue well enough that I could tackle either side of it blindfolded. To such ends, I shall write this introductory round without so much as skimming pro’s case (fairly common for rebuttals to be in R2 anyways).
I shall first disprove any potential case from pro using tautology, and then bolster my own with an educational segment. These shall have the following sections.
- Is–Ought Problem
- Unadjusted vs Adjusted
1. Is–Ought Problem:
The problem for pro is that he’s (most likely, again, haven’t read it yet) engaging in an argument of ignorance, not realizing when the same rules of ignorance are applied his case fails on first contact. To quote Mike Tyson, “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
Patriarchy is apparently a “supposed or not” system which places men above women. And the wage gap (even if flawed) is a common example of that.
- The patriarchy drives women into lower paying professions by discrimination [1],
- The patriarchy and wage gap in the tech sector is decreasing, proving they exists [2], and
- The patriarchy, through religion, represses women’s pay [3].
Are these great examples? Of course not, and yet they remain examples nonetheless of how the patriarchy influences the pay gap. Examples need only illustrate something to count as examples. Bad examples too are often used to make points, such as learning from bad grammar [4]. Should the amount of the pay gap communicate anything about the patriarchy (such as it declining) it is still serving as an example about the patriarchy.
This is much like a conversation about how long to wait before having sex (be it after marriage, or once the McNuggets are cold), is still a conversation about sex.
Ought–Is
If something ought to not be used as an example, does not transform it into not an example.
If the illustration (AKA, example) is grainy, badly cropped, or otherwise; does not make it not an illustration.
This debate is not on if the pay gap is a good example, just if it’s an example at all, and as I have already shown, it is.
With that behind us, please vote pro, and we can proceed to the bonus educational section of this debate.
2. Unadjusted vs Adjusted
The unadjusted Gender Pay Gap is a well known example of an apples to oranges comparison.
It is easily corrected by even the most basic data mining techniques into the adjusted Gender Pay Gap via matching like items within the population [5]; such as men and women with the same occupation, education, years experience, and more.
The unadjusted is usually said to be something like women earn 30% less pay overall.
The adjusted varies by region, race, occupation, etc. For some it even dips to as low as 1%, as reported by the Society for Human Resource Management [6]. For minimum wage workers it even balances out (due to the minimum being the same for both).
The key takeaway being that a discussion of the unadjusted, does not rule out the adjusted, as the adjusted is entirely contained within the unadjusted.
tl;rd
The adjusted is just an apples to apples subset for proper comparison within the unadjusted.
Professions
Due to the patriarchy’s influence, historically male dominated professions have a much worse Gender Pay Gap. A successful woman displacing a man, is less rewarded for her efforts than the man of lesser ability would be. Conversely, men frequently enjoy less barriers to entry and less prejudice in pay when entering historically female dominated professions.
Female doctors earn less than comparable male doctors. According to Timothy Hoff, PhD:
“female doctors earn significantly less than men, often tens of thousands of dollars less annually, despite similar demographic and work-related profiles. This earnings gap is persistent across time, medical specialty, and country of practice” [7].
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, federal jobs suffer a $0.07 Pay Gap, with only $0.01 explained by education, word history, etc., and the remaining $0.06 due to “factors that cannot be measured, such as discrimination” [8, page 2 for a graph].
Regions
According to researcher Rosalía Vázquez-Álvarez, it’s a “fact that women tend to have lower wage returns for their education than men, even when they work in the same occupational category” [9].
This gets worse when we consider that the patriarchy also denies qualified women access to higher paying jobs (greatly widening the unadjusted Gender Pay Gap), such as in Pakistan where female workers are paid 62.5% less [10]. Which is admittedly better than Afghanistan, where they are murdered for desiring an education, and are outright barred from most of the skilled work fields [11].
Sources:
- https://www.epi.org/publication/womens-work-and-the-gender-pay-gap-how-discrimination-societal-norms-and-other-forces-affect-womens-occupational-choices-and-their-pay/
- https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8946888&fileOId=8946892
- https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amj.2019.1254
- https://prowritingaid.com/bad-grammar
- https://www.payanalytics.com/newsroom/the-unadjusted-pay-gap-vs-the-adjusted-pay-gap
- https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/compensation/pages/gender-pay-gap-improvement-slowed-during-the-pandemic.aspx
- https://journals.lww.com/hcmrjournal/Abstract/2021/07000/The_gender_pay_gap_in_medicine__A_systematic.11.aspx
- https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-67.pdf
- https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_650553.pdf
- https://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-countries-with-the-worst-gender-pay-gaps-2018-12#1-pakistan-625-10
- https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2022.pdf
Round 2
Forfeited
Of course, extend.
My opponent has conceded via the comment section [1]. Hopefully we’ll be doing a rematch in not too long. That said, I’ll still give feedback on his R1.
A. The Gender Wage Gap does not exist, at least not as most people think it does
“At least not as most people think it does” is the key missing phrase from most dismissals of the gap.
“ALL adult full-time”
The unadjusted gap is bad science. It leads to extreme results to get attention, but is emotional manipulation.
For this type of debate, it’s better to focus on the adjusted since that’s where anyone with intellectual integrity will take it (I suppose the alternative is to repeat findings from the unadjusted as a pathos appeal).
Neatly women average a little more in the service industry (I can’t recall if that was before or after making it an adjusted comparison), whereas in the USA men average $43K more as physicians (it remains at tens of thousands in the adjusted).
“career orientation and choice”
Some will argue the patriarchy denies them a choice. I used rather extreme examples from other nations, where they are really denied a choice. In general in the Western World, I’d say they inherited some social pressures from past generations, influencing but not outright controlling their choice.
“discrimination only accounts for 0.21 cents of the difference”
That’s still a sexism based pay gap; thematically, the patriarchy.
Sources:
Round 3
This one has been won by barney because I didn't make the deadline.
Nonetheless, I will continue the discussion with my own points based on his r2. (i'll leave his r1 arguments for the actual rematch).
Specifically
"0.21 cents still is patriarchy (paraphrasing)."
Patriarchy is defined as a system of discrimination and prejudice aimed at systemically benefiting men and subjugating women.
Do you really want to argue that a 0.21 cent deficit is attributed to a systemical patriarchy ? Because I would say that it can be attributed to a few, tiny few, margin of higher-ups (usually male), who are INDIVIDUALLY sexist towards their employees.
Second.
"Physicians that are women are paid less than men."
Well, physicians do not have a set wage and their earnings depend on supply and demand. While you could say that an invisible patriarchy aimes patients to choose male professionals, I would argue it is more attributable on the averagely higher physical strength of males and higher availability of male proffesionals compared to women.
As a final note, I would say that sexism and discrimination COULD NOT BE FOUND even in the adjusted wage gap, If we applied ALL available categories.
For example, you cannot possibly have a study that divides male and female workers into
1) equal productivity
2) equal hours worked
3) equal work leaves
4) equal qualifications
5) equal physical strength.
You cannot possibly adjust for ALL THESE FACTORS COMBINED, because
A) No statistical scientist can ever have a funding so high as to conduct such a research.
B) The sample would always be too long as too divide people in such a group it would require more or less 10 million people in the least as a sample.
C) (example of just 2 of the factors) If you divide men and women by virtue of having worked equal hours, then you don't have the ability to divide them into a subcategory of equal productivity as well. {(In general, not only are men statistically more productive, they also work more hours. Without such men, civilisation would collapse. Electricity, construction, shipping, water infrastructure, commuting, manual labor etc etc would die or greatly diminish in numbers and/or quality, resulting in a lower standard of living and unimaginable inflation rates.)} So, in order to adjust to productivity, women would always have to work more hours than men to reach their productivity. (on AVERAGE), resulting in lower wages still. Meanwhile, adjusting for equal hours worked, men would be more productive in this time period (on AVERAGE), so they still would get paid more (on AVERAGE).
What I am trying to say is that it is not the result of a patriarchy, but rather a result of different strength, education, choices, personalities etc.
As long as we are not able to adjust for all factors simultaneously, we can't possibly conclude as to what is the figure of discrimination. It could theoretically be 9%, 2%, 0.0000001% or none at all. So no study or debate contender can demonstrate that the pay gap is an example of the patriarchy, because patriarchy depends on the levels of discrimination and in this case they can't be measured....
(Excuse any expression mistakes)
“0.21 cents”
I previously misread that. If the data shows that a woman are paid a difference of less than a penny, I would call that evidence that the Pay Gap has effectively closed.
“it can be attributed to a few, tiny few, margin of higher-ups (usually male), who are INDIVIDUALLY sexist towards their employees.”
We have a pretty broad definition of patriarchy. We don’t need it to be a secret cabal, lead by Hillary Clinton, which also sacrifices babies under a pizza joint. We just need enough high ranking misogynists to have a widespread effect against women reflected in their pay scale.
Odd thing, I once got into an argument with someone at university who was convinced their magic super blood made their ethnicity too genetically superior to be capable of racism. When confronted with various examples of members of their ethnicity committing racially based hate crimes, they came up with the bizarre logic that racism only exists on the systemic level, so it’s impossible for individuals to be racist… Which I responded to by asking for verification that they believe it’s impossible for Donald Trump to be racist, since he’s just an individual… As you can imagine, he only got more insane from there, going so far as to praise Hitler’s final solution (he just thought it wasn’t targeting enough white people).
Sorry that got long winded… What I mean to say is that systems are made of people. Systemic problems only exist with the aid of individuals who uphold and/or create the flaws in the system.
“is more attributable on the averagely higher physical strength of males”
This was in reference to physicians, not construction workers.
“higher availability of male proffesionals compared to women”
This was already factored out in the adjusted Gender Pay Gap.
Simplifying it: If you had 10 male physicians and 1 female physician, you'd use the average from each group (as much as this sample size would be too small to have any worthy degree of statistical confidence). If the sample size is sufficiently large, then more and more factors can be cross checked for their degree of influence.
“you cannot possibly have a study that divides male and female workers into…”
You’d be amazed at the number of data points which can be easily recorded by automatic processes [1]. While how much weight they bench press is very unlikely to be directly recorded, if it affects their work such will be reflected in throughput.
“You cannot possibly adjust for ALL THESE FACTORS COMBINED”
If true, that would make the role of sexism in pay impossible to disprove.
However, data mining with machine learning makes it fairly easy for a skilled analyst to find the covariance and make conclusions to within statistically significant confidence levels.
Sources:
Round 4
Forfeited
In case anyone is curious, I used the extreme cases to highlight to undeniable connection to the patriarchy. For which the USA isn't far removed from. Heck in some states evil politicians are trying to deny women the choice to not be mothers, and motherhood is the main correlated factor for the wage gap.
Anyways, please vote con due to pro's forfeitures and concession.
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Sorry I meant to tag you both
Voter: Sir.Lancelot
Vote: All 7 pts for CON
"Forfeiture."
Decision: Removed
Reasoning: Voter does not specify the clear reasons as to why the arguments, s&g, and sources for CON were better. From my perception as a moderator, if at least a significant attempt to have a debate, the voter must give a sufficient reasoning as to why the argument was better.
Voter: whiteflame
Vote: 3pts to CON for argument
"50% forfeit. Too bad, this one looked good."
Decision: Removed
Reasoning: Voter does not specify the clear reasons as to why the arguments for CON were better. From my perception as a moderator, if at least a significant attempt to have a debate, the voter must give a sufficient reasoning as to why the argument was better.
If you get a chance, please review whiteflame’s vote in this debate. Both he and I are ineligible due to conflicts of interest.
Can you handle my report or not?
I'll be damned. An equal voice as long as I can keep the chat informal. I wonder how long I can keep sharing inappropriate memes. Is it sustainable? I guess we'll find out
Wylted had too many bad moments to count; but people grow and change.
As Prez he’s got my respect.
Regarding the moderation chat, it’s really informal these days. To such ends, at least to me he’s got an equal voice to anyone else.
Can you respond to RM's accusation you don't respect me
Limiting reports so that they take more than two clicks per report does enough.
While a forfeited and conceded debate is unimportant, there’s plenty of things which are; to include things which do not get logged like spambots hitting the forum (we delete and ban without any red tape).
The mods don't respect him at all. He has zero influence on this, he just won a position without having a platform and thinks he's hot shit.
Removing the ability for someone to tag you is absurd. He can't report and now you are suggesting taking away his ability to mention people (the mods)?
If someone believes different from you, which in this case he does, then let him. Who are you to say his vote is frivolous? I get it's frivolous to you, but to him it might not be. Even if he knows it is and that is likely, it doesn't matter. Just because you don't wanna hear 'complaints' or concerns doesn't mean you should take away someone's mention rights especially since he can't report.
Even if it is bothering the mods, it's anyone's right to report things. I understand mods aren't payed but on this website its there job to look into things that are of the members concerns. No matter how 'annoying' it is, read the report and if the mod doesn't think it violates the voting policy then they write if the report is denied and why. If they do agree it violates the voting policy then they adjust the vote and explain why.
On top of that, it does seem RM actually believes his stance. We recently had a conversation on the debate policy and can be seen here, https://www.debateart.com/debates/4124-islam-is-the-summarised-religion-of-jewish-and-christian?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=7
I don't agree with him but that his stance. And anyone should be allowed to report a vote especially when they feel it violates the Code of Conduct.
RM is trying to circumvent his ban on reporting frivolous stuff by tagging you guys when he wants to report frivolous stuff. I suggest removing his ability to tag you guys
I report whiteflame's vote (it won't let me report you have removed my ability to). He is only allowed to give the conduct points there, not the arguments points.
-> "What's more, any federal employess that were discovered doing something like this were tried and convicted if proven guilty."
If only that were true. The report is from 2020. Do you have an updated report that says it's no longer the case, and/or evidence that those bosses from 2020 were put on trial?
Barney's answer in the coments is so brief, that everything he has written seems like a logical falalcy (unless he explains more).
I will just briefly answer one specifci part.
"When you're literally talking about the Federal Government doing something so widespread, you don't get more systemic than that."
The federal government is not one organism and being. In reality, A TINY TINY TINY percentage of EMPLOYESS (either higher in the ranks or not) were responsible for the 0.06 cent deficit in the governmental industry.
What's more, any federal employess that were discovered doing something like this were tried and convicted if proven guilty.
If anyone enjoyed this topic, there's a more simple take on it at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4120-the-gender-pay-gap-doesn-t-exist
i am aware of that.
My reply to you was not to ask you to vote, it was just to discuss the points you raised.
8 days after the fact, but still appreciated to see the direction you would have gone in had you not conceded. I'll give short answers to some highlights from it.
Even with all that extra time, you missed the core of the Is–Ought Problem. That you believe it /ought/ to not be an example, does not change that it /is/ an example.
...
-> "It is funny how Barney tries to debunk my argument, that admittedly, they haven't read."
Glad you enjoyed. Any time there's shared BoP, a proactive case is required. I merely withheld the direct debunking's for later. That said, there was a lot of overlap due to how predictable this topic gets.
-> "So, neither us, nor the voters can consider a source from just its abstract."
We do all the time. But yes, I would have willingly pulled out vital snippets from the full report to appease you.
That said, challenging sources is a tactic I wish I saw more of.
-> "we can logically deduct that this is one of the reasons the pay gap exists"
Oh that inflates it, but there was the 7% not explained by such factors.
-> "found that the gender wage gap among college graduates is explained by 33 to 66 percent by different preferences for occupational roles"
See adjusted gender pay gap. I pre-refuted this entire train of thought by not focusing on the non-adjusted gap.
-> "Could you tell me a WIDESPREAD NORM that prohibits women from entering particular fields or at least influences them to make certain choices?"
Don't need to, as I've shown a massive pay gap (average $43K/year) for physicians.
-> "THEMSELVES AND DELIBERATELY"
Again, the adjusted gender pay gap does apples to apples comparisons within any field both work.
-> "SYSTEMIC AND INSTITUTIONALISED PATRIARCHY?"
When you're literally talking about the Federal Government doing something so widespread, you don't get more systemic than that.
-> "Men face equivalent or even more examples of gender norms and/or discrimination"
Relevance to disproving that women are paid less for the same work?
-> "parent to instruct their daughter"
Parents raising their daughters to be little more than slaves, if widespread enough to cause the undeniable gender pay gap, is a fine example of patriarchy in itself.
-> "The unadjusted pay gap shows practically NOTHING"
Actually it shows the literal extent of what's a problem, and what's just random static due to other measurable variables. From 30% (or whatever number people throw around today) down to a meaningful 7%.
while i do appreciate your explanations and your intentions in this debate. i cannot in good conscience vote on this debate with the arguements given.
---What would have been pro's R2 (1 of 2)---
I. NOTES
It is funny how Barney tries to debunk my argument, that admittedly, they haven't read.
II. REFUTATIONS
"Patriarchy is apparently a “supposed or not” system which places men above women. And the wage gap (even if flawed) is a common example of that.
The patriarchy drives women into lower paying professions by discrimination [1],
The patriarchy and wage gap in the tech sector is decreasing, proving they exists [2], and
The patriarchy, through religion, represses women’s pay [3]."
1) Your third source here cannot count and can't contribute to the debate, as it required paid access of 30 dollars. So, neither us, nor the voters can consider a source from just its abstract.
2) Your second source has indeed some quite interesting conclusions, but I would like to point out the following quotes;
"Research has found several factors that partly explain the wage discrepancies between men and women and which are accounted for to different extents"
"Women’s workforce interruptions and shorter working hours, usually conditioned by having children, affect the gender wage gap, as men typically gain more labour market experience than women (Blau & Kahn, 2017). Similarly, Mihaila (2016) finds that human capital acquired in the labour market is the most influential factor in determining the wage gap. Furthermore, in their study of the United States labour market from 1968 to 1997, Gayle and Golan (2012) relate increases in the female labour share, caused by technological changes, declining costs of producing home goods, higher education levels, and demographic changes in marriage and fertility trends, to declines in the gender wage gap. The importance of demographic changes is moreover shown by Loughran and Zissimopoulos (2009). In their cross-sectional study of household in the United States in 1976 and 2004, they find that, while marriage has negative effects on both male and female wages, childbearing affects only female wages negatively, thus increasing the gender wage gap."
A) Unless you want to say that just because women are of the nature to bear children and have the sole responsibility of actually giving birth to a child, this is an example of patriarchy, which is absurd, we can logically deduct that this is one of the reasons the pay gap exists, that isn't patriarchal in nature.
B) So, the reasons that the pay gap has severely declined is because home goods have become cheaper (so women could do housework better and quicker, thus freeing up time for them to work (not saying they should be doing the housework, but still), and because they have less children and can focus more on their career. Are any of these two reasons patriarchy-induced?
"More recently, researchers considered psychological dissimilarities between men and women. For instance, Niederle and Vesterlund (2007) have shown in an experiment that women tend to avoid competition, while men have a tendency to embrace it. Such differences in behaviour would also be reflected in the gender wage gap. Furthermore, in a longitudinal study of a 1972 high school class cohort in the United States, Daymont and Andrisani (1984) found that the gender wage gap among college graduates is explained by 33 to 66 percent by different preferences for occupational roles and different choices of study fields."
Proves my point.
Last sentence of your source:
"However, further research needs to be done on the direction of causality and other possibly influential factors to the gender wage gap and economic growth than those considered in this study"
Again, it heavily implies my point.
3) About the first source;
“For example, by the time a woman earns her first dollar, her occupational choice is the culmination of years of education, guidance by mentors, expectations set by those who raised her, hiring practices of firms, and widespread norms and expectations about work–family balance held by employers, co-workers, and society. “
EXACTLY as it is about males. When they are children, they also receive guidance from mentors, by society , expectations and widespread norms like “men don’t cry”.
Could you tell me a WIDESPREAD NORM that prohibits women from entering particular fields or at least influences them to make certain choices?
I can do the same for men : Men don’t cry, you are always at fault about what a woman does (heavily implied, not announced) etc
It seems that the writer has “forgot” to mention that more women are in universities than men. Then, why is the case that the pay gap hasn’t been eliminated? Well, it is attributable to the fact that it COULD BE that men and women have different occupational choices, and yes, even though more women are educated, they THEMSELVES AND DELIBERATELY choose to major in low paying fields and sectors (I mean, no patriarchy forces you to choose what you will study in UNI)
---What would have been pro's R2 (2 of 2)---
III. QUESTIONS
I suspect one of the major reasons feminists cry so badly is “Pay Gap, Pay Gap!!!” is because it just happens that women are the least represented in highly paid managerial positions. Why is it that no feminists ever complain about the building sector being occupied 99% by men? Nearly all builders are men. Civilisation doesn’t only happen at the top of the “food chain”. If suddenly all labor workers vanished, CEOs couldn’t do anything about that. The whole society would crumble.
“Key points include:
A. Gender pay gaps within occupations persist, even after accounting for years of experience, hours worked, and education.
B. Decisions women make about their occupation and career do not happen in a vacuum—they are also shaped by society.
C. The long hours required by the highest-paid occupations can make it difficult for women to succeed, since women tend to shoulder the majority of family caretaking duties.
D. Many professions dominated by women are low paid, and professions that have become female-dominated have become lower paid. “
SOURCE?
As are men’s
OK, so?
Have you heard of supply and demand?
C) Somewhere in your sources, it was mentioned that in the federal sector, women face a 0.06 cent deficit of pay due to discrimination.
Is something that is obviously attributable to a few sexist higher-ups an example of SYSTEMIC AND INSTITUTIONALISED PATRIARCHY? I don’t think so…
IV. ARGUMENTS
The fact that women are influenced in their lives and educationally by others to choose a specific example constitutes no patriarchy.
Men face equivalent or even more examples of gender norms and/or discrimination (at least in our times in the western world).
Also, any possible instructions given by parents, mentors etc as mentioned in your source, ARE NOT NECESSARILY AND ALWAYS the result of a gender norm. E.g.
What if a girl is actually timid, very agreeable and “submissive” to their boyfriends or parents. Would it be a social norm for a parent to instruct their daughter to choose a position that is NOT managerial? I mean, this position would obviously be unfitted for this young woman. (Opposite situation about men is also true and a similar situation applies with opposite criteria).
And, since we have no stats on how much of these instructions are actually gender norms or real and good-faith instructions playing to the receiver’s strengths and avoiding weaknesses, we can safely assume that this is not an example of an institutionalized system of power aimed at benefiting men and subjugating women (patriarchy).
This claim is false;
“The key takeaway being that a discussion of the unadjusted, does not rule out the adjusted, as the adjusted is entirely contained within the unadjusted.”
Yes, it does, for the following reasons
The unadjusted pay gap is not an example of patriarchy, as;
The unadjusted pay gap shows practically NOTHING
This is a false syllogism. Imagine saying that (an imaginary fact, for the sake of argument) Greece has the greatest number of homeless people in the world, while I “forgot” to add the explanatory substatistic (adjusted statistic) that it has the greatest number of homeless people PROPORTIONATELY to its population. (so not absolute numbers)
V. CONCLUSIONS
In my argument, I have:
Pointed out abstracts of my opponent’s sources that if not prove, at least heavily imply my point.
Have pointed out the irrelevance and inelligibility of some of his sources
Made 2 important arguments about education and about the relation between unadjusted vs adjusted pay gap.
Posed some important questions that prove my point.
Awaiting your response…
Sorry this debate was confusing for you.
R1 was the only real round of debate, after that with a concession in place I treated it as discussion rather than trying to prove/disprove claims.
-> "are we talking around the world?"
I used international examples to highlight both the harms and the clear connection to misogyny (as opposed to coincidence), yet also used undeniable examples from the Western World. This does highlight the importance of scope limitations when none are directly implied by the topic statement.
-> "How many people have to not pay/underpay women for it to be a patriarchy?"
We did not pick a precise percentage (this debate actually stemmed from a denial that the pay gap exists at all). It would be up to each voter if they believe the problem was shown to be widespread enough and harmful enough to be of significance (e.g., one little girl being underpaid for her lemonade stand out of the 150 million women in the USA, would not imply anything meaningful).
I believe that I was able to prove the adjusted averages at 7% in the USA, highlights the commonness and degree of harm from it to be more than enough to call it a system; and that women are intentionally targeted makes it an example of patriarchy.
-> "matriarchal and patriarchal origins"
Agreed. However, that both sides suck at times, does not change if either sucks.
-> "my question is, can it be proven to a wide extend as malicious or intentional?"
The debate was cut short after R1. While I believe my international examples implied it as malicious (women being murdered for wanting to know how to read), without those implications being challenged I had no reason to further bolster them.
-> "if possible please dont have to have people download pdf's, pay money or create a user to see info."
The downloading of PDFs is for official reports shared with the public as PDFs; often unavoidable but I don't think any of those from me were behind pay walls. I do however frequently cite journeys for which the full data is behind paywalls; but have they almost always have an abstract available to understand the gist of their conclusions.
In case anyone is interested, here is what my reply to Barney's R1 would have been. Had I been able to meet the deadline, this debate would have DEFINITELY been won by me. Not only is this a beautiful argument, but my R3 is also devastating for his point...
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Lw64EMSFLfND9KgmsXuqhx63vggSCDx1FelvY6j4ghU/edit
It is a shame that he HAS to win it because I forfeited one round too many... (2 to be exact)
BARNEY'S R5 should not be trusted. They make a claim that they not prove, besides the fact that abortion is murder.
Also, his R4 is also weak, since he doesn't disrpove how exactly one can measure all the variables jointly, he just says it CAN BE by a "skilled" statistic analysist.
A) Who defines "skilled"
B) How in the world can they do that? You cannot!!!
i would vote, but to be honest, this debate gives me more questions than resolutions.
are we talking around the world?
How many people have to not pay/underpay women for it to be a patriarchy?
just from reading this debate i have not gained any knowledge about what a patriarchy is, if its even an established thought or just a rough idea that men treat women unfairly.
from my understanding, women screw over men as much as men screw over women, it just so happens that more men are in charge (at the moment) around the world concerning corporate and wage earning positions.
if you wanna be technical, every type of society struggles with power plays of both matriarchal and patriarchal origins.
my question is, can it be proven to a wide extend as malicious or intentional? this debate doesnt cover that, but i wish it did.
Also, small gripe, but if possible please dont have to have people download pdf's, pay money or create a user to see info. Also some of the links have no reference to where they get their data from.
most of the time people just subtract conduct if you miss 1/3 or less of rounds. but it depends.
NOTE: If we continue this debate and, despite my forfeiture, any of the voters believe I am the winner, feel free to vote for me. However, as it isn't right to forfeit, I consider myself lost, even though I (consider myself to) have better arguments.
I'll be open to a rematch in the future.
I move in a couple weeks, and am following that with a lot of traveling; so a rematch won't be right away.
And you can win this one
Can I recreate this debate with ONE WEEK TIME FOR EaCH ROUND? I can't keep up, sorry. However, we can just copy paste already existing arguments.
Your next round is due this morning.
I'll get that round up tonight. Had plans with friends occupy my day.
NOTE: Not only most women are not AS capable as men at being leaders, most women also don't have the desire/will to rise at the top in the first place.
I'll post my next round tomorrow morning.