Offshoring? More like Off-whore-ing! Amirite fellas?
Women pretending to work.
All those jobs going overseas? Blame it on the ladies. At least according to MRA blogger The Fifth Horseman – the guy behind The Misandry Bubble, a bizarre apocalyptic manifesto that took the manosphere by storm last year. In a heavily upvoted comment on The Spearhead, TFH explains:
Not many people realize that outsourcing happens mostly due to feminism.
Feminists impose all sorts of costs on businesses in the US, who are forced to employ women despite the low productivity of these female employees.
Since an office is not allowed to have too many men, the next best answer is to move the entire department to India or China, where Western feminists can no longer harass it.
Since Western women cost more than what Western men produce, outsourcing is inevitable, as a means to avoid feminism.
The blogger behind the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog was impressed enough with this argument that he featured it in a post of his own, adding
Plenty of people have tried to run the numbers on the offshoring of jobs, but they can never figure out where the savings are supposed to be. Business would only offshore jobs if it made financial sense, and running the numbers indicates that it doesn’t make financial sense because any savings gets eaten up by the costs of offshoring. That is the case until you include the costs of feminism in the analysis. When someone runs the numbers on offshoring, they don’t include things like the costs of the false sexual harassment industry, affirmative action, and pure makework jobs for women in their analysis. As soon as feminism is included, offshoring makes perfect financial sense for business. …
If you want jobs to come back to the US (and elsewhere), then you have to eliminate feminism.
Yeah, that’s gotta be it.
Posted on December 7, 2011, in antifeminism, evil women, false accusations, idiocy, misandry, misogyny, oppressed men, western women suck. Bookmark the permalink. 365 Comments.
“pure makework jobs for women”
I’m puzzled by this phrase. Are they saying that companies are creating “busy work” jobs just so that they can employ enough women to not look sexist? That’s… just as sexist as not hiring women at all.
I’ve only recently been introduced to Feminism and Men’s Rights Advocacy, so things like this still throw me for a loop. I have a hard time believing people like this actually exist. Perhaps I’m just sheltered.
In a general sense, they’re right. A lot of the reason offshoring is profitable is that other countries have far lower standards for fair and safe treatment of workers.
(That’s not all of it; there’s also currency differences, cheaper land and materials, laxer environmental differences, and so forth.)
Where I part ways with the MRAs: this is a bad thing! It is a crappy-ass, imperialistic, not-in-my-backyardy, terrible thing that respected US companies are willing to abuse workers in other countries. (Many of whom are women anyway. And for the men, working in an export factory or a night-shift call center isn’t necessarily a masculine empowerment fantasy.) And the answer is not to lower the US’s standards until our workers are just as easy to exploit!
MRAs: Taking Stupid To Entirely New Levels Every Day!
These guys seriously think that there’s a sexual harassment suit a day at any place that employs women.
Feminism is the new 42…
Admittedly my area of knowledge in outsourcing is only maquiladoras and it may be different in other countries, but maquiladoras preferentially hire women because they’ll work for lower wages (they generally don’t have to support a family) and are thought to be more industrious and better at fine detail work.
Katz – Yep! Just like every act of sex ends in a false rape accusation and every time a man speaks to a woman is street harassment, every woman with a job got it through an equal-opportunity lawsuit and keeps it via sexual harassment allegations.
And the last is particularly prone to gaslighting, because if I say “No, I got my job because I had five years of experience and excellent references,” they can always say “yeah, that’s what you think.” How am I supposed to disprove that?
This is the “red pill”–the ability to reframe commonplace events into absurdly paranoid but unfalsifiable narratives.
This has happened sometimes in American companies as well here in the US.
American companies also make this assumption about women when handing out raises-men are presumed to be taking care of a family so they get higher wages, this especially happens after a man gets married.
*puts out an Anti-You Know Who Charm*
“Where I part ways with the MRAs….”
That’s how it it with every MRA. They start off with a relatively uncontroversial claim like “Outsourcing is bad, mmkay” and then go off on a hate-filled tangent that ends with the conclusion, “And that’s why women are the root of all evil!”
I have to say, coming fresh from an exam in a class on developing poor countries, women are employed more often than men, for a variety of reasons.
First, as ozy points out, women tend to be willing to work for less, thus costing the company less . However, they do support their family back home, but are desperate enough for work that they’ll accept almost any job at almost any pay (see the documentary China Blue for more on this in China, though it is a little anvilicious)
Also, there’s the fact that the lack of governmental regulations, both for workers and for the environment, leads directly to lower costs, therefore decreasing costs for consumers in the global North.
Unfortunately, the jobs that tend to get outsourced tend to be blue collar, traditionally male-dominated jobs, such as factory production. There are still blue-collar jobs within the U.S., (see electricians, architects etc), and they tend to get paid extremely well for what they do (do to reasons unrelated to outsourcing). However, where traditional men’s jobs get outsourced, traditional women’s jobs (sales, secretary, office assistant type work) have become more and more white-collar with increased demand for college degrees.
Thus, there is a limited amount of support for a “man-cession”, but it is due to factors not even remotely close to those brought up by MRAs.
Also, I thought sexual harassment cases rarely go anywhere? and since when are jobs make-work in this economy?
Funniest part? I bet these are the same assholes who hate unions.
Pulling shit out of your ass doesn’t make it true. Show me the federal law that requires offices to maintain a strict gender ratio for their employees. It doesn’t exist, dipshit.
As a person (indeed — a woman!) who lost my job due to the evil CEO of my evil company shipping the jobs to India, I have some thoughts on this.
Actually, our office had plenty of men. Our office was moved to India (or rather, the work it did was) because the offshore setup costs were minimal (they didn’t have to move any equipment; just train a few people to train people) because they could hire people to do our work at a fraction of the cost of our (men too, remember) salaries and benefits. The company under new management decided it didn’t really need quality work done by trained professionals with experience in the industry; it could give its customers an inferior product and eat the costs of lawsuits later.
I … can’t really see how feminism played into it. It’s true that I kept my job for a couple years after almost everyone else was let go, but only because I was willing to work for offshore wages and no benes. A couple dollars a day sometimes. My far-out theory was that corporations are fucking bastards, but no. Blaming it on feminism makes a lot more sense.
Not only would this make life very difficult for someone looking to hire a lumberjack or airline pilot, it would also be a serious pain for someone hiring a nurse or kindergarten teacher.
What you can’t do is reject female applicants to your lumberjacking operation because they’re female. (Which in reality is very hard to prove, because job openings these days usually have a bunch of applicants and proving which one was “most qualified” is complex.) But if only men are applying, or if men are the most qualified, you can absolutely hire 100% men to do your lumberjackery.
All the outsourced jobs are going to men. It’s men in sweatshops and call centers men men men? I don’t even know where to start. I’m just gonna laugh here and not bother to engage mental activity in response. That way lies brain damage.
blitzgal; – “Funniest part? I bet these are the same assholes who hate unions.”
But of course. The illogic and shooting of self in feet always piles on.
@ Holly:
I love the word “lumberjackery” for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with lumberjackery.
I’ve also read and heard that attractive, young american white women are being “outsourced” for the skin trade……….O_O
Someone will stroll up in here endlessly whining about Pepsi not hiring him in favor of women because quotas. Because the recruiter told him so, therefore it is gospel.
In b 4 that bullshit.
You thought wrong, Grinner. Sex related litigation is Big bu$ine$$ for attorneys in america, and costs millions to companies large and small.
And BTW, FYI, in poor developing countries, EVERYBODY has to work! Men, women, and children. The only difference is that women tend to be assigned to jobs that involve repetitive tasks and find motor skills, like textiles and clothing manufacture(among other things).
Whereas western men of course are totally willing to take the same pay as the people from the countries jobs are outsourced to, right?
Well, shit, if you say so. Got numbers, or just a general nagging sense that you can’t slap your coworkerss asses even though that’s how I express myself!
Not like here, where only men and women have to work.
It’s weird that women can be stealing all the man jobs at the same time as they’re staying home eating bon-bons while men work. Has anyone synthesized those two bits of tinfoil?
What? Your sooper seekrit cloning/assimilation machine is broken?
I just clone myself in the morning, so that one of me can go off and look for jobs (particularly at hardware stores, car dealerships, and other places more men might work). One of me stays home knitting all day and watches Food Network, while my fiance goes off earning “real money.”
Then before he gets home, the working-me comes home to re-assimilate. He’s none the wiser!
Off topic in regard to specifics of OP, but relevant to ongoing MRA claims that feminists control the judiciary and women always fleece men in divorce cases:
http://www.10news.com/news/29943161/detail.html
Yep, women sure do control the legal system, and men are the only ones ever screwed!
Oh, I already have a cloning machine, but I’m using it to simultaneously whore around like the town bike and cruelly deny sex to men.
Pulling shit out of your ass doesn’t make it true. Show me the federal law that requires offices to maintain a strict gender ratio for their employees. It doesn’t exist, dipshit.
federal law actually says you can’t do that. or at least, the supreme court has interpreted title vii to say that. as it currently stands, using quotas is generally considered an unacceptable method of complying with anti-discrimination requirements.
No quotas? That’s unpossible! NWO says quotas are real. Has he ever been wrong before?
Oh…right. Never mind.
Grinner: Thanks for the correction! :)
The Nameless One: Actually, some kinds of sex work (like webcams) have been outsourced (usually, iirc, to Eastern Europe and Russia). Most kinds of sex work, however, require that the person be physically present, which makes them extremely difficult to outsource.
Also, I thought sexual harassment cases rarely go anywhere? and since when are jobs make-work in this economy?
this is actually related to my area of study, i’m looking at a similar problem involving sexual harassment in schools. but basically, yes- to prove liability for sexual harassment you have to show that it was so ‘severe and pervasive’ that it created a hostile environment. to put a long gloss on a complicated subject, guess who’s perspective is used to define severity and pervasiveness. (it’s men)
MRAs and gLibertarians, circa 3000 AD:
“All our jobs are being offworlded to the Hive Mind Concordat because of the unrealistic demands of Earthling workers, such as having a personal life outside of work and not being subjected to 24/7 brainslug control.”
@Sharculese
So, I guess then that sitting on a woman’s desk to look down her shirt isn’t harassment? Since it’s not too severe…
Also, I love joking with my gf about how apparently horrible our relationship is (at least towards me), since I apparently live in perpetual fear of rape accusations and denial of sex, while also I am becoming less smart due to being in proximity to her/having sex. Also, I am simultaneously an alpha and a beta, and I get really confused.
I would appreciate having a standard of fear to live by, MRAs btw. Otherwise, I’ll be too confused to be scare of womynz (or is it wymons? can never remember), and just keep dating them…
Oh how relaxing this is compared to working on finals :)
pretty much
also if she was wearing a low cut shirt then you can introduce that as evidence that maybe she actually welcomed it
Well, I mean, isn’t everything women do for the benefit of men? Porn led me to believe that lesbians only exist for the pleasure of men, while society has impressed upon me the shared nature of women’s bodies. I was under the impression that everything done is solely for men, is that not true?! I’ve been LIED TO by the MRAs!!
/sarcasm/
@ithiliana A horrific case, but annecdotal. Statistically the legal system benefits women when it comes to punishment, transfer of wealth, child custody and divorce.
The link you provided shows a women who had her alimony payments reduced because her ex husband was convicted of a horrific crime against her. It does not show that the legal system doesn’t benefit women.
@Ullere: It’s one link more about an actual specific case than any of the “oh noes womenez rob men in divorce” dudes have been able to provide.
So, can you provide evidence to prove that the legal system privileges women over men, or not?
A horrific case, but annecdotal. Statistically the legal system benefits women when it comes to punishment, transfer of wealth, child custody and divorce.
here in this very thread, i am talking about a way the courts have systematically fucked over women for the benefit of men. go somewhere else with your baseless cliches.
@Holly Pervocracy
‘In the typical Fortune 500 company with 23,750 employees, sexual harassment costs $6,700,000 per year in absenteeism, low productivity, and employee tumover. This represents $282.53 per employee, according to a 1988 survey conducted by Working Woman. (The first scientific sampling of its kind in the private sector, this 49-question survey was answered by directors of personnel, human resources, and equal-opportunity offices representing 3,300,000 employees at 160 corporations.’ -Susan J crawford.
So combined sexual harrassment costs $3,350,000,000 to the top 500 companies in the USA in 1995.
As for 2010 11.1% of sexual harrassment cases are settled, 9.4% of cases are withdrew with monetary compensation, 27.2% of cases end with merit resolutions (Outcomes favourable to the charging party)
50.1% of cases were found to have no reasonable clause, more than half the cases were found to have been wrongfully charged. This has gradually risen since 1995, when it was 41.40%, this alone implies more individuals are falsely charging employers with sexual harrasment charges for monetary gain.
16.4% of chargers where male.
So yeah, there is some money in it, and 47.9% of cases result in a pay day for the person bringing the charge.
Blackbloc – “MRAs and gLibertarians, circa 3000 AD:
“All our jobs are being offworlded to the Hive Mind Concordat because of the unrealistic demands of Earthling workers, such as having a personal life outside of work and not being subjected to 24/7 brainslug control.”
Also, we may not like the hive mind’s sweatshop practices or cheaply made unsanitary brain slug compatibility implants, it may not be the best practice, and I’m not CONDONING it, but for poor workers in the developing sectors, it represents the best available option!
@ithiliana would you prefer individual annecdotal evidence or statistical evidence?
‘here in this very thread, i am talking about a way the courts have systematically fucked over women for the benefit of men. go somewhere else with your baseless cliches.’
Yes I did comment of sexual harrasment.
@zhinxy:
And then the floating head of Thomas Friedman in a jar starts talking about that one guy he talked to in a space taxi in the Betelgeuse nebula who says that the corporations bringing in the practice of brain slug indentured servitude was the best thing to ever happen to his planet.
Ullere, please cite your sources. A claim that a structural change in the statistics, such as a higher proportion of “no reasonable cause” implies more false accusations needs closer analysis than you have given: how many cases of harassment are being considered, and what level of severity?
Since you were the one to make a claim that ithiliana’s case was not typical, then yes, you are being asked to provide statistical evidence to back that up. Was that not clear?
From later in that same article Ullere quoted:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2598_v123/ai_16805688/
So this is not just a matter of women milking companies dry. This is more like sexual harassers costing them.
did you forget to read the article you’re quoting? it’s pretty clearly talking about the effects of employers engaging in sexual harassment, not on sexual harassment lawsuits. read the next fucking line:
This did not include the indirect, hard-to-measure expenses of legal defense, time lost, and tarnished public image.
are you being deliberately dishonest or just woefully incompetent, here?
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Economic+impact+of+sexual+harassment+in+the+workplace.-a016805688
it could signify a lot of things. it could reflect that courts are getting more skeptical of sexual harassment claims, that employers are getting better at doing the things they have to do to limit liability (this is different from actually reducing sexual harassment) but that’s not as fun as wildly speculating about something you don’t understand, is it?
oh, and protip, ullere, sexual harassment law changes really quickly. citing a fifteen year old argue as evidence of the current state of affairs is spectacularly bad form.
Anyone notice how Ullere is trying to walk on both sides of the street. The first list of costs are the effects on a business caused by the sexual harassment in the workplace.
In other words the detrimental effect it has when perpetrated.
Then he pretends that is all hooey, and the women are faking it half the time when they file complaints.
All the first, and actually all of the second, he implies is an unfair burden on the business, and would just vanish if we stopped pretending sexual harassment happens.
But, assuming there is a chilling effect to the half of the cases which are shown to meet the burden of proof, how much higher would the first statistic be if there were no brakes on men’s bad behavior?
Why yes, people did.
Holly I cited that article to show the raw costs, rather than the gains made by people launching sexual harrassment claims, a sizable proportion are men after all.
The later statistics also show that 47.9% of cases result in a monetary benefit to the person launching the suit. Now I haven’t said this is just or injust, I tend not to think of economic data in that way. Quite possibly the suits made deserved more and the costs should be higher, however my post has disproved
‘I thought sexual harassment cases rarely go anywhere?’
Unless you consider 47.9% of claims to be rare, also with 50% of them being declared unfounded this means that valid founded claims have a sucess rate of 95.8% in resulting in a postive monetary outcome. Some of the claims declared unfounded will be valid, and some of the claims resulting in gain will be malicious. However nothing that I have said has made this out to be a gender thing.
Now the quote I cited shows that yes if you move your company to a place without sexual harrassment laws there are substanstial financial gains to be made, however there are also substansial financial gains in eliminating sexual harrassment.
@xanthe I made the claim that annecdotal evidence is not proof of legal bias. In asking which form of evidence I should supply I was being a little tongue in cheek, I cannot imagine that ithiliana truly believes that there has never been a case of a woman commiting a crime against a man and then gaining financial benefit as a result or depiste of the crime. Individual cases of miscarriages of justice do not prove anything.
The statstics are fom http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment.cfm
Which show a decline in the number of cases launched, but an increase in the number of unfounded cases. Admitedly there could be external factors. However an continuing decrease in overall cases launched combined with a continuing increase in unfounded cases makes for pretty dismal reading.
Okay then… we agree. Sexual harassment sucks for everyone, and isn’t necessarily profitable for even that proportion of victims who file suit.
I don’t think lack of sexual harassment laws is the main reason for any company’s move.
I also think it’s a terrible reason. You can save costs by moving to a country where it’s legal to treat your workers like sled dogs, but that’s unethical, short-sighted, and definitely not a reason to legalize sled-dog-treatment in the US.
i don’t thinks he’s trying to walk both sides of the street, i think he’s either misrepresenting his data or didn’t understand what he was reading. i’m not going to be charitable to someone who’s shown such a propensity for being mealy-mouthed.
it wold be way higher. as much as i shit on it, sexual harassment law does provide incentives for companies to take a lot of steps. for instance, if you’ve got an anti-harassment policy that has a clear, comprehensive list of prohibited behavior and give employees multiple channels to report through so you reduce the risk of the harasser reviewing the complaint, you’ve just seriously reduced your liability. it’s not perfect, but it is better than nothing.
@Sharculese
‘it’s pretty clearly talking about the effects of employers engaging in sexual harassment’
Did you not even read my post? ‘So combined sexual harrassment costs’ Where does it say law suits? I addressed the cost of all sexual harrasment, it would be a gross distortion to leave out factors that aren’t directly related to lawsuits.
‘This did not include the indirect, hard-to-measure expenses of legal defense, time lost, and tarnished public image.’ Actually I’m worried you might be an idiot. I cited the baseline costs the article provided, your saying I’m incompetent and dishonest because the actual costs are higher than what I listed?
‘it could signify a lot of things. it could reflect that courts are getting more skeptical of sexual harassment claims, that employers are getting better at doing the things they have to do to limit liability’
Total number of harrassment claims has decreased, total number of no reasonable cause has decreased, % of claims that are no reasonable cause has increased.
I also cited data from 2010.
‘All the first, and actually all of the second, he implies is an unfair burden on the business, and would just vanish if we stopped pretending sexual harassment happens.’
No not unfair, I have no comment on the morality of the issuem I showed that sexual harrassment costs businesses. That is all. So does murder, and indeed slips on ice, if you could move your company to a country where murder and slips have no effect on your company you will make increased profit.
@Holly Pervocracy ‘You can save costs by moving to a country where it’s legal to treat your workers like sled dogs, but that’s unethical’
Yes you can, and I’m certain companies do. I don’t really understand whats controversial in my post.
Someone claims sexual harrassment doesn’t cost that much and rarely go anywhere.
I show that it does cost alot and cases do go somewhere a substantial % of the time.
Queue outrage and accusations.
‘Sexual harassment sucks for everyone, and isn’t necessarily profitable for even that proportion of victims who file suit.’
Yes crime sucks, yes crime reduces economic output of nations and companies. Sexual harrassment lawsuits are however profitable and I personally would prefer to capped the amount payable to claimants, keep the actual charge unlimited but cap the payment to a % of a number of years salary or indeed just automatic pension protection. I would also make the process anonymous, removing stigma from launching the suit and preventing possible adverse affects on the employee. The additonal money that the company pays that doesn’t go to the employee should go into an ombudsman or state investigation unit to remove the expense of charges, provide legal aid, perpetuate the process and improve working standards in companies in relation to the crime.
BTW Ullere:
Companies move overseas mainly to find cheaper workers, to benefit from lower/no taxes, to benefit from differences in currency rates, and to move factories closer to raw materials.
When companies started moving overseas, feminism was just starting out. The recession in the rust belt started in the 60s and 70s, as iron and steel production moved to poorer countries who could do it for less. And yes, some can produce products of similar quality (if not better) than we can.
I am a student of economics, and while I disagree with many of economic ideas, there are some that hold validity. The main one that affects off-shore jobs is competitive advantage. The United States is lucky as it has a wide variety of resources, both material and people. Our education system, as problematic as it is, produces a quality of worker above that of many countries around the world. Therefore, we have the potential to be self-sufficient, or close to it. The reason we don’t is that, while we can produce what we want, other countries can produce certain goods for less cost (in time, money, labor etc) than we can. Therefore, we let them produce those goods while we focus on production of corn, soy, services, and machinery that makes more specialized machinery. This has led to a dearth of factory jobs, jobs we have relied on for years. This also has negative effects on poorer countries, as their potential to develop is hindered by their need to keep companies and corporations in their country, to provide jobs and money for the government and people.
Thus, feminism, while potentially a cause for movement overseas, it is not nearly the sole cause. There are many varying causes for sending jobs overseas, and proving causality is extremely difficult for any single factor.
Yes, sexual harassment lawsuits cost companies money. But so do lawsuits over unhealthy job conditions, unequal pay, unsafe working conditions, and many other reasons. The US has a legal system designed to provide some protections to workers. Now, we don’t do nearly as good of a job as, say, Germany or Sweden, but compared to Nigeria or Vietnam, not to mention China, we do a damn good job at protecting the rights of our workers.
So don’t try to bring in legal costs. Legal costs are one section of a much larger clump of costs faced by companies in the US. Feminism is not as damaging as the companies themselves, as they are the ones perpetrating the illegal acts leading to lawsuits.
Sharculese: i don’t thinks he’s trying to walk both sides of the street, i think he’s either misrepresenting his data or didn’t understand what he was reading. i’m not going to be charitable to someone who’s shown such a propensity for being mealy-mouthed.
I’m sorry if you thought I was being charitable. I think he was hoping we’d not notice that the costs of sexual harassment were those caused by it, and treat it as if those were the burdens of efforts to deal with, “unreasonable” complaints about it.
Ullere, what are you trying to prove, and to what end?
Your first post appeared to be defending Mr. No Name’s assertion that sexual harassment was a bonanza for any woman claiming it.
Your subsequent posts are things I agree with–that sexual harassment itself is a bigger problem than harassment lawsuits, and that over half sexual harassment lawsuits are not paydays.
So I’m not sure why we’re arguing unless you’re trying to sort of agree with Mr. No Name while not actually saying so.
i take it back, youre not dishonest just incoherent
it would have been nice the first time if you had mentioned that you were talking about eeoc charges, not lawsuits. but whatever, you still dont understand what youre talking about.
again. this doesnt prove anything, by itself, and it certainly doesnt prove your conclusion. ‘no reasonable cause’ doesnt mean that sexual harassment didnt occur, what it means is that for one of many reasons, the charge did not meet the eeoc requirements. this is article i law, not article iii, but the contours are essentially the same, because its all still governed by title vii. ‘bitches are lying’ is a conclusion you just pulled out of your ass, and youve provided nothing to back it up, and havent addressed the very real barriers ive pointed out to proving a sexual harassment claim.
this is like basic law stuff. i really don’t like that i have to explain it to you.
to reiterate
that’s scalia for the court in oncale v.sundowner offshore services, and i picked it because it basically reflects why sexual harassment law is stacked in favor of men. because judges are primarily male, and because men don’t get sexually harassed as much as women, the systematically underestimate the severity of conduct and end up writing things off as harmless flirtation. and again, ‘she was dressed like she wanted it’ is totally a thing your allowed to argue (meritor savings bank v. vinson)
@Holly Pervocracy I didn’t think we were arguing. Someone claimed that sexual harrasment charges rarely go anywhere, that claim is untrue.
Mr no name claims that sexual harassment is a bonanza for women, that claim is also untrue. Especially since so many claimaints are men, and the % of claimants that are men is rising.
It is foolish for anyone to overstate the impact of sexual harassment (note: I mean all the impact, not merely the transfer of money as a result of sucessful suits), but it also foolish for someone to unstate the impact of sexual harrassment and claim that it has neglible impact, or indeed that suits rarely result in anything,
@Sharculese Sexual harassment is not my field, it is yours. The ‘basic’ laws that you are explaining to me are not my countries laws. If you have more accurate data on the % of suits that result in positive monetary outcomes I would be interested to read them.
My position was sexual harassment has a substantial impact and cost on companies, as a result you can gain from relocating your company to a country without sexual harassment laws.
I really don’t see how you can be in disagreement sharacluse, this is your field so you must have some notion of the numbers of sexual harassment suits that result in a positive outcome and in the additional costs due to various factors that sexual harassment causes. With these costs in mind how can you say object to my position? These costs prove my position.
A: If sexual harrasment has costs then
B: relocating to a country without sexual harassment law reduces/removes cost.
As for your ridiculous notion of ‘bitches are lying’ which I can only assume is a direct quote from me, men make up a substantial number of the claimants. This isn’t a gender issue, I never said it was one, when I said that the rise in unfounded claims suggests a rise I meant exactly what I said. Men will make up a % of unfounded claims (it would be interesting if it wasn’t a proportianal %) and men will make up a % of malicious claims. What is your problem?
Your position is wrong. While sexual harassment laws can impose costs on companies, so does sexual harassment. A hostile and sexually charged atmosphere, where men play grab-ass instead of working, lowers the employer’s productivity and results in losses. Discriminating against competent workers on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity also ends up costing companies money, but, in the absence of laws, companies discriminate. Why? Because companies are run by people, and it’s foolish to assume that their number one priority is always making the most money they can. There are other aims that may be important to those executives, and they will pursue them even if it hurts the bottom line.
‘sexual harassment law is stacked in favor of men. because judges are primarily male, and because men don’t get sexually harassed as much as women, the systematically underestimate the severity of conduct and end up writing things off as harmless flirtation’
Yes quite possibly, you have an information advantage in this area since this is presumably your country, your system and your field. I don’t actually see how the law is stacked against women or men. It looks more stacked against claimants and in the favor of the accused/coporations. I assume that the 16% of men who launched claims in the eoc data are subjected to the same standard of proof?
I disagree with your assertation that the gender of the judge has any impact.
Also the levels of men because sexually harassed compared to women are unprovable and indeed unimportant, men are also murdered more than women, that doesn’t somehow mean the system is anti male.
@Amused Ok this is getting weird, do people not read my posts?
‘note: I mean all the impact, not merely the transfer of money as a result of sucessful suits’
vs ‘so does sexual harassment.’
So i meant all sexual harassment, including everything you mention Amused.
You claim my position is wrong because moving to a country cannot have any affect on the costs of sexual harassment.
This is ridiculous, there are varying rates of crime across nations, moving to a country with less of a particular crime would reduce costs associated with the particular crime.
The companies aren’t outsourcing to nations where there is mass political or social upheaval, they aren’t moving to war zones. There is near slave labour like conditions in many countries with a history of genocide and violence, companies do not relocate there because the savings are not more than the additional costs.
Sexual harassment is not my field, it is yours. The ‘basic’ laws that you are explaining to me are not my countries laws. If you have more accurate data on the % of suits that result in positive monetary outcomes I would be interested to read them.
great now that we’ve established that, stop trying to lecture me on how it works. again, i keep telling you looking only at outcomes is a shitty way to talk about the law. stop doing it.
no, they don’t throwing around a bunch of contextless numbers doesnt prove anything, because in real life things happen in context. what company bases their strategy on liability to a particular kind of lawsuit, out of the many that they could be subject to, especially considering that as i’ve pointed out upthread, there are far easier ways to shield yourself from liability.this is an argument that makes absolutely zero sense.
okay, ‘people are lying’. that doesnt change the myriad problems with your argument. you’re still ignoring the difference between ‘unfounded’ claims and claims that are based on real harassment but turn out to be legally insufficient. you dont really seem to get the realities of sexual harassment, like how it happens or why it happens. you still havent provided any evidence that there is a serious problem with ‘malicious claims'; it’s just something you made up.
like i said, this isnt actually what i’m interested in. i do schools. it’s similar, but different. it’s just that your arguments betray such a total ignorance of the law that what i do know is enough to knock them down.
I disagree with your assertation that the gender of the judge has any impact.
–Seriously? Why? It’s not some sort of act of misandry to realize that institutionally (not necessarily individually), men tend to underestimate sexual harassment. It ascribes no malice. You aren’t gonna shrivel up and die if you admit there’s institutional bias. But, if you have reasoning for this, please state it. Because – “ANY impact” is a big statement. And again, SYSTEMATIC is not an individual judge. This isn’t “the judge” it is “The judicial system”
So, please, can you elaborate?
I disagree with your assertation that the gender of the judge has any impact.
how would you know? you admit your just guessing?
murder victims are also never accused of not being able to take a joke or of manipulating the system for revenge or money, so your comparison is pretty much worthless
Then I will do it without numbers.
Sexual harassment has a cost, the cost can be measured by companies in $’s.
The company can reduce these costs by moving to a country with a lower cost of sexual harrassment.
That is what I’ve said.
Everything else you’ve written is nonsense, and I can’t be bothered dancing with you over and over so I’ll stop repeating myself and just point out where you have just made things up.
‘stop trying to lecture me’ I haven;t lectured you, I have made my position clear.
‘i keep telling you looking only at outcomes is a shitty way to talk about the law. stop doing it’
I never commented on the law in my position, only the cost of sexual harassment.
‘throwing around a bunch of contextless numbers’
You agree that there are numbers? that the number isn’t zero? therefore this is a cost, therefore position.
‘there are far easier ways to shield yourself from liability’
Quite possibly, I’ve not said that sexual harassment costs is the most important factor in decisions companies make.
‘you’re still ignoring the difference between ‘unfounded’ claims and claims that are based on real harassment but turn out to be legally insufficient’
I’m ignoring them because they have no impact on my position. It doesn’t matter how many cases are malicious, all cases both justified and evil to the core have a cost. I have at no point commented on morality.
‘you still havent provided any evidence that there is a serious problem with ‘malicious claims’; it’s just something you made up.’
Yes that is made up, in the way that I never said there was a serious problem, or any problem at all. Indeed the issue of malicious claims doesn’t matter to my position at all, I said the level of unfounded claims increasing points to an increasing number of false claims, and it does, while there are other factors that could explain it completely, it still does.
‘this isnt actually what i’m interested in’
yeah me either, I saw someone make a bland and ridiculous claim that sexual harassment has no real costs and that the cases rarely come to anything and said hey your wrong because. Then you just ran wild with your nonsense.
‘it’s just that your arguments betray such a total ignorance of the law ‘
My argument that someones claim is wrong doesn’t really need a law degree, but ok then.
I did read your post. You said that a company can avoid the costs of sexual harassment by moving to a country with no sexual harassment LAWS. Which makes no sense. Countries that have no laws against sexual harassment, have lots of sexual harassment. Which costs companies money. Therefore, a company does not save money on sexual harassment by moving to a jurisdiction with no sexual harassment laws.
So what you are a saying is sexual harassment is profitable.
@zhinxy Certainly I will elaborate. I believe that female judges would show the same instituional bias, I believe the bias is based in the instituion and the coding of the law, not in how common it is to have a male judge. It seems a reasonable position to take, but if you have evidence that it isn’t a baseless claim then provide it. I would add that since the number of claimaints that are male is significant this also renders the claim baseless.
@Sharculese No my comparison shows that it doesn’t matter what % of the claimants are female. Not without more evidence. As with murder it doesn’t matter what % of the victims are male, it doesn’t show that men
‘how would you know? you admit your just guessing?’
No I saw a baseless claim and objected to it. I still do, I still believe your assertation that the gender of the actors in the legal system matters is incorrect. As it is your claim you need to prove it, I don’t need to prove baseless claims wrong.
@Pecunium are you trolling? I have said sexual harassment costs companies a substantial amount. Costs them, as in harms the economy. As in the oposite of what you just asked me.
@Amused Change laws to costs. My mistake.
Really where is the controversy?
You all agree that my original post was correct, that sexual harassment has a cost and that sexual harassment claims do not only rarely go anywhere. So what is the problem, why is this ongoing?
Sorry but I have to disagree with the idea that the judge’s gender has no impact because it does.
It can be a small amount or a large amount-and it is a lot better then the days a male judge threw a woman wearing pants out of his courtroom-but judges are not 100% immune to subconscious biases or ignore their conscious ones.