Women are treated as equals to men

C1 Everyone is paid the same under minimum wage unless someone works harder, shows good work etiquette, & gets a .25 cent raise. But wage deals with $10+ an hour jobs. As I have shown, corporate employees"wht. women earn more than their minority counterparts as well as women of color. Now I"ll show that women as a whole out earn ALL men except white men. 1st, Again I"m not playing the race card in vain or for sympathy. Let"s be 100% honest. America is still controlled by white men. White men tip the scale in your favor. But remove that factor & your C1 argument implodes. 2nd, White women outnumber blk men 3/1. Latinos, its 2/1. Add Asian males & the numbers balance out. However, add minority women on her side & the ratio leans heavily in the female favor. It is common knowledge there are more females in America & the world than males, excluding white males (using America as the example) it is logical to assume women as a whole earn more than men (white men excluded). 3rd, Your argument can only win if white males are factored in. Since my previous arguments have proved this & my next shall too, it is apparent that your argument is bias, using the white man as your pawn. Because without his earnings, women as a whole out earn all other males. Your argument is based on partisanship. Now, your 77 cent estimate is part of the many Obama Lies. "The 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. When all these relevant factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap narrows to about 5 cents." Please READ: http://www.thedailybeast.com... The website Payscale meticulously breaks down the wage gap & shows that ONLY in certain professions men out earn women because it"s a male dominant profession. However, in female dominant professions the women out earn the men. Blk women out earn both blk men & Latinos. "An analysis of census data by consumer research firm Reach Advisors found that women between the ages of 22 and 30, without children, had bigger paychecks in 2008 than their male peers in 47 of the 50 largest U.S. cities. Their wages were 8 percent higher, on average". "Atlanta, Ga., offered the best financial opportunity for these women, who took home 121 percent of the average wage for their peers. Young, single women were also substantially better-paid in Memphis, New York, Sacramento and San Diego." http://newsone.com... C2 According to a National Vital Statistics poll, as of 2013, there are est. 2,118,000 million heterosexual marriages in the US. According to your 70% of heterosexual husbands cheat on their heterosexual wives. This mean that 1,482,600 married men have cheated on their wives in 1 year. Seriously? So only 635,400 married were faithful? Your 70% is preposterous & unfounded. In fact, the source you cited is by Lisa Penn of Yourtango.com. Her claim of 70% isn"t validated through any other source, esp. not on her website. I read a few articles on her site & she asserts claims but never cites a verifiable source. Each article I read list "figures" & "claims" but no secondary source is cited. She simply backlinks her own articles! Your original premise states: "For the most part women aren't considers attractive after a certain age." Yet you give no source for this claim nor delve into provable logic, whether as I listed a few women over 45 that are still sweetly beautiful. I listed 2 sources, you can find in a supermarket that regularly feature older women & tailor articles around their lasting beautiful. "When a woman begins to look older around a certain age"they're no longer considered sexually attractive." Again no source. As a man I can say with certainty most guys reading this debate also view the older women I listed as "attractive". Now, "physical attraction" & "romantic relationship" isn"t the same. Men can find Jennifer Aniston "pretty" but that doesn"t mean they want to be in an intimate relationship with her. And I believe you probably deem them as going hand-in-hand. Your argument speaks from a bias female point of view without supplying any evidence from men on the issue. Again, as a man, I can say with certainty most guys do not hold your point of view, & it is the male POV that decides if you are right & you, sweet lady, have provided none. =514; C3 Actually if you look at what my words imply you"ll see that my claims "women are simply naturally-born BETTER parents and homemakers than men" & "they believe females are superior in that capacity" that these two claims don"t endorse your sentiment that "[men] expect women to do nothing." These two claims actually imply something greater to which your argument is blinded towards, which is, you ridicule the very essence of a female homemaker even though history has shown us females are "better" at that job. My point was to sideline that ridiculing sentiment with evidence that your scorn is lacking in potency against society for "expecting" women to be the "superior force" rearing the family in morals & decency. My comments never implied women should be limited to just these goals. Men & women expecting women"in your own words"to "think women should still be homemakers" isn"t equivalent to "women should ONLY be homemakers." Why should women rebel against the first job they are undisputedly superior at by nature? Accepting it doesn"t mean she is expected to do nothing else. And esp. in America, women aren"t hindered by societal expectations to not fulfill their desired potentials in careers. So, no, I didn"t endorse your argument, per se, nor did I validate it. In conclusion, 1.I showed your C1 argument to be bias & inconsistent, relying solely on the Caucasian male workforce to prove your sentiment under the guise of "as a whole." I showed that without them as a factor, women out earn all other males in the wage gap. I even went so far as to show evidence that white women singlehandedly trump all genders & races (save the white men) in salary jobs. And I added a bonus of showing that the second dominant male earner, Black Men, earn less "as a whole" against Black Women. Your .77 cent allegation is a lie perpetrated by our proven lying President. The true number is about .5 cent. 2.I demonstrated your C2 argument is bias & without foundation, since you being a young woman, cannot conclude that the majority of the opposite gender find older women "unattractive". You provided no evidence, just speculation. As a man, I can assert that men in my circle, of my heterosexual proclivity, do find older women "attractive." At no point did you define your "certain age" with a specific age limit, so through my examples I presented 44, 48, 50 year old women whom guys likely find "attractive." Attractive is defined "appealing to look at." The burden of proof was on you to prove this to which you failed. My examples pass the guy test of "appealing to look at". S. Twain, C. Brinkley, K. Preston, C. Zeta Jones. I can even add Jen Aniston, Penelope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, Sarah Palin, heck even Nancy Grace is a bit "appealing to look at." Your own "word" destroyed your argument. 3.Your C3 argument, upon close evaluation, is both limited & restrictive. Therefore I didn"t have much to refute. Expecting something & preventing something are as different as a heap of sh*t & a heap of chocolate"they may appear the same but they do not smell the same, they do not taste the same, they do not serve the same function. There is nothing wrong, evil, or disrespectful about expecting a natural-born caregiver to be a caregiver. Few American men are bold enough or stupid enough to attempt to prevent a woman from fulfilling higher goals outside the home. In fact, the only prevent-ers you see are usually Amish or LDS-type