America Isn't A Sexist/Misogynist Society

"The Gender Pay Gap is a complete myth."

"The Gender Pay Gap is an utter and complete myth."

"The Gender Pay Gap has been debunked so many times I can't believe you'd use it as an example."

"Yes, the gap exists, BUT...."

"The gap in money earned is created by women..."

Wage inequality has been illegal since 1963

"Why don't businesses only hire women if they can somehow legally pay them less?"

• PRO's argues that the absence of businesses preferring a female labor discount disproves gap.
  
• Since CON has demonstrated at least one business preferring the female labor discount, PRO's premise is shown to be false.
  

"The gap in money earned is created by women simply working in lower-paying fields, working fewer PAID hours, and taking the time off the raise children."

• Again, this and "The gap is a myth" argument can't both be true.
  
• PRO concedes that there is a gap, concedes that fields preferred by women are paid less.
  
• PRO faults women for taking time to raise and care for the next generation of society.
  
• CON argues that raising children is and ought to be a higher priority in America than the grubby remunerations of politics and commerce.  That women take a hit for prioritizing children demonstrates our collective failure to keep our priorities straight.  Making a healthy, happy, smart next generation is a defining quality of society.  Societies that fail to prioritize the next generation fail.  Women do their part and men take advantage of women's sacrifice by cutting a slightly smaller slice of the pie, which advantage PRO calls choice. CON calls that misogyny.
  

"women earn more degrees, but in more than likely low-paying fields. "

Women are underrepresented in government because there are many more men than women that run for political office.

"The desire to be a high-paid powerful CEO is disproportionately held by men, which is why men are disproportionately CEO's. "

• In a debate where PRO' jobs is to prove that sexism is dead in America, PRO (perhaps predictably) makes sexist remarks.  "(insert your class) just wants power more than others" is about as crass a generalization and undemocratic a legitimization for authority as CON can imagine.
  
• Again, PRO loses the debate right here.   PRO has created new sexism in the text of this debate, so disproving that there is no sexism.
  

• Got any youtube vids with some actual science to back any of this?
  

It's just that the men are getting paid

• ....and the women aren't, but PRO doesn't want to call that a difference in pay.
  

• CON is quoting FBI arrest stats to show that men commit far more crimes and injustices than women.
  
• PRO's argues that unfair sentencing accounts for the disparity.  Perhaps PRO is claiming that men commit most of the violence because they are mad about the sentences they'll probably get for committing that violence?
  

If you take it in the context (discussing groupies) it was in which was wrongfully left out on TV, you can understand how they could have said such things.

• PRO linked to the full tape on YouTube. 
  
• Groupies are never mentioned.
  
• When Trump brags about prior sex assaults his victims are described as "beautiful women."
  
• The one woman specifically named is Nancy O'Dell- "I moved on her like a bitch," said our president.
  
• PRO must either explain how O'Dell, a successful anchor of "Access Hollywood" qualifies as one of Trump's groupies or retract the claim as false.
  

Sure many women have accused him of sexual assault, but why should I have reason to believe them over Trump.

• The Washington Post has verified 16,241 public and official lies told by Trump during his first 3 years in office, an average of 22 lies per day in 2019. [8]
  
• That makes Donald Trump the most prolific liar ever recorded by human history.
  
• By definition, any other human on Earth is more reliable than our president.  Unless some of Trump's accusers have also broken world records for lying, those women should always be presumed to be more plausible than the least reliable source of information the world has ever known.
  

"Why would one ask Democrats to describe non-Democrats/Republicans?"

• The IPSOS poll cited by CON asked Democrats and Independents about their views and what they think their neighbors views were regarding female presidents generally.  PRO seems to have read a different poll.
  

• Let's recall that PRO has the burden to prove that the US is not sexist.  CON thinks PRO is demonstrating examples of sexism even with the text of this debate.
  
• CON looks forward to PRO's R2 response.
  

Regarding the gender pay gap: The gender pay gap DOES in fact exist, but NOT DUE TO SEXISM

• So, not a complete myth as stated in R2?
  
• So, we are essentially debating the SEXISM label.
  
• Look, CON and PRO's sources agree women mostly make less because they take time out for childcare.
  
• CON asserts that childcare ought to be a far higher societal priority or concern than many or even most jobs.  Any smart society prioritizes its children and those that fail to do so fail, simple as that.
  
• In the past, we acknowledged that priority by leaving  roughly 3/4ths of the women at home.
  
• 100 years ago the US devoted itself to the principle that" all men are created equal" includes all people and that women are people,  equal in rights including right of access to the workplace.
  
• That means that if
  
• we agree that childcare is important work and
  
• we agree that the best childcare is left to parents and
  
• we agree that job is more important to society than most, then we need to pay parents on leave some kind of wage to do that job. 
  
• Because women give birth and nurse, women are often the preferable choice of gender and so unfairly underpaid.
  
• I think we agree that this dynamic is the majority cause for the Gender Pay Gap, we seem to disagree on whether or not to call that dynamic sexist.
  
• Women are defined by their ability to give birth, their biological imperative to care for children- what could be more SEXIST than devaluing the job of raising the next generation just because men don't do that job?
  
• Here is one easily detected and commonplace sexism in our society.
  
• 
  

Yes, homicide has been illegal since Cain, that is why murderers are put in prison. The government enforces it's laws, and since the government has not gotten involved in this issue (not even fully supported it as fact) must mean they do not think it is an issue. Had businesses been paying different wages due to sexism, the Fed would have gotten involved, but they alas have not. 

I do not fault women for taking the time to raise their children, I encourage it. I never suggested that they shouldn't do it, all I said was that they are taking a hit in their pay. 

When women start massively entering a field the average pay does go down, as the employer will (rightfully) exploit the fact that on average women aren't good salary negotiators and will more than often work for less than what they believe they're worth. 

And what of the other 87% of people who don't have those views. And btw I somewhat agree with that 13 %. Men simply handle stress, long hours, and a constant barrage of (often mean) criticism better than women, essential qualities to being a good politician. 

• OBJECTION: (sexism)
  
• "Men handle stress, long hours, and a constant barrage of criticism better than women" is a sexist generalization.
  
• Bullshit
  
• Let's see your evidence.
  

The desire to be a high-paid powerful CEO is disproportionately held by men, which is why men are disproportionately CEO's. - How is this sexist? I didn't say ALL, I said disproportionately. I don't know how someone could disagree with that statement as it's simple biology and human nature regarding men and women. 

"No, The "work" applied to both men and women, read the entire sentence properly. I simply put it there because in this country we tend to associate "work" as only paid work and not parental/adult responsibilities. "

Yes, men are getting paid for their extra office work, and women aren't getting paid for housework. This will logically create a discrepancy in pay. 

Men do in fact get harsher sentences - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/women-arent-always-sentenced-by-the-book-maybe-men-shouldnt-be-either/

Hollywood access tape article - https://www.leftyliars.com/donald-trump-access-hollywood-tape/

He may be a liar, but the constitution nor law says your innocence until proven guilty right should be taken away even if you are a prolific liar. Trump is still the accused in this case and must be PROVEN as a person who committed sexual assault. BTW, why does our president, one person, somehow represent every man in the country? Even if he is a sexist/misogynist, it doesn't make the entire country that day. 

What does it matter what they THINK their neighbor's views are. I want to know what their actual neighbor's views are. Not a biased opinion. 

• The "neighbors think" question was designed to elicit a more accurate assessment of the local zeitgeist: [1]
  
• "Robert Cahaly, senior strategist for the Trafalgar Group, made a name for himself in 2016 by being the only pollster to correctly show Donald Trump with a lead in Michigan and Pennsylvania -- two key states he carried -- heading into Election Day. (He did not poll Wisconsin, another surprising win for Trump.) Cahaly also showed Trump ahead in North Carolina and Florida, both of which he won, securing his improbable 304-227 Electoral College victory over Hillary Clinton."
  
• "Cahaly managed to pick up support for Trump that all other pollsters missed by employing a unique method that sought to measure support from voters who'd been “inactive” in recent election cycles, as well as adding a question to his surveys designed to isolate the effect of social desirability bias among Trump voters – the concept that people won’t tell pollsters their true intentions for fear of being stigmatized or being politically incorrect."
  
• "After asking voters who they were supporting in 2016, the pollster followed up by asking them who they thought their neighbors were supporting, Trump or Clinton. Cahaly consistently found a high degree of variance between who respondents said they were voting for and who they thought their neighbors were voting for, suggesting there was in fact a “shy Trump effect” at play."
  
• "Two years later, Cahaly’s method once again proved solid. In one of the most polled races of the cycle, Trafalgar stood alone as the only polling firm to correctly show a Ron DeSantis gubernatorial victory in Florida – as well as Rick Scott winning the Senate race there. (Both narrow outcomes will likely result in recounts.)"
  
• "Trafalgar also correctly predicted Senate outcomes in Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Texas and West Virginia (as of this writing Arizona remains undecided), making it the most accurate pollster of the cycle among those firms that polled multiple Senate and governor races."
  
• "Even with Trump not technically on the ballot, Cahaly found social desirability bias playing a role. In the Florida and Georgia governor contests, some of that was attributable to race – often referred to as “the Bradley effect” – but Cahaly also found a “shy Trump” effect playing a role in places like the Arizona Senate race."
  
• So, if a pollster interviews 10 neighbors on one block and all 10 say "Well, I am not racist personally but my neighbors are very racist" the correct conclusion is more likely that this block is pretty racist even though a 0% of interviewees admit to racism.
  
• So, when we look at the Ipsos poll telling us that three-quarters of Democrats and Independents would vote for a woman  president personally but think only one-third of their neighbors (who are statistically more likely to also be Democrats and Independents) would vote for a woman president, we are forced to confront significant sexism even within the less sexist two-thirds of voters.  In fact, given the size of the sexist discrepancy, one is forced to wonder whether sexism was not the most significant factor determining the 2016 election outcome.
  

• CON argues that  PRO's strategy of giving CON first and last word has worked to CON's favor, particularly given the R4 forfeit.  PRO never set up the terms of this debate and left the majority of CON's argument unrefuted.
  
• Therefore, VOTERS need not get too philosophical before awarding points for argument:  if VOTERS agree that CON has shown that some sexism still remains in American society, then VOTERS should award arguments to CON.