frame

Men have it worse against then Women in the 1st world.

Opening Argument

In this debate I'm gong to attempt to argue that men have it worse or are more discriminated against then women. Couple things to note
1. THIS ONLY APPLIES TO FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES. In the 3rd world it a totally different story 
2. Stick to actual arguments. Don't just say your sexist.
3. Both sides have equal burden of proof. 
Good luck

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • PoguePogue 89 Pts
    No, they do not. 1 in 6 women in the U.S. will be a victim of attempted rape. One in 3 women has been a victim of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The rates are even higher for bisexual and transgender women. The U.S. only provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. There is also a wage gap between men and women in the U.S.

    https://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/01/2017-womens-history-month/98247518/ ;
  • @Pogue Oh boy the wage gap. The wage gap doesn't exist how you think. They calculated that by taking the average salary of all men and all women and comparing them. They didn't take anything else into account ( Different job positions, different jobs, different hours work, different education levels etc.) so that's not sexism. Men are more likely to work longer hours in more dangerous jobs. As far as the 1 in 6 rape goes, I looked at your article. It linked to another article that made that claim but didn't source it. It only sourced to something talking about college sexual assault not general population. So unless you come up with something else I can't take that seriously. Now for my argument
    1. the draft: In many countries only men can be forced into military service, this isn't true in all countries but in many it is. Your Mom, sister,daughter, and girlfriend can't be forced to fight and die in other countries but your dad,son,brother, or boyfriend can be.
    2. Child custody. In child custody cases the mother is almost always favored. They are basically given the child by default unless the father can prove she is a bad parent. As opposed to a 50-50 default.Many men who are perfectly good parents will lose the right to see their child through no fault of their own.
    3. Alimony: According to Forbes 97% of alimony is awarded to women in spite of the fact that 40% of households have the women as the primary breadwinner. Now there are situations where Alimony is a good thing but this ratio is very clearly off. This comes from the attitude that men should take care of themselves and women. Many men are forced to pay a percentage of their paycheck to there X wifes for the rest of there life. This almost never happens to women

    I'll go into more next time i respond but right now i'm tired. but i have more reasons then this     
  • ReadRead 17 Pts
    Pogue said:
    No, they do not. 1 in 6 women in the U.S. will be a victim of attempted rape. One in 3 women has been a victim of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The rates are even higher for bisexual and transgender women. The U.S. only provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. There is also a wage gap between men and women in the U.S.

    https://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/01/2017-womens-history-month/98247518/ ;
    "Sexual violence is notoriously difficult to measure, and there is no single source of data that provides a complete picture of the crime. On RAINN’s website, we have tried to select the most reliable source of statistics for each topic. The primary data source we use is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is an annual study conducted by the Justice Department. To conduct NCVS, researchers interview tens of thousands of Americans each year to learn about crimes that they’ve experienced. Based on those interviews, the study provides estimates of the total number of crimes, including those that were not reported to police. While NCVS has a number of limitations (most importantly, children under age 12 are not included), overall, it is the most reliable source of crime statistics in the U.S." 

  • ReadRead 17 Pts
    @mariodude34500
    Not only that, but it's had a constant trend of decrease regarding the supposed wage gap. 
    [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/03/gender-pay-gap-facts/
  • MedicMedic 126 Pts
    @mariodude34500

    Let's begin.

    Let's assume perfectly competitive labor markets which have the following important properties.

    • Free Entry/Exit – No barriers to entry/exit (including entry/exit costs)
    • Homogeneous work environments (so firms only compete on wages offered)
    • Perfect information- All parties have the same information
    • A large amount of buyers and sellers- no one can have a monopoly or significant market share

    Under these conditions, 'taste based' discrimination cannot cause a wage gap. If marginalized workers work for discriminatory firms, nondiscriminatory firms will hire them away. This will put pressure to equalize wages between these groups, potentially running discriminatory firms out of business, though not necessarily. If discriminatory firms can hire enough of their preferred workers without causing a wage gap, they will stay in business. This is the argument that free markets prevent discrimination, first formulated by Becker (1957)

    What happens if we relax these perfectly competitive assumptions? For instance:

    • What if there are not enough nondiscriminatory firms to employ marginalized groups?
    • What if search costs are higher for marginalized groups?
    • There are significant barriers to entry or exit?

    Then wage gaps due to taste-based discrimination are fully possible. For example, if we allow for job search then marginalized groups will face harsher job search costs and their employers will know they have lesser outside options. This giving firms financial incentives to create a wage gap, even if they have no taste for discrimination.

    The important takeaway is that cannot assume economic outcomes from a deductive approach alone - the assumptions we make could change our results. Instead, we need to look at empirical data. We also need to be clear about what assumptions we are making, because they matter quite a bit. By tweaking a single assumption (for instance, the cost of job search), we go from a model where discriminators suffer competitive disadvantages, to one where firms face financial incentives to discriminate. The need to look at data bring us to the most common way to do that, looking at the "raw" gender wage gap or the "controlled" gender wage gap, which is the next section.

    Bad Controls

    (or "Being Paid 77 cents on the Dollar and Controlling for Education: The Omitted Variable's Edition")

    Many of the gender wage gap arguments on reddit boil down to one side asserting that the 77 cents to the dollar wage gap is pure discrimination and the other asserting that other things like education, hours worked, etc. have to be controlled for as they cause earnings to be higher. They are arguing that the 77 cents on a dollar claim isn’t looking at all relevant variables, and that the gender wage gap mostly disappears when you control for these relevant variables.

    Both of these two views paint too simplistic a picture. It's true that the raw gap is roughly 77 cents to the dollar. It's also true that the gap shrinks significantly when controlling for hours worked, education, etc. What we don't know is which way the causation goes. Do women earn less because they choose lower earning majors and shorter work hours, or does the existence of discrimination cause women to alter their choices of majors and alter their working hours? Education, working hours and other 'controls' are not necessarily appropriate controls, as they could also be dependent variables which are outcomes of discrimination. 

    In addition, as Goldin (2014) notes the gender wage gap has shrunk across time.

    The mantra of the women’s movement in the 1970s was “59 cents on the dollar” and a more recent crusade for pay equality has adopted “77 cents on the dollar.”

    Then notes some potential reasons why.

    As women have increased their productivity enhancing characteristics and as they “look” more like men, the human capital part of the wage difference has been squeezed out.

    Something caused women to change their human capital decisions (educational attainment, etc.) shrinking the gender wage gap. These factors motivating these human capital decisions could very much matter too! For instance, increased work ethic would affect on the job performance and increase educational attainment. However, this type of omitted variable problem is very difficult to control for.

    Once you realize that you do not have every variable controlled for, your analysis does not have a causal interpretation. It is possible that leaving out a control variable puts you closer to the unknown “true” effect. On the other hand, it is possible that the control variable is really an outcome of discrimination, or that leaving out an important variable puts you further away from the “true” effect. Both of these arguments suffer serious methodological problems.

    There are two basic strategies to deal with this. One method is to find a way to run experiments. An advantage of this approach is that there is no doubt you have gotten cause and effect right. A downside of this approach is you do not know how sensitive your findings are or if they scale to outside situations - is your experimental set up valid in the wider market? You also might not know exactly how or why your cause and effect happens. These make it hard to know what policy to use. This is discussed in the Audit Studies section below.

    Another option is to build a model and see how well the model explains the data. This is very handy because it lets you easily know what to do from a policy perspective. You can easily see where factors are important and where they are not. The downside is that you could have assumed the wrong model. These models are testable because they ASSUME what variables are relevant and what ones aren't, so they limit the amount of variables you need to look at. However, there is a risk of incorrect modeling or omitting relevant variables. An example of this approach is Claudia Goldin’s work, which is discussed below.

    Audit Studies

    Given these flaws in just looking at wages directly and what limited information these provide, what can we know about the gender wage gap and other gaps? The answer is we need to use a different research methodology. First among these are audit studies.

    An audit study is using secret shoppers to see if there is a difference between how the genders are treated. First otherwise identical resumes are used, with only the names varying, to allow gender to vary. An example could be one employer is randomly sent a resume with John Smith, while another is randomly sent a resume with Jane Smith. As employers are selected at random, their unique features are controlled for, provided the sample size is large enough. What these studies allow us to see are the average discrimination that an individual faces. These do not answer if a specific firm is a discriminator or not, but that in aggregate an identical woman gets more or less calls than an identical man. Sometimes these audit studies also hire actors to pretend to be the individuals on the resume. This allows us more information on if a woman is less likely to get hired, even after receiving a call back. Unfortunately, these studies are not perfect. The actors are not double blind (they know it’s a study) and may act different either consciously or unconsciously. Fortunately, the sending of resumes is not biased by this (as it predates the involvement of actors). This allows us to see if there is any discrimination on the average firm towards a particular gender. This is very important, as it allows us to know if there is discrimination in a given labor market or not.

    However, even here faces drawbacks. Although this tell us the average discrimination a gender faces, it does not tell us the marginal discrimination a gender faces. This is because it does not take into account an agent’s ability to dodge discrimination. An agent is not going to take their average offer, but their best offer. For this reason, these studies identify if a group faces discrimination or not, but not how much the discrimination lowers their wages.

    Finally, a drawback is that these can only really study small labor markets. For example, this can study all of the tech postings on a job's website. Or all the job postings in a newspaper for a given time period. It is impossible to do an audit study on all available jobs. So these studies also can identify discrimination only within a narrow specific labor market, and even then, only really for call backs.

    In sum, these studies are useful to change discourse from “is there discrimination or not” to “how much does discrimination matter.” They cannot identify how much discrimination changes labor market behavior on their own or identify the scope of discrimination on their own. They cannot even identify why discrimination happens. Is it because employers genuinely do not like women? Is it because women have less outside options? Is it for some other reason? These questions left unanswered make it difficult to write policy to solve this problem. Here is an example of an audit study, in practice.

    Claudia Goldin’s Work

    Claudia Goldin is a professor at Harvard and a leading researcher on the GWG. Her work (Goldin 2014) while important, is often misrepresented. For this reason it deserves its own section.

    Claudia Goldin wanted to explore how due to gender roles, women value work flexibility more than men, and how this affects the gender wage gap. She constructs a model where some industries need people to work long continuous hours. An example is a MBA working as a consultant needs to work long hours on a project, as they can not have someone else take over. It’s just not feasible to get the other person up to speed, compared to paying more to one MBA and having them work really long hours. This causes wages to increase as hours increase, in industries like this. This means, someone with an MBA who works 30 hours a week might make $40 dollars an hour, but an MBA who works 70 hours a week might make $70. So they make more per hour in addition to working more hours. However, not all industries have increasing returns in hours. Some, like pharmacy, have constant returns in hours.

    She looks at a few professions, with specific subsamples. Specifically she looks at J.D.s from University of Michigan, MBAs from University of Chicago and National Pharmacist Workforce Survey. This allowed her more precise information then what is usually available from the census survey. She empirically looks at the explanatory power of the model outlined above.

    She finds that initially the earnings differences are small, but increase between the genders over time. She also finds that hours worked is correlated with family needs. For example, 15 years out of the program, MBA grads begin to have a large gender wage gap. This is correlated with women in the program having children, particularly if they also have a high income spouse. JD’s also have similar patterns. In short, it looks like women who have less labor supply see reduced earnings, especially when accounting for the various reductions in labor supply. This leads to large gender wage gaps in these industries, due to the increasing returns for hours worked.

    Of particular interest is the occupation of pharmacy. This is because as she notes

    Most pharmacists today work for non-independent retailers, mainly large chains, or in hospitals—about 75 percent do. But four decades ago around 25 percent were employed in these sectors. Self-ownership and employment by independent pharmacies declined greatly in the interim.

    Pharmacy today, and pharmacy in the past are the same with how working less hours would affect your earnings. Now, with standardization of making drugs and electronic records, it is much easier for one pharmacist to finish up a job started by another pharmacist. As such, we would expect the gender wage gap to shrink in this industry and it has. This also allows female pharmacists to take time off without having to exit the labor force. This results in a very small gender wage gap, after controlling for hours.

    In sum, Goldin’s work suggests another policy avenue to reduce the gender wage gap, to have more professions allow for workplace flexibility.

    It is important to note that although this work is excellent, it can be taken out of context. Firstly, Goldin assumed a specific model of the labor market - namely one where women suffer gender wage gaps due to different valuations of leisure. That’s perfectly fine, because it helps her think about this specific mechanism that generates the generate wage gap. However, it could be that this model is mis-specified in some way. She could have assumed the wrong model. The people citing her aren't aware of the assumptions she's making in her model (which brings us back to section 1)

    Also, her data is not experimental like the data generated by audit studies, so we do not know if we are making correlation = causation type mistake here. So, despite what is often said, she did not out and out disprove discrimination. That said, it is really good work, and the fact it can explain so much of the data suggests there is certainly something to this idea about hours worked.

    tl;dr: What we don't know is which way the causation goes. Do women earn less because they choose lower earning majors and shorter work hours, or does the existence of discrimination cause women to alter their choices of majors and alter their working hours? Education, working hours and other 'controls' are not necessarily appropriate controls, as they could also be dependent variables which are outcomes of discrimination.

    " 1. the draft: In many countries only men can be forced into military service, this isn't true in all countries but in many it is. Your Mom, sister,daughter, and girlfriend can't be forced to fight and die in other countries but your dad,son,brother, or boyfriend can be."

    [1]Not...really? In most first world countries the draft doesn't exist, and in the US it's only an option in a national emergency. Furthermore, there's policy in the works to make women register for the draft.[2] This argument is dumb.

    "In child custody cases the mother is almost always favored."

    First, this is usually because the domestic violence that leads to court cases is usually by men against women. It's also limited in most countries because of the fact that one can only be registered as a victim five times, when this happens a lot more than that.[3] Second, this is changing and even so it's not evidence of the statement you make with regards to a women/men disparity in terms of civic equality.

    "3. Alimony: According to Forbes 97% of alimony is awarded to women in spite of the fact that 40% of households have the women as the primary breadwinner. Now there are situations where Alimony is a good thing but this ratio is very clearly off. This comes from the attitude that men should take care of themselves and women. Many men are forced to pay a percentage of their paycheck to there X wifes for the rest of there life. This almost never happens to women"

    @Pogue has already handled the case for pretty ably, but your arguments are bad and needed a debunk.


    1.) http://chartsbin.com/view/1887
    2.)http://thehill.com/policy/defense/357055-pentagon-recommends-requiring-women-to-register-for-the-draft
    3.)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11662764/Million-violent-crimes-a-year-cut-out-of-official-figures.html
    4.)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11666990/Domestic-abuse-and-violence-is-not-gender-neutral.-Wake-up-Britain.html
    5.)https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/20/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony/#3e30884a54b9


    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • @Medic wow I wasn't taking this all that seriously but I guess I gotta pay attention now
    1. wage gap. You wrote alot but didn't say that much and often basically agreed with my point. To go through the key points of it you referenced the "wage gap" between pharmacists and said that there is a large gap as their careers go on. But you said yourself this was often do to women leaving the workforce to raise kids not sexism as I was talking about. Which was the point I was making. Men and women make different choices in life as well as women. My contention was that it exists but it exists because of that not because sexism. That's really all i'm arguing. You also showed the study that said women have a harder time getting call backs. But the sample size was 130 and only found a .5% difference. I can't take that seriously because the sample size is far to small and still came to a tiny difference not even 1%. You also said that a reason for the gap might be women feel more drawn to lower paying jobs that fit their gender roles do to societies expectations. I guess that could be true but I don't see evidence for that and even if it's true it's irreverent to what i was arguing. To close this i'll say again all I was saying that the wage gap isn't a 1:1 comparison that shows constant sexism.    

    I'll talk about the rest later. I was excepting just throwing a paragraph or two together to respond to people I didn't think anyone was gonna take it that seriously. I may have to challenge you to a more formal debate cause that seems to be what your gunning for. Also I'd change the title because i worded it in a lazy way. Again not being that serious. 
  • @mariodude34500 I think @Medic was agreeing with you on the wage gap argument, not disputing you. 
  • Pogue said:
    No, they do not. 1 in 6 women in the U.S. will be a victim of attempted rape. One in 3 women has been a victim of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The rates are even higher for bisexual and transgender women. The U.S. only provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave. There is also a wage gap between men and women in the U.S.

    https://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/01/2017-womens-history-month/98247518/ ;

    @Pogue As far as the 1 in 6 rape goes, I looked at your article. It linked to another article that made that claim but didn't source it. It only sourced to something talking about college sexual assault not general population. So unless you come up with something else I can't take that seriously. Now for my argument
    @Pogue @mariodude34500

    Actually the 1 in 6 rape statistic was the result of an actual study. The problem with this study is that it was extremely flawed. This was the procedure they used:

    "Email invitations to participate in the survey were sent to students’ school email addresses through a Westat email account on the first day of data collection, April 12, 2015. Each email included a unique link to the student’s online survey and was signed by Harvard University President Drew Faust. Westat sent reminder emails, also signed by President Faust, on April 15, April 22, and April 29 to prompt completion of the survey before the deadline.  The Harvard University Campus Climate Survey was due on May 3. "

    The most obvious flaw is the voluntary response bias. They sent invitations to the students which means the students have a choice to come or not. In voluntary surveys, people with stronger opinions on the particular subject are more likely to put in their opinions. This has been shown many times in many different cases of surveys with this flaw. In this case, the students who were a victim of attempted rape had the stronger opinion, and therefore were more likely to come to the survey. 

    Another error is that some students don't have access to emails, or might have limited access to emails. This causes a portion of students to be left out, and they all have something in common: they are in a situation where they can't access email. This could mean that a number of different students could be left out, most obviously, the poorer students who can't afford internet or a computer. 

    Another obvious flaw is that this only took students in the campus into account. People who don't go to Harvard University have much different conditions than these students. 

    They also came up with the rape statistic for men which is that 1 in 7 men are victims. Both of these statistics are affected by bias and are wrong. 

    The study which claims that 1 in 3 men would rape if they could get away with it, doesn't even bother to explain its method of choosing the sample. The percent error is also really high for this study so it can't even be taken seriously. The researchers also concluded that 1 in 5 college women are victims while also claiming that they didn't even take false accusations into account because the amount of false accusations is negligible. However, they didn't provide any proof of this. 

    Also there is no real way of figuring out exact rape statistics. Another statistic which takes prison rape into account suggests that more than 95% of rape is against men. 
  • MedicMedic 126 Pts
    @mariodude34500 @Fascism

    Not...really? The wage gap likely exists but it's very hard to control for observatibles, which is why it's not a great argument on either side.

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • MedicMedic 126 Pts
    @Fascism

    >Also there is no real way of figuring out exact rape statistics. Another statistic which takes prison rape into account suggests that more than 95% of rape is against men. 

    show your working pls

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • MedicMedic 126 Pts
    @mariodude34500 I'm not agreeing with you, I'm telling you and showing you that your analysis of the gwg is bad. Two of your points are refuted, one you haven't come up with sources for and you've categorically failed to rebut pogue's points.

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

  • MedicMedic 126 Pts
    One more quick point, you've made no comparatives. Even if your claims were true it doesn't make any explicit comparisons with women and as such we can ignore it.

    Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically.


    - David Ricardo

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch