CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Feminist Income Inequality Contradictions.
Feminists commonly address the issue of income inequality with repudiation- which is appreciated. However, they then further state that they wish for a man that has a higher income than they do...? For them to say, "women should be making just as much money as men" then unwittingly suggest that they want a man that earns more money than themselves is contradictorily absurd.
right, and when liberals talk about income inequality, what they really mean is they want everyone to make the same wage... regardless of how much physical or psychological effort goes into doing the job.
You are conflating different types of feminists. Just saying "feminists" is meaningless, since Feminism itself has a wide variety of different forms with different beliefs and different goals. Certain types of feminists may want a man to be a provider, other types of feminists would want equal pay and equal responsibilities.
I'm speaking in terms of majority. The vast majority of women wish for their man to have a higher income.
And as you see, no one has countered such a statement because to do so would be neglecting reality.
And the type of feminist I am speaking of was quite obvious given the context from which I speak. It's like using the term rapist. There are multiple types of rapists, but when the term used regards children, then one can deduce that the type of rapist in question is indeed a child rapist...
Though you knew all of what I said already, in case you were serious, I had to clarify.
It is generally known that in America (and in England) the vast majority of women wish it to be the case for their man to have a higher income. It's almost like how we know race still matters in the US but their is no document that states that this is the case, so therefore no 'citation' would be rendered completely valid.
It is generally known that in America (and in England) the vast majority of women wish it to be the case for their man to have a higher income.
No, that is the stereotype. And as I pointed out, that isn't specific to women.
It's almost like how we know race still matters in the US but their is no document that states that this is the case, so therefore no 'citation' would be rendered completely valid.
I could easily find hundreds of sources on the significance of race in America.
No, that is the stereotype. And as I pointed out, that isn't specific to women.
No, it is not just a 'stereotype', it has evolutionary grounding as to why this is the case for most women.
I could easily find hundreds of sources on the significance of race in America.
You could easily find sources suggestive of the significance of race in America, but you will not find it easy to cite a reference in which an authority confirms this speculation (e.g. a corporate leader making a public statement saying they'd rather hire whites over blacks).
I could also reference hundreds of sources on majority of women's preference to male income dominance. If you wish, I could reference the evolutionary reason for why this is so.
----
"Researchers ... find that for men there is no amount of income that the woman in the bottom ten percent in terms of appearance can earn to make men prefer her over women in the top 10 percent. That is, looks really matter to men relative to income. For women though, if the man in the bottom ten percent in terms of looks earns more than $248,500, they will prefer him over the more attractive guy earning $60,000." - BigThink.
Just like men are biologically wired to look for beautiful women and fertile ones women are biologically wired to look for resourceful men.
"Women want to feel safe and secure. They want protection and to ensure a good future for their off springs. This happens on the unconscious level and as a result most women will get attracted to resourceful men provided that all other variables are constant" - By M.Farouk Radwan, MSc.
Attraction psychology
The survey, carried out at Concordia University in Montral, Quebec, Canada, gave overall descriptions of potential partners, along with positive and negative descriptions.
Ignoring the issues with your original statement, your current statement is still lacking.
In order for this statement to make sense, you would have to show that the majority of women are the feminists that you have described or that the majority of feminists are women who want a man with a higher income. I don't know how to explain this better without a Venn diagram (at least not with a phone).
It is a difficult thing to generalise. Some feminists possess views that seem to extend beyond actual feminism and border on misandry so the idea of men earning more than they do would almost make them recoil in horror as opposed to welcome or seek out. Others are indifferent either way.
I am a little confused by part of your question, however: were you describing for the same role or differing ones? When women complain about equal income it is normally regarding the same profession as their male counterparts. If that were the case for a couple then I do not doubt that any woman, feminist or otherwise, would protest the imbalance. If it is for a different profession altogether then it would follow that the incomes would vary based on whatever the role concerns.
I'm sure there are legal guidelines that restrict two individuals in the same position have unequal pay. If a male is a cashier at register 1, and a female at register 2, the male can't get paid $3.00 extra than the female for reasons unwarranted-and by this I mean assuming they are cashiers and cashiers only.
As for you comments regarding my generalization: I was speaking of strictly the feminists that advocate such a policy (income equality) and yet desire men that are in direct contradiction to such statement.
Suppose you get a job listed as cook. You work alongside another cook who happens to be female. You both are cooks and cooks only. You both earn minimum wage (e.g.$7.25). If, by some odd reason, you seem to be getting paid $10.25, and she $7.25, she could sue the corporation for sexism.
---
Equal Pay Act of 1963 - EPA - 29 U.S. Code Chapter 8 § 206(d)
-
(d) Prohibition of sex discrimination
(1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions
of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment
in which such employees are employed, between employees
on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such
establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays
wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment
for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires
equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are
performed under similar working conditions, except where
such payment is made pursuant to
(i) a seniority system;
(ii) a merit system;
(iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality
of production; or
(iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex:
Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate
differential in violation of this subsection shall not,
in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection,
reduce the wage rate of any employee.
(2) No labor organization, or its agents, representing
employees of an employer having employees subject to
any provisions of this section shall cause or attempt
to cause such an employer to discriminate against an
employee in violation of paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(3) For purposes of administration and enforcement, any amounts
owing to any employee which have been withheld in violation
of this subsection shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum
wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this chapter.
(4) As used in this subsection, the term "labor organization"
means any organization of any kind, or any agency or
employee representation committee or plan, in which employees
participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in
part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
Apparently that law isn't enough. In order for her to sue she needs to show that guy makes that amount, that they work in the same exact conditions, and that she performs just as well. This law allows for plenty of wiggle room.
I agree there are some ways to get around it, and I might also add that it would be hard for her to even prove that it (the scenario) is an actual sexist act (for example the corp. may say it was a 'misunderstanding').
And I agree that there is sexism manifested throughout the public and private sectors, I just think the idea that these sectors are unregulated is not true.
That is what I’m saying: you have insufficient ground to claim this contradictory behaviour from feminists without further context. One feminist may be ardent in their advocacy for income equality within the same role but when it pertains to relationship preference they may have no qualms meeting a man whose income exceeds their own – but it comes from a different profession altogether (e.g. a lawyer is naturally going to earn more than a nurse). When that is the scenario then there is no contradiction to identify. One is general, the other is personal.
"[...] income equality within the same role but when it pertains to relationship preference they may have no qualms meeting a man whose income exceeds their own [...]"
I concede to this but as in my example no woman in a work would be paid lower than a man within the same corporation. Only inasmuch as the company (or place of work) doesn't doesn't employ a commission based payment system, the woman would be treated as equally as the men lest the place of work wish to be sued.
Now, for example, women lawyers may be paid less than men lawyers but that is entirely on their effort and skill (i.e. the amount of cases they win).
Now, for example, women lawyers may be paid less than men lawyers but that is entirely on their effort and skill (i.e. the amount of cases they win).
Precisely. It would relate to their individual capability rather than falling along gender lines which would be a fairer evaluation; however your comment seems to suggest that female lawyers are generally less proficient than male ones – anything to corroborate this?
I concede to this but as in my example no woman in a work would be paid lower than a man within the same corporation. Only inasmuch as the company (or place of work) doesn't doesn't employ a commission based payment system, the woman would be treated as equally as the men lest the place of work wish to be sued.
That should be the standard yes, however it is not the reality for many workplaces across the board.
Precisely. It would relate to their individual capability rather than falling along gender lines which would be a fairer evaluation; however your comment seems to suggest that female lawyers are generally less proficient than male ones – anything to corroborate this?
If female lawyers on average earn less then male lawyers then it wouldn't suggest oppressive income income inequality given that within that regime, employee's, partner's, or private practitioner's income is solely grounded on effort and skill. What would reasonably follow is that, if it is the case female lawyers earn less, then they must not exert enough effort or have the necessary skill to raise their income to that of a male lawyer's.
An analogy would be if their was a coed NFL, and on average the teams with the most women won less games. This would be suggestive of women not having the abilities to win as much games as men given that the ability to win is solely on effort and skill. I'm not saying that women are generally less skillful then men (for example if their was a childcare competition I'm sure majority women would be the winners given their instinctual motherly abilities) I'm saying that in the case of income, their are laws that restrict income inequality based on sex, and progression, within certain regimes and sectors, is dictated entirely on effort and skill. So if their seems to be an imbalance, to blame the system would be unwarranted.
That should be the standard yes, however it is not the reality for many workplaces across the board.
That is the standard in terms of legality. If women choose not exercise their rights, well... that is on them. But jobs by law are obligated to follow legal guidelines.
Equal Pay Act of 1963 - EPA - 29 U.S. Code Chapter 8 § 206(d)
The Equal Pay Act (part of the Fair Labor Standards Act) prohibits wage discrimination by employers and labor organizations based solely on sex.
(d) Prohibition of sex discrimination
(1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions
of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment
in which such employees are employed, between employees
on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such
establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays
wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment
for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires
equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are
performed under similar working conditions, except where
such payment is made pursuant to
(i) a seniority system;
(ii) a merit system;
(iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality
of production; or
(iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex:
Provided, That an employer who is paying a wage rate
differential in violation of this subsection shall not,
in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection,
reduce the wage rate of any employee.
(2) No labor organization, or its agents, representing
employees of an employer having employees subject to
any provisions of this section shall cause or attempt
to cause such an employer to discriminate against an
employee in violation of paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(3) For purposes of administration and enforcement, any amounts
owing to any employee which have been withheld in violation
of this subsection shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum
wages or unpaid overtime compensation under this chapter.
(4) As used in this subsection, the term “labor organization�
means any organization of any kind, or any agency or
employee representation committee or plan, in which employees
participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in
part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
If female lawyers on average earn less then male lawyers then it wouldn't suggest oppressive income income inequality given that within that regime, employee's, partner's, or private practitioner's income is solely grounded on effort and skill. What would reasonably follow is that, if it is the case female lawyers earn less, then they must not exert enough effort or have the necessary skill to raise their income to that of a male lawyer's.
Again, that is supposition that females possess less capability than males in the law profession. If the legislation for income equality exists and a woman excels in her role there is no reason for her salary to fall short of her equally excellent male counterpart’s.
An analogy would be if their was a coed NFL, and on average the teams with the most women won less games. This would be suggestive of women not having the abilities to win as much games as men given that the ability to win is solely on effort and skill. I'm not saying that women are generally less skillful then men (for example if their was a childcare competition I'm sure majority women would be the winners given their instinctual motherly abilities) I'm saying that in the case of income, their are laws that restrict income inequality based on sex, and progression, within certain regimes and sectors, is dictated entirely on effort and skill. So if their seems to be an imbalance, to blame the system would be unwarranted.
(*there)
Well essentially you are attributing the imbalance to female inadequacy in the job world. I note that you say you aren’t but the entire context of your argument including your analogy indicates otherwise. I postulate that it is less a matter of proficiency level and more gender role expectations assigned to our respective sexes: pre-1963 women had limited exposure to educational opportunities beyond the parameters of domesticity. Despite the fact that this has now changed, on a minor scale we can still see its entrenchment in matters like this as evidenced by the fact that the gap is largest in high-flying disciplines (i.e. law). Treatment should be based on action, not identity, but the overwhelming number of cases showing income inequality demonstrates that this is not the case, regardless of what the law dictates.
That is the standard in terms of legality. If women choose not exercise their rights, well... that is on them. But jobs by law are obligated to follow legal guidelines.
A very myopic evaluation. It is difficult for anyone to pursue their rights when a discriminatory undercurrent is actively against them. Ethnic minorities encounter discrimination in the workplace all the time in spite of the rights they have but due to the laws set in place it is merely confined to covert behaviour. Does that mean it is non-existent?
Again, that is supposition that females possess less capability than males in the law profession. If the legislation for income equality exists and a woman excels in her role there is no reason for her salary to fall short of her equally excellent male counterpart’s.
Within the legal regime lawyers are solely paid on effort and skill (winning cases to actually finding cases). So unless there is an argument that suggests otherwise then the only plausible explanation is that women, within the legal domain, are not as proficient as men (I will be charitable and consider the lack of confidence an average individual may have for a woman as apposed to a man, but that is independent of income inequality).
So when you say "no reason [...]" I agree given that law is a profession grounded effort & skill- given that, there should be no reason for her income to fall short. So if it in fact does, it would be suggestive of something else rather than oppressive income inequality (as stated previously, perhaps the lack of confidence with potential clients).
Well essentially you are attributing the imbalance to female inadequacy in the job world. I note that you say you aren’t but the entire context of your argument including your analogy indicates otherwise. I postulate that it is less a matter of proficiency level and more gender role expectations assigned to our respective sexes: pre-1963 women had limited exposure to educational opportunities beyond the parameters of domesticity. Despite the fact that this has now changed, on a minor scale we can still see its entrenchment in matters like this as evidenced by the fact that the gap is largest in high-flying disciplines (i.e. law). Treatment should be based on action, not identity, but the overwhelming number of cases showing income inequality demonstrates that this is not the case, regardless of what the law dictates.
(there)
(It appears my dyslexia has slipped out- so don't mind the occasional grammatical slip-up.)
Are you disregarding the fact that there are constitutional laws that protect women against income inequality?
Your (gender expectations) point about the pre-60's isn't really as pertinent as you seem to imply. In modern America the amount of exposure young women have in terms of what they can and cannot do is immense. And you have to consider the rationale behind the gender role social structure- women were, and are, better suited at taking care of children than men. So given that women want to have babies, and babies need to be taken care of, a woman pursuing a career and getting pregnant would impose on further progression (at least temporarily- 5 years).
On a person note: I believe that women should be at home taking care of the the young children pre-kindergarden. I find it irresponsible for women to send their children off to daycare for someone else to practically raise their child for them (unless she is a single mother and needs to work). You should note that I am not suggesting the narrative that women should be at-home cleaners with dinner ready by the time their husbands home- my point is that they should be restricted from other engagements once a child has entered the picture, and remain restricted until the child is able to go to school.
A very myopic evaluation. It is difficult for anyone to pursue their rights when a discriminatory undercurrent is actively against them. Ethnic minorities encounter discrimination in the workplace all the time in spite of the rights they have but due to the laws set in place it is merely confined to covert behaviour. Does that mean it is non-existent?
Well I showed you the 'The Equal Pay Act of 1963', so in the event this act is disregarded that lack of regard is subject to lawsuits. By the way, how many lawsuits do you hear about being filled against companies supposedly practicing sexism? Honestly I think the main contributor to income inequality is the amount of risk women pose given their potential of getting pregnant and thus discontinuing their work, or needing to take off, or exerting less effort given the condition of their pregnant state, etc. (I only believe this because I don't see and good arguments as to why women not excelling pass men is strictly because of an oppressive society, govt., corp., etc.)
(It appears my dyslexia has slipped out- so don't mind the occasional grammatical slip-up.)
My apologies in which case; thank you for the notification, it is duly noted.
Within the legal regime lawyers are solely paid on effort and skill (winning cases to actually finding cases). So unless there is an argument that suggests otherwise then the only plausible explanation is that women, within the legal domain, are not as proficient as men (I will be charitable and consider the lack of confidence an average individual may have for a woman as apposed to a man, but that is independent of income inequality).
In spite of your efforts to be “charitable”, your view reads not only as diminishing but also unsound: why should any individual feel a lack of confidence in a woman’s ability to handle legal matters?
So when you say "no reason [...]" I agree given that law is a profession grounded effort & skill- given that, there should be no reason for her income to fall short. So if it in fact does, it would be suggestive of something else rather than oppressive income inequality (as stated previously, perhaps the lack of confidence with potential clients).
Your rationale approaches gender bias. Unless there is a proven track record of ineptitude amongst female lawyers in comparison to males (in achieving positive results), no logical reason exists for clients to feel any disquiet about her assignment to their case; particularly if, as laypersons, they are unfamiliar with the intricacies of the law profession to assert judgment of her calibre.
Are you disregarding the fact that there are constitutional laws that protect women against income inequality?
No. What I am doing is refusing to take matters at face value which is what constitutional laws are in this instance.
Your (gender expectations) point about the pre-60's isn't really as pertinent as you seem to imply. In modern America the amount of exposure young women have in terms of what they can and cannot do is immense.
My point is pertinent because it explains the foundation of discrimination which continues to pervade. You appear to be reasoning that the establishment of appropriate legislation signifies the death of discrimination, however that is merely the surface. The injustice resembles the embers of a once fierce fire: the worst has been combatted, but it is not entirely vanquished. Women have come a long way in be able to expand their horizons in keeping with their own personal ambitions, yet there may be occasions where their efforts to progress will be hampered by the concealed prejudice of their superiors in certain fields (e.g. high-flying disciplines as mentioned earlier).
And you have to consider the rationale behind the gender role social structure- women were, and are, better suited at taking care of children than men. So given that women want to have babies, and babies need to be taken care of, a woman pursuing a career and getting pregnant would impose on further progression (at least temporarily- 5 years).
I must say I am surprised at this - your consideration for such context is not all that dissimilar to my own, the very aspect you deemed lacking in pertinence. Moreover, even if women are generally more biologically disposed to the qualities requisite for child care (i.e. tenderness, affection etc.), this shouldn’t mean that her aspirations cease to exist beyond that. Your point is also largely predicated on assumption: there many women who have no inclination towards child-bearing for the precise fear that it would obstruct their career plan and so forgo that chance.
On a person note: I believe that women should be at home taking care of the the young children pre-kindergarden. I find it irresponsible for women to send their children off to daycare for someone else to practically raise their child for them (unless she is a single mother and needs to work). You should note that I am not suggesting the narrative that women should be at-home cleaners with dinner ready by the time their husbands home- my point is that they should be restricted from other engagements once a child has entered the picture, and remain restricted until the child is able to go to school.
Well I agree partially with you here: every child should ideally receive the benefit of a fully attentive parent, especially in those crucial early years. Nevertheless, I feel your personal note is a product of the anchored perspective regarding typical gender roles which impresses an expectation on all mothers. I note that you do not suggest a woman’s role be confined to domestic duties, but what I mean is that you assign the role of child-care solely to her as opposed to her husband. This is flawed for multiple reasons:
Firstly, not all women adapt well to parenthood and some men are in fact more demonstrative of appropriate nurturing; secondly, it exempts fathers from taking ownership of their half as the other parent of said child and does not encourage them to consider the possibility of staying at home to care for the child; thirdly, child care ought to be something that is at least in part governed by financial security: should a couple decide to allocate full time child-rearing to one, typically the highest earner ought to be the breadwinner to provide that security. Some women by virtue of their profession happen to earn significantly more than their husbands and so in that event it is more feasible for her to go to out to work and for her lower salaried husband to be the homemaker.
Well I showed you the 'The Equal Pay Act of 1963', so in the event this act is disregarded that lack of regard is subject to lawsuits. By the way, how many lawsuits do you hear about being filled against companies supposedly practicing sexism? Honestly I think the main contributor to income inequality is the amount of risk women pose given their potential of getting pregnant and thus discontinuing their work, or needing to take off, or exerting less effort given the condition of their pregnant state, etc. (I only believe this because I don't see and good arguments as to why women not excelling pass men is strictly because of an oppressive society, govt., corp., etc.)
That is presuming a woman elects to go through with the pregnancy process in the first place but again, such a situation is not as accountable for the issue as you posit. If companies really are paying women less on the grounds of prospective (not definite) motherhood then that would demonstrate a lack of professionalism stemming from prejudice: what premise do they have to judge a female employee’s intentions in this way? This would mean that they ascribe to one woman the lifestyle choice of many women and execute their treatment accordingly rather than giving her due independent consideration. Therefore, this provides no excuse for income inequality on the basis of some assumption.
I know perfectly well plenty of lawyers are paid salaries, but they get assigned to cases so as to have such salaries, but they will not get said cases if they aren't very effective- which factors in to my cynicism towards income inquality based on gender in the legal domain.
Right well you can apply that to any job. Women doctors get paid less because they cure less, women civil engineers get paid less because the quality of the buildings aren't as good etc etc. It is all meaningless without evidence to back up the idea that women are less able than men.
There is no contradiction. Women want to get paid the same as men who do the same job. Women want to be in a relationship with men who have a better job.
Also, your statement is suggestive of male dominance. Why would a woman want a man making more than them if not to directly subject themselves to being non-dominant? (I just brought this up as I remember you argued, in a different debate, that males are not the dominant gender.)
These are separate issues. One is the desire for a partner who earns more than you and the other is for equal pay for equal work.
This would only be contradictory if these feminists that you posit also desire a partner who has the same job as them. This combined with the higher pay would indeed be contradictory.
