Are WOMEN still being discriminated in the work force TODAY?
Yes
Side Score: 31
|
 |
No
Side Score: 46
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly, people have a natural tendency to categorize, associate and stereotype groups of people they do not share an interest or identity with. Considering people will naturally favor those whom they share common interests/identities with over other whom they do not, men will discriminate against potential/current women employees and will dismiss many more due to their prejudices. Definitions: In-group, an exclusive group of people with a shard interest or identity Out-group, people who do not belong to a specific in-group Prejudice, forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case. Discrimination, treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit. Bias, inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair. Prejudice and discrimination is a natural aspect of human nature, we consider our in-groups diverse and unique, whilst out groups are similar, stereotypical and predictable as demonstrated by Quattrone, George A.; Jones, Edward E. (1980). This is called the Out-group homogeneity effect, and is well documented within the fields of sociology. We also have a natural bias to favor that which we are familiar with (Exposure effect), and to make assumptions purely off partial information we may possess (What you see is all there is [WYSIATI]) as discussed by Kahneman, D. (2011). Human judgement is heavily influenced by what's known as a 'system 1', a mechanism of quick thinking and assumptions. There exists a 'system 2' which is slow and logical, however a perpetual state of system 2 is unnatural, all of our intuitive thoughts reside within this biased system 1. The exposure effect results in a sense of unease with groups of people you have not met, had much contact with or simply do not understand. It is common we here about how 'women are far too complex to understand', this influences the exposure effect resulting in unease for anyone who takes those comments seriously. WYSIATI in combination with the Out-group homogeneity effect creates false and misleading stereotypes of women. When you're constantly exposed by misrepresentations of women through media, or perhaps your senile grandparents, these representations become normalized and expected. Men make up the vast majority of employees, especially in large corporations. According to the Fortune 500 list of CEO's women make up only 4.6%. With women being such a minority and so underrepresented, it's clear the main in-group are men. Hence women have a significantly harder time properly representing themselves and diversifying these higher up positions. Perhaps the most efficient and effective way off eliminating these biases and allowing women an equal opportunity into high work force careers is through cross group contact through the cross group hypothesis first introduced by Gordon W. Allport (1954). This means giving women and other minority groups a greater advantage into getting these roles to equalize the playing field and reduce all prejudice. In summary, by the definition off discrimination, the sociological and psychological prejudice and uneven playing field, women are still being discriminated in the work force today. Quattrone, George A.; Jones, Edward E. (1980). "The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers.". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38 (1): 141–152 Kahneman, D. (2011). "Thinking, Fast and Slow". United States of America, the Penguin Group. Bellstrom, K. (2015, June), "GM's Mary Barra sets a Fortune 500 record for female CEOs", FORTUNE. Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37,pp. 255–343). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Side: Yes
It is common we here about how 'women are far too complex to understand', this influences the exposure effect resulting in unease for anyone who takes those comments seriously. Oftentimes you hear the majority of women agree to such statements, or asserting it themselves. However, the context of this statement matters. In some contexts, it is objectively true that women are significantly more complex than men (two primary examples encompassing sexuality and attraction). It is also true that women are biologically more complex than men. But I am sure I would be correct in assuming that you are referencing psychological complexity(?). A number of varying scientific studies indicate that women do have a more complex cognition than men (the complexity involving neurochemistry); however, there have been no significant findings that indicate a woman's cognition is so distinct from men as to preclude them from attaining certain goals and/or positions that men largely hold (e.g. 'CEO'). Perhaps the most efficient and effective way off eliminating these biases and allowing women an equal opportunity into high work force careers is through cross group contact through the cross group hypothesis This would be the least efficient and effective of eliminating prejudice and bias, here's why: (1) Majority of women choose not to enter the lucrative workforces, or the lucrative position within a workforce. And for the contact to be successful, it would fundamentally require those elusive applicants (it's a matter of propositional logic). (2) A rigorous workplace (such as a corporation or lawfirm) which allows for entry to lucrative positions, facilitates intergroup competition (the intergroup being the employees working at the same corporation). Given that the contact hypothesis requires the groups to share common goals, then a competitive environment would be counterproductive to attaining said goals (since the goals are positions which have limited openings). Overall this proposal sounds more like affirmative action rather than contact hypothesis which, again, is not well-suited in the workplaces of which you speak for the aforementioned reasons. With women being such a minority and so underrepresented, it's clear the main in-group are men. Hence women have a significantly harder time properly representing themselves and diversifying these higher up positions. The problem with this is that if you look at the situation objectively, you find that women in fact choose not to enter those 'higher-up' positions, or the lucrative workforce entirely perhaps due to not pursuing education in fields (e.g., STEM Fields) which will allow them better access to such prosperous positions. Now, one can discuss the factors that lead to their dissuasion; but to portray the situation as if most women attempt to enter these lucrative positions and unjustly get denied due to male biases, ignores the crucial facts that conflict with your assertion - some of which you mentioned in a few of your posts in this debate. Side: No
"In some contexts, it is objectively true that women are significantly more complex than men (two primary examples encompassing sexuality and attraction). It is also true that women are biologically more complex than men." Such bold claims will require some substantial evidence. How are you defining complexity? I certainly disagree with this statement, something that's different from what you're used to isn't necessarily more complex. "A number of varying scientific studies indicate that women do have a more complex cognition than men (the complexity involving neurochemistry)" You'll need to cite your sources. Again different isn't the same as complex. "This would be the least efficient and effective of eliminating prejudice and bias, here's why:" (1) Harvard please, you must cite your sources in order to be taking seriously! We can't discern truth without the appropriate resources. Otherwise this point doesn't support your original claim, a lack of women applying for a position is not proof that integration fails to eliminate bias and promote diversity (ie increase of diverse applicants). (2) And this just confirms your lack of understanding of what a in/out-group is. They aren't sports groups or clubs that people faithfully identify with and refuse to identify with any other, they're a classification of people who identify with each other's similar views/identities. Sports groups and clubs are included in this definition, including similar music, art, culture, food preferences. ie, in/out-groups aren't clubs, but clubs are in/out-groups. So no, the very definition of the cross group hypothesis is integrating groups who do not share common values/identities. Essentially you can have in-groups within in-groups. An in-group does not mean it's "members" cannot compete. As you have shown a lack of understanding in certain core terms which undermines your arguments, my statement still stands. "The problem with this is that if you look at the situation objectively, you find that women in fact choose not to enter those 'higher-up' positions, or the lucrative workforce entirely perhaps due to not pursuing education in fields " This "problem" has little to do with my statement. My statement was that men hold the majority of "higher up positions", as bias is a natural aspect of behavior, this results in the systematic and significant pressure against women. If you were to dispute this statement you would either need to demonstrate either: A) Men don't hold a majority of positions, or B) People don't have unconscious bias that influences their decisions. Whether or not we are applying for these positions has little to do with the argument. "one can discuss the factors that lead to their dissuasion" As of which I have been doing. Side: Yes
With women being such a minority and so underrepresented, it's clear the main in-group are men. Wouldn't in-groups apply to exclusive groups of people who associate themselves with similar people? because of this, I don't really see how you can say that men make up the in-group for CEOs unless you can prove that the majority of CEOs associate themselves with other CEOs (assuming that the statistic you provided is accurate), or at least show that the majority of CEOs are aware of the statistical percentage of CEOs who are men compared to those who are women which would imply the exposure effect taking place. Side: Yes
"Wouldn't in-groups apply to exclusive groups of people who associate themselves with similar people?" yes, that's it's definition. I fear I may have not made my argument entirely comprehensible D: People will favour and associate with others they consider similar (refer back to previous argument). I've proven this in a general case. Oh and CEOs being aware of the percentage of women to men is not essential for these biases to occur. When you hang with your friends you will notice men will gravitate to other men, and women gravitate to other women. This anecdote is a prime example of in/out-group behaviour. The exposure effect it when you prefer something you've encountered more often than something you have not. Irrelevant of whether it's more or less useful. Side: No
1
point
1
point
Yes, women are still being discriminated in the work force today. While it is getting better because a lot of people are pushing for it, there are still people who have a set mindset of women and think that they aren't equal to men. I personally think, that influencing and targeting the younger generation may completely abolish discrimination of women in the work force because they are the ones who will end up making the decisions that affect this as they will eventually have high positions where they can or cannot discriminate women in their jobs. Side: Yes
|
4
points
3
points
What about the wage gap? With women earning less to the male dollar when they both have the same degree and working qualifications? What about violence and harassments and language used against some women in work places which impede on working ethics in contributing to a toxic environment? We still have a long way to go before we reach true gender equality. Side: Yes
The quote many people state when talking about the wage gap is: "Women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes." However, this statement is often taken out of context. What it means is that women as a whole make less than men as a whole, not on an individual basis. You may say that this is still misogyny but it is not. The top 10 most dangerous jobs (from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) are fishers, loggers, aircraft pilots, farmers and ranchers, roofers, iron and steel workers, refuse and recyclable material collectors, industrial machinery installation and repair, truck drivers, construction laborers. They’re all male dominated. Because these jobs are dangerous the payment is higher. Men are also far more likely to work in higher paying fields. Men are far more likely to take work in uncomfortable, isolated, and undesirable locations that pay more. The average man works 15% longer than the average working woman. Men are also more likely to work on weekends. Even within the same career category, men are more likely to pursue high-stress and higher-paid areas of specialization (e.g. within the medical profession, men gravitate to relatively high-stress and high-paying areas of specialization, like surgery, while women are more likely to pursue relatively lower-paid areas of specialization likpediatricianan or dentist.) Also, don't think that men get jobs in higher paying fields because of sexism because, in fact, national hiring experiments show women have a 2:1 faculty preference (http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/ Side: No
1
point
The alleged wage gap, what is that based on? I hear the left throw that out, but see no data to support it. Liberal opinions do not fact, truth and reality make. Violence can occur anywhere against anyone, both men and women. Gender equality, do you feel women are inferior? Side: No
1
point
1
point
2
points
No, and they haven't been for awhile. Before anyone decides to bring up the wage gap please do some research on it first. The studies that brought that up have been proven flawed in that they didn't take in any variables other than wage, that when accounted for show that in reality there isn't a deviant. Side: No
Females have joined the long list of the ''oh poor us'' brigade. They, along other ethnic groups will forever be bellyaching about being discriminated against. In 1000 years time females and blacks, along with others will be still be bellowing about how they are treated unfairly in the workplace. If these ''put upon'' groups are so capable why don't they form their own corporations in which they can apply their much vaunted measures of equality. Side: No
1
point
Wow...Okay, just wow. Where to even begin. Let's start with this-it hasn't been thousands of years for equality in the workplace for women. Hell, it hasn't even been a 100 years since they earned the right to vote. As far as actually being discriminated against, that is a very real thing to this day. It is almost gone, I will give you that. But it sure isn't all the way equal yet. For instance, despite several women passing the Ranger test and other such exams, they are still not permitted in special operations groups such as the Navy SEALS. As far as forming their own corporations goes, well building an economic empire usually takes time. Given how woman haven't had legal equally for very long, it makes sense that so few are in power. Add on to the fact that paid maternity leave still isn't a thing in the US, women are going to have greater difficulty maintaining a job as opposed to their male counterparts. Despite all this, I look forward to what the future holds for women in America. Given how women are starting to go to college and strive for higher education (and eventually, higher paying jobs), it wouldn't surprise me if some time in the future that men become the ones that stay at home while their wives are the main breadwinners-more so than this is already happening today, that is. Side: Yes
|
