Women are being treated unfairly in the United States.

However, I would like to disagree that it is me who must prove conclusively that my position is correct, and that Pro's is not. The BOP is on the contestant who posts the contention, which in this case, is Pro. By the way, "I have now proven this point using two sources. It cannot be refuted," is not a decent or honest statement to make in a debate. Need I only post three sources in dissent to secure this point for myself? My opponent seems to be under the impression that finding an opinion on the internet automatically validates its position. Quoting three statements from a feminist website and then saying "they clearly show that sexism is still a part of the United States's society" is not an argument, and I expect better from any opponent I face. Preface: While I will post strong refutations for the points my opponent make, there is a philosophical discrepancy that reveals itself, and that is the apparent belief of Pro that correlation is synonymous with causation. The fact that women face disadvantages that, as I will show later, statistics clearly show are vanishing quickly, does not imply individual sexism, much less institutionalized bigotry. By this logic, it could be mentioned that men will be sentenced more harshly in court for equivalent crimes (1), and are handed massive disadvantage in custody courts (2), and the conclusion could be made that the system obviously discriminates against men. I would say no, this is not true, although these are problems, similar to the few accurate assessments that Pro makes. To suggest that problems must have a intentional,existential, maleficent cause is basic and misleading, and simply listing issues does not comment in any way on their cause. With that said, I must now respond to the rather stunning misconstruction and single-sourced arguments that Pro makes. 77 Cents to the Dollar? Originally cherry-picked in the 2010 census, the "wage gap" in the United States simply doesn't exist in the form advocates say it does. The formula for the conclusion was flawed, I suspect intentionally so. The method was simply to take the average money women make every year, and compare to the average men make, and men did come out on top in that category. (3) Indeed, the top ten highest paying jobs are majority male, and the lowest ten majority female, which does not imply sexism in any way. (See "Discrimination and Free Markets)" When the factors are controlled in this parity experiment, this mystical 23 cents suddenly disappears. For example, men work longer at work in a given week than women. (4) Part of the reason for this is the likelihood of women having children, and being expected to care for them, a claimed form of sexism which I will address if my opponent cares to mention it. However, what about when men are forced to take care of children? According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, that when compared, "single childless women to single childless men, the wage gap not only disappears, but instead becomes a wage premium. "(5) In other words, when the major maternal factor is removed, women actually make more money in full-time jobs then men. My Opponent's Quotes It would seem that quoting a feminist website with insufficient numerical or empirical support does not coagulate into any coherent case, but lest I be accused of shunting aside my duties, I feel obliged to reply. Sexual assault, if not inherently sexist, definitely demonstrates a grave disrespect for fellow humans. However, what this has to do with women being "destined to do household chores" is beyond me, or what this had to do with society. Rape will always occur, in every society, until humans, especially men, stop being sexual, oft-depraved beings. (I suspect that's a long time coming). Indeed, rape in the United States comparatively is far from the worst, not even making the top 100 list of rapes per 100,000 people. (6) My opponent and I seem to come to a consensus that religion generally is negative towards women, and I condemn the headscarves and ill-treatment females are required to endure in much of the world. With that said, this quote seems to contain no connection to the United States, other than that much of the population is religious. In the United States, religion is neither recognized nor institutionalized, and so cannot be federally sanctioned in this way. Once again, prophets and professors far to often look down on their famle students in other countries, as the quote makes clear. This is simply not the case in the US, as female enrollment in colleges has officially surpassed male enrollment (7), as well as impressively dominating the educational workforce in America. Please either review or support quotations that you borrow from website, instead of finding those who agree with you and claiming victory based solely on their opinions. The Legacy of Sexism The question will always come up in this type of discussion of how then, if the US no longer practices pervasive sexism, that women still constitute such small roles in big business and other areas of the market? And the answer is simple: they haven't been given enough time. Women in American society have been advancing steadily as a result of the glorious 70's feminist movement, enlightened reform, and to some extent affirmative action. (Why would a patriarchal society apply such a system, by the way). As statistics now prove, mere decades, if not years, await before full gender integration into business and government. 40% of households hold the leading female as their primary breadwinner (8), and the inclusion of women as executives, managers, and owners is skyrocketing at an extraordinary rate. (9) Simply put, centuries of repression have failed to put women down, and we are a living in a new age, free of any kind of widespread misogyny. Discrimination and Free Markets Before I cite my sources and wait for my opponent's response, one more thing must be established. With no back-up or evidence for Pro's story, as seems to be a theme, Pro claims that a business will hire a man over an equally/better qualified women as a result of sexism. Not only do the facts not support this rather puerile anecdote, but it is also logically bankrupt. Why would a business, free of the chains of bureaucratic meddling, hire a lesser worker simply because of their sex? As all good entrepreneurs ought to know, better employees means better production, and until this spurious claim of discrimination is defended properly, it should be dismissed. To conclude, while there is no denying the discpicable history of gender treatment and roles in the United States, to claims the massive, can't-be-missed problems that Pro alleges seem to have no basis in reality. Of course being up to the audience, I believe I have countered every opening argument my opponent presented. That being the case, good luck to my adversary, and I look forward to his next entry. (1) . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (2) . http://socyberty.com... (3)(4)(5) . http://www.maciverinstitute.com... (6) . http://www.nationmaster.com... (7) . http://cnsnews.com... (8). http://www.nytimes.com... (9) . http://www.beschlossperspective.com...