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.
Okay, first of all, irrelevant because I’m not trying to take away people’s right to chose chastity, or even making sneaky little suggestions for how that right could be chipped away at.
But secondly, you’re wrong, I do advocate for the sexual freedom of people not like me, all the time. Here’s a recent one:
http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2011/09/end-of-normal.html
Whatever, this is a distraction, you always come up to just ask innocent questions where the end result is “I’m not an MRA or nothin’, but shouldn’t employers be free to choose if they want to sexually harass their employees or not?” You only get so many innocent questions before I stop playing along.
@Holly
If you want to make a caricature of my argument, I think it would be far more accurate to say “Well, I don’t care for sexual harassment, but I don’t want the darn gouberment taking away my rights and burdening my business with frivolous lawsuits”.
Moreover, who I am doesn’t matter. Why I argue doesn’t matter. To assert otherwise is to engage in an-hominem attack. Just as accusing you of being hypocritical on an unrelated issue is an ad hominem attack. If you want to go there, fine, but I think you are right. It’s a distraction. Just as trying to poke at my motives is.
Who you are does matter, because you are a weasel.
At least our other trolls admit they’re in favor of sexual harassment. But not you, oh no. You’re just really concerned about holding the line on “I do not support the way you tell your secretary you want to eat her ass, but I will defend to the death your right to do it!”
I’m not going to feel guilty about calling that bullshit.
But there are sexual harassment lawsuits brought by the EEOC against employers of migrant workers, and some of them are successful. The EEOC also does training with employers of noncitizen farmworkers, which presumably discourages some sexual harassment or helps farmers to be more aware of what their supervisors are doing. Your argument appears to be … since the EEOC doesn’t prevent or discourage ALL sexual harassment, it might as well not prevent any sexual harassment?
Well, I don’t care for sexual harassment, but I don’t want the darn gouberment taking away my rights and burdening my business with frivolous lawsuits
*sigh* developers, again you haven’t proved that your rights are being taken away or that these lawsuits are frivolous because youve proved you dont actually know anything about the law in this area. i notice youve totally stopped responding to me, but i’m going to tell you once again: your arguments are based wholly on ignorance. you have a problem with laws that dont exist. stop whining, and educate yourself, and maybe after that, you can raise serious concerns.
I know we’ve moved off the topic of dangerous jobs, but I got bitten by a dog on both arms and my face yesterday. It wasn’t even a job–it was a volunteer position.
yuck. sorry, katz.
@Bee
The thing is, the current regulations have very real costs to them. Just look at the first policy I mentioned in the thread. Are the costs worth it?
Um… Actually, you may have convinced me, that in this case, they are. Probably. Remember, data is king. You have it and I don’t, so I must concede defeat on this point.
It may be worth making the distinction that the EEOC are the people filing the lawsuits, not the employees themselves. Or it might not be, since I’m coming from the “gubrment taking away your rats” viewpoint, there’s no reason to trust a faceless agency over a person. Okay, it may be worth making a distinction about the gravity of the offenses in question. That could go somewhere, but I think we have already been there and concluded that the law itself is alright, even if it prompts employers to do things that are wrong.
I suppose the only rebuttal I can think of is suggesting that a name-and-shame campaign might be more effective than the threat of a lawsuit. However, the two are not mutually exclusive, so while that argument is still valid, it isn’t necessarily an argument against the EEOC.
Yup, I’ve been beat fair and square on this point.
@Holly
Sure, you have my complete agreement. I am a weasel. I also hate kittens and I support the use of thermonuclear weapons on the war on Christmas. How does that effect the validity of my argument again?
I’m not trying to get you to feel anything. I’m just trying to get you to explain and defend your reasoning. By all means, I welcome folks calling my arguments bullshit. I wouldn’t have posted them here if I expected people to roll over and agree.
oh look, developers is still ignoring me, the person who keeps pointing out his total ignorance of anti-harassment law. who is surprised?
Oops, must have gotten lost in the noise. I’m sure you are not alone in that, too.
The thing is, even a frivolous lawsuit that is roundly thrown out of court has its costs. This will cause many employers to make policies that are overly conservative, hoping to prevent even the most frivolous lawsuits. So, it isn’t necessarily the law itself in this case, which sounds like it preserves due process well enough, but employer’s overboard reaction to the law that is the issue.
Um… I am. It’s this whole stateless nature of the web; I can’t see new comments while I’m composing a comments.
The thing is, even a frivolous lawsuit that is roundly thrown out of court has its costs. This will cause many employers to make policies that are overly conservative, hoping to prevent even the most frivolous lawsuits. So, it isn’t necessarily the law itself in this case, which sounds like it preserves due process well enough, but employer’s overboard reaction to the law that is the issue.
the costs are pretty minimal. like, within normal expected losses minimal. employment lawyers are pretty good at noticing frivolous complaints, because they have to listen to a lot of them and they know theyre not money makers. most frivolous lawsuits in this area are brought pro se. theyre extremely easy and cheap to defeat.
again, you are bringing concerns that are divorced from reality.
I see Developers has moved on to NWO’s “Obviously I’m totally stupid and you guys just know everything” strategy.
It’s been done, dude.
Would it be possible to put a dollar amount on cheap and easy? I suspect that this might be cheap and easy for someone big enough to have lawyers, but I think it might be non-trivial otherwise.
Also, what is your explanation of such overly-restrictive policies? If the law is not requiring the employer to classify winking as a instance of sexual harassment, why are employers doing things like that?
Would it be possible to put a dollar amount on cheap and easy?
Dunno. Ask your mother.
It has often occurred to me that people like NWO seem to base their view on women exclusively on Sex and the City and Cosmopolitan.
@Unimaginative
‘the aboriginal single mother with a learning disability qualifies for more funding than the single boy from the wrong side of the tracks. ‘
And when aboriginal single mothers make up the majority of university places and are out performing all other groups in eduction and we are continuing to level the playing field?
‘you’re going to notice that stuff doesn’t come to you so easily any more. That doesn’t mean that somebody else is getting an advantage you don’t have. It means that you’re not longer getting an advantage that you used to have.’
Or that the chosen target group has been given an new advantage, or that the non target group has been given a disadvantage. However I think we have different definitions of a level playing field. To use a race as an analogy I would consider a level playing field as being on were everyone is treated by the same rules, you seem to consider it appropriate to give previously poorly performing runners a head start.
Except that our society currently tells certain runners that they look slow and they’ll never win, and other runners haven’t eaten in the last 36 hours, and other runners can’t afford shoes, and other runners have been running all the previous day just to get to the track…
What we currently have is not a level playing field, because everyone is not treated the same; pretending everyone is treated the same in order to avoid affirmative action keeps things firmly tilted to benefit the same people who have always benefited. You want to keep pretending, and even whine when everyone doesn’t conform to that pretense, but no one here is interested in your little victim fantasies.
Developers: I’m not arguing with you, I’m mocking you.
I never try to change trolls’ minds, but I do enjoy posting evidence that refutes their more dickbiscuit claims for people who don’t know enough to spot the sexism and misogyny.
And claiming free speech to support sexual harassment is a dickbiscuit move if ever there was one.
D3The marketplace I refer to is the labor market. If a place is absolutely discussing to work for, leave. Or, make a union. This is clearly a perfect case of unionization.
Really? Because that, it seems to me, would be (per the vague stylings of your earlier post) to be an infringement of the employers right to treat with each employee as an individual, rather than be “coerced” by the collective action.
In a labor rich market said employer can get away with it too.
Infringing on freedom and property, huh. An interesting idea that behaviors which are detrimental to others are, in your view, sacred; not to be infringed, but making it illegal to do such things is tantamount to theft.
So in your libertopia infringing on another’s quality of life is a fundamental right, and I see you are explicit about it.
which means you aren’t really a libertarian, but an authoritarian. Anyone who can, by main force, or the use of money/influence, put themselves in a position of power over others is entitled to abuse them to the limits of their forbearance.
Their only recourse is to leave. If they were to assert a right to be treated as equals they would be against those “liberties” you believe in and quite rightly suppressed.
The 1st amendment to the United States constitution. I have the freedom to peaceably associate with whomever I choose.
NO, it doesn’t. In practical terms it may be so used, but it’s specifically referring to things like, “The Riot Act” which allowed governments to declare any assembly of persons unlawful just for existing. It was a freedom for political gatherings which weren’t actually being violent.
But keep fucking that chicken (i.e. “freedom of association give me the right to abuse, to allow, and to foster; or even encourage the abuse of, the rights of others).
Crumbelivable: “It infringes on the rights of employers. If I’m an employer and I want to allow sexual harassment in my office, the government shouldn’t stop me”
This is the worst thing anyone has ever said. Ever.
Nah, he decided to up the stakes.
I value personal property rights and freedom of association over social equality. Therefore, I will not sacrifice these rights for equality, even if that means less equality.
Property over people. Might makes right. Power = legitimacy.
Pecunium: After I learned that proponents of slavery in the 19th century relied on a liberty argument to justify the enslavement and ownership of human beings, nothing in that vein surprises me anymore.
Sharculese: he quoted heinlein. does that not answer your question?
More to the point, he paraphrased a line from text and attributed it to Heinlein’s personal philosophy.
Which is both an incorrect understanding of Heinlein’s personal philosophy, and is more telling in the answering of the question.
for NWO: Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that ‘twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what’s all this here talking about?
That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?
Sojourner Truth goes on… yep, it was always nothing but bob-bons and coddling to be a woman.
D3Noone is helped by sexual harassment. That’s not even close to my argument. 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.
The workplace isn’t a “free and open” environment. I can’t “just walk away”, which means my right to “freely disassociate” (using your ideas on association) is impinged. If a coworker is harassing me my only recourse is to tell my boss; and hope s/he sees it my way; or I can quit.
I may be fired as a result, if that boss doesn’t see it that way.
So you are saying the abusing person has more rights than I do, merely because they chose to initiate the abuse,and that any attempt to redress that balance is the unwarranted impingement of a third parties rights to tolerate my being abused.
Your idea of, “liberty” is fucked up.