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.
“My argument is that giving people the power to sue employers over activities that would be considered protected free speech outside of the workplace is a bad thing.”
Indeed. However, something such as “nice ass” or “nice tits” may seem harmless to you, but to me it makes someone else feel like a sex object. Now if you like being spanked on the bum while your in the office or being sent dirty emails by your co workers, that’s your business. However, most people would feel uncomfortable with any kind of sexual harassment in the work place. It’s inappropriate, unprofessional and can interfere with relationships between co workers and possibly hinder productivity.
Holly – Well, my guess is he’ll claim he isn’t either, of course not. But if it HAPPENS, you can’t DO anything about it CAUSE RIGHTS! Bet you a dollar. Also, what I just did was a potshot. I’m mean. 😉
it generally isnt.
that’s two first amendment freedoms hes failed to understand, let’s see if he can work right to petition in next.
@zhinxy
If such actions are already illegal, why is it necessary to add additional laws that require employers to get involved?
@Leni
I think you have missed the point. I’m opposed to laws that REQUIRE employers to prohibit actions that would otherwise be considered free speech. If an employer wants to regulate the speech of his or her employees while they are on the job, they should be allowed to. Thus, employers should be allowed to punish sexual harassment for the same reasons I oppose forcing them punish sexual harassment.
More to come…
@Holly Pervocracy
Nor am I. Which is exactly why I’m even attempting to advocate for a “sexual harassment tolerated here!” policy.
developers, harassment is not generally considered protected speech. you don’t understand the first amendment as well as you think you do. it’s not magic.
Zhinxy, you called it.
Developers, when you only ever advocate “free speech” issues that directly relate to keeping women in their place, well… we get a certain impression of you.
And what I’m saying is that impression is correct.
The fact that women need a higher degree of education to earn at the same level men with lower degrees of education MIGHT just be one reason women are more motivated to get the higher education.
http://www.georgetown.edu/story/women-men-education-earnings-report.html
“All I’m saying is that it’s very important that we protect men’s constitutional right to treat women like shit. It’s a very important free speech issue, you know.”
“Also, why should corporations be required to provide any protections for their employees? That’s communism, that is.”
Developers:
I went to graduate school before the sexual harassment policies were instituted (my mother has horror stories of the lives of women working as secretaries, or wives of graduate students, in the 50s and 60s in academia).
One of the women in my program was targeted by a professor: after a semester of soliciting her for sex, he told her she should kill herself because he would see she’d never graduate; he also tried to run over her in the parking lot. The dept. head when approached by her and others of us who witnessed various speech and actions said there was nothing he could do.
Nothing.
She left the program.
Even with the new policies that trolls claim are resulting in men being thrown out of a job, I can say that male faculty at my university routinely have gotten away with a variety of harassing behaviors with the complicity of male supervisors who don’t follow the minimal procedures that exist. And graduate students and tenure-track women faculty are going to have a very hard time speaking up given the ease of retaliation against them.
Women are forced out of education and employment — and you only give a good goddamn about the poor men. Fuck off and quit pretending be operating from any principles beyond the fucking male privilege to do whatever the fuck you want without any penalties.
@ Old feminist.
‘The obvious way to eliminate both costs is for people to not sexually harass. Moving to a country that allows it seems rather counterproductive in reaching that goal.’
‘you can save on that cost by relocating to a country with lower sexual harassment costs’
It would be equally fair to say that moving to a country with lower rates of sexual harassment and even stricter laws would also make the company a saving.
For instance if there was a country ‘x’ that had solved the problem and had zero sexual harassment, any company relocating to ‘x’ would save on all their costs in regards to sexual harassment, all the costs I listed and indeed all the additional costs the company puts into preventing sexual harassment.
The other side of the penny:
if we take other peoples comments here as evidence
For the last 5 years, I had to have my job to get by, much less live comfortably. I couldn’t just leave over sexual harassment.’
‘I didn’t leave, not because I liked it but because it had taken me months to get that job’
‘In a recent study of 150 women of Mexican descent working in the fields in California’s Central Valley, 80% said they had experienced sexual harassment. That compares to roughly half of all women in the U.S. workforce who say they have experienced at least one incident.’
Moving to a country were sexual harassment is more pervailant, but the workers have less options or are indeed nigh on slaves will also make a large saving of the costs asociated with sexual harassment. If someone has to tolerate horrific treatment and yet still come in to do their job do to poverty, cultural or any reasons, the company could save on sexual harassment cost by moving to that country.
Now it’s pretty easy to see which situation would be preferable, and the additional costs to societ and other externalities of workers living in terrible conditions would likely be far greater than the costs saved by the company in rellocation, however I doubt these costs factor into the companies decisions, as they are not paid by the company directly.
I do not doubt that certain companies would still use slave labour (or indeed that some companies do use the equviolent just now) in order to turn a profit. The conditions in many countries and sweat shops are borderline hells, and yet companies will continue to rellocate for profit.
I would also make the arguement that the removal of all sexual harassment would make a country more attractive to companies to locate to as again the company would make savings on all sexual harassment costs. So as the continued work of most western countries to elminate sexual harassment is lowering the rates of sexual harassment in the respect countries (things are getting better) these countries are becoming more attactive places to locate to.
I was previously admonished for ignoring other factors, there are loads of other factors that would be considered in any companies decisions to rellocate. Most of them are taken at the margin and with the goal of pursuit of profit. If it is more profitable for a company to eliminate sexual harassment then they will do so, if it is more profitable for them to ignore it they will do so.
Developers^3, it was not necessary to add additional laws that require employers to get involved in sexual harassment, it was deemed beneficial by our society to add additional laws that require employers to get involved in sexual harassment. So while it was by no means necessary, it was the agreed upon course of action that was taken by our representative democracy. We have collectively said that we value the right to harass people in the workplace less than the right to be free from workplace harassment. Do you have a problem with this decision? Would you like to have the freedom to harass once again placed over the freedom to be free from harassment?
“If it is more profitable for a company to eliminate sexual harassment then they will do so, if it is more profitable for them to ignore it they will do so.” I agree with Ullere’s statement here completely. Therefore if eliminating sexual harassment is a goal that we collectively deem worthy we should pass laws that make it less profitable to the company to ignore sexual harassment.
“The fact that women need a higher degree of education to earn at the same level men with lower degrees of education MIGHT just be one reason women are more motivated to get the higher education.”
I’m so glad I live in a country where men and women are paid equally. Get your act together America!
‘how is feminism directly responsible for the fact that boys are underachieving academically in relation to girls? ‘
I wouldn’t blame feminism directly, although continuing to lobby for gender specific grants and programs even when women are the clear majority of those in higher education and girls are out performing boys in junior education isn’t helping. There are no equivalent grants and programs aimed specifically at men.
The answer is to release any and all gender specific funds and programs, to advance the involvement in higher education to all people, regardless of sex.
Can I blame affirmative action on the patriarchy? Or on feminism? Or on society?
Sometimes affirmative action helps men, yanno…even white ones. 9_9
I would disagree with zhinxy about free markets and oppression (unless you presume any “free” “market” is a communist system, which is quite a stretch, you are going to end up with concentration of capital and resources, which will take you to class oppression and unmerited advantages), but I won’t get into that here too much…
Still though, people like Developer always make me feel rather relieved and proud to be a Marxist…because, damn, it is pretty clear just how anti-human his ideal system would be.
On to other topics, has anyone else noticed that Ullere and co. have missed one very obvious fix to offshoring? You know, like reinstating harsher tariffing systems that were historically in place to prevent such things? Tell corporations that having a post office box in Delaware isn’t going to get them out of paying full imports tariffs is a pretty strong motivator against offshoring. The US government could also pass more thourough regulations/criminal laws to deal with international labor exploitation by US corporations. That would certainly put a damper on it.
Bagelsan, regardless of who it helps it creates distorted and unnatural results. As for benefiting men also there are no state programs or grants that are specifically and exclusively given to men, so with regards to education affirmative action has not benefited men.
DSC – “I would disagree with zhinxy about free markets and oppression”
This is still allowed. For NOW. 😉
Ullere – Can you explain what you consider to be affirmative action – How is it enforced? Who does it benefit? How much does it cost? What do you really know about affirmative action, and what do you think are it’s effects?
I’d say anything that promotes any individuals interests on the basis of some identifiable characteristic that indvidual has that isn’t relevant to the individuals abilties is affirmative action. Levelling the playing field, quota systems, national policies.
Anything that creates an unjust result, one were if all things were equal would not result I would consider affirmative action. I’m sure wikipedia and a dictionary has a better definition than I do.
‘Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including “race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin”[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination.’ – wikipedia
Close enough.
How is it enforced.
Numerous ways, but in regards to education it is enforced by providing extra benefits, scholarships, grants, programs, placements, funding, and probably more to people based on their gender.
Who does it benefit.
Depends on the target of the additional support. With regards to education it benefits only the individuals who recieve the additonal support.
How much does it cost?
You could measure the amount in $’s of all the funding, scholarships and programs. You would then need to have a control groups of netural funding scholarships and programs that are offered to people on the basis of ability and people who would have gotten the place in education if it weren’t for the affimative action. The difference between the groups relative academic achievement and lifetime contributions to the nation would then be the cost.
What do you really know about affirmative action, and what do you think are it’s effects?
I don’t know much other than the obvious theory I have stated above. The effects include the obvious discrimination against everyone who isn’t in the chosen target group, it causes the non targetted groups to contribute less as it is futile as they are runnin the a rigged race, it causes the targetted group to contribute less as it is easier for them to reach their goals. I also think it contributes to the glass cliff effect. I feel the costs to society are substantial.
However there is also the moral implications, an unjust result is unjust. Offering advantages to someone of the basis of past social disadvantages while ignoring that they are out performing other groups in the present is unjust.
Any funding that is not aimed at ability promotes other things over ability.
Funding exclusively 6ft tall people will lead to a disproportionate number of 6ft tall people excelling, but at the expense of more able people who are under 6ft tall.
HTML fail!
Awww, damnit. I forgot a not in the last comment.
Should have read:
Now, back to our regularly scheduled arguments:
@Holly
Wrong… And absolutely irrelevant.
I mean, I could make the very same claim about your blog, and it would be every bit as irrelevant. After all, it seems you only advocate for sexual freedom when it happens to lead to greater acceptance of your own belief system. You might say you wish to defend the freedom for someone remain chaste until marriage and their desire for a spouse who has the same belief, but you don’t ever advocate for that, therefore no matter what you say, I’m going to pretend that you hate people like me.
Just how do you counter against that? If I say, “I didn’t mean that!”, how on earth is it productive to say “Yes you did, liar!”. It’s a fallacy.
Suppose you break up and the other party wants to retaliate? What if there is no totally approved means of expressing just that? It’s one thing to say “the policy will never be enforced like that”, but it’s quite another to risk running afoul of the policy, even where no harm is done.
However, I might add that better written policies address this issue in a fair and reasonable manner. The problem is that the threat of a lawsuit generally pushes organizations to use the strictest possible policy. Having the policy costs nothing, but defending against even a frivolous lawsuit costs a lot of time and money.
@ithiliana
Can you spot the fallacies here? Quit telling me what I’m argueing for and why I’m doing it. You can’t read my mind and you probably shouldn’t even try. And, fuck off is not an argument.
@Fatman
We as a society have repeatedly voted for laws and constitutional amendments forbidding gay marriage because we have found that it has societal benefits. If I made that argument, most folks would be screaming about the infringement of individual rights. Plus, it’s an appear to tradition, and an appeal to popularity.
And, once again, I’m not argueing for a right to harass (which would prohibit employers from doing anything). The freedom I’m argueing for is for employers. I want employers to decide exactly how they want to deal with sexual harassment for themselves, without a threat of a lawsuit. If you want to sue/prosecute the harasser him/herself, by all means, go ahead.
@Bee
Yes, we have a problem here. Clearly the labor market and the unions have failed here. But, I would also figure that the sexual-harassment liability laws we are debating here have also failed. This kind of thing is happening even though these laws exist. The laws clearly aren’t working in this instance. And, you say that these laws are necessary? Are good?
I’ve got no good answer to that problem. I just don’t think you do either.
Even a frivolous lawsuit costs time and money. Many employers would simply avoid all possible liability and write their policy in such a way that it covers the eggshell plaintiffs. Generally speaking there isn’t an incentive not to.
@darksidecat
Because other nations would simply retaliate and raise their tariffs? Remember, the US is the world’s 3rd largest exporter, having overseas countries become protectionist would hurt us quit a bit.