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.
D3 Beyond that, is there any behavior that is guaranteed to be non-threatening to everyone? I’ve heard of a case where a front-desk secretary filed a hostile-work-environment complaint because the company’s engineers gave her a friendly greeting on their way into work.
Citation please. I misdoubt that characterisation of the case.
Wow… a scattershot, “libertarian” who doesn’t believe in the sanctity of the almighty contract enforcement of employment contracts after the term of employment
I see a profitable career in my libertarian future as an industrial spy.
@Developers:
Yes. I defend companies in sexual harassment lawsuits, and I’ve represented both plaintiff’s and defendants in the past. In your typical frivolous lawsuit, brought by a pro se plaintiff, it costs approximately $10K-$15K over a period of about 2-4 years to get it completely dismissed and out of the system. This is considerably less than what my typical clients spend on corporate parties over the same period of time.
You suspect wrong. Companies not big enough to have their own lawyers typically have insurance that provides them with lawyers if they get sued. Companies not big enough to have their own lawyers and not big enough to have insurance don’t get sued, as far as I know, because they wouldn’t have any money to pay a judgment, anyway.
Correct: the law is not requiring the employer to classify winking as an instance of sexual harassment, and courts always presume that flirtatious or even nasty conduct is not tantamount to sexual harassment unless and until the plaintiff proves otherwise.
Also, I am not aware of any employer policy that prohibits winking. I don’t usually ask people for substantiation, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Care to provide us with a verifiable reference to an actual policy from a company that exists, in which winking is prohibited?
Also — and this is based on my experience as a lawyer — employers who put out sexual harassment policy handbooks DO NOT characterize specific acts (other than obvious things, like grabbing someone’s ass) as “sexual harassment” unless they are total idiots. That is because the last thing an employer wants to do is create a document that may be used as a kind of admission that sexual harassment took place in the event the employer gets sued, and obliterate the classic defense of “Maybe it was questionable and stupid, but it wasn’t illegal.”
That said, I would venture a guess that when it comes to stuff like winking, an employer who cares about the bottom line would rather have you working instead of flirting, but it’s easier to present it to employees under the guise of a sexual harassment policy than a psycho-control-freak-boss policy. Plus, sexual harassers are typically the kind of people who will pinch women’s nipples and call them names, then claim it was just “winking” and “flirtation”. So lest we get bugged down in arguments over the proper definition of “winking”, just don’t wink. That’s not what you are being paid to do.
Developers: Nor am I. Which is exactly why I’m not even attempting to advocate for a “sexual harassment tolerated here!” policy
But you are, explicitly. You are advocating for making it completely proper to tolerate sexual (or racial, or religious, or political, or any) harassment, under the (specious) rubric of, “freedom of association”.
Let’s take a look at this, which is apropos <i.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,
There is a difference between not advocating for a thing, and advocating against a different thing.
If I am for sexual freedom, and I say what I like to do, and why, that isn’t the same as saying, “what you like to do is wrong.”
You, on the other hand, have been advocating for, “freedom/equality” by saying policies which actively hurt others ought to be legal.
Those two things are not a valid comparison.
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.
But the policies you advocate will hurt others, to the singular benefit of a very small group. You are actually advocating the effect you decry. One must wonder why you wish to return a single group (white men) to a position of greater social power; and further entrench a subset of that group (i.e. rich white men) in their present position of power.
The effect of your state aims is to “give a good goddam about the men”, so your complaint is, while understandable, specious.
Developers:
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?
Yes, I am, to both. YOu are arguing that the perfect isn’t the case, so the better should be discarded, and the bad accepted again. That’s a variation on the natural fallacy.
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”.
But that’s not really your position. You may (we don’t know, we can’t read your mind) personally dislike harassment, but you are actually advocating to take away the good (i.e. valid complaints and lawsuits) to avoid the bad (i.e. frivilous). You are also being, on the face of it, dishonest; in that you seem to characterise all suits which fail as being frivolous. That’s an unreasonable assumption and redressing it would place a far too restrictive burden on the potential plaintiffs.
we have already been there and concluded that the law itself is alright, even if it prompts employers to do things that are wrong.
That’s dishonest, and misrepresents the discussion. We have concluded no such thing, you have chosen to assert it, and then impute our acceptance of this new assertion.
‘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…’
Women are out performing men in education bagelsan, so by giving women even more of an advantage in education through affirmative action we are causing and furthering an injustice. I accept a minimum standard of socially progressive policies, but programs should be based on ability.
‘What we currently have is not a level playing field, because everyone is not treated the same;’
What we currently have is the current world champion being given a head start, a boost, extra funding from the state and etc.
‘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.’
You want to ignore reality, allow injustices to continue in order to avoid addressing that given extra support othe group who are doing the best (women are doing better than men in education) is abhorrant. I am not interest in your nonsense, acussing me of having victime fantasies for opposing affirmative action is ridiculous and offensive.
http://chronicle.com/article/Poll-Finds-Most-Americans/47684
Most americans oppose affirmative action, you are firmly in the minority and you are wrong. The opportunity costs of basing progression and preferential treatment on social factors instead of ability is sickening. Accusing me of whining and holding a victim pretense is offensive and your attempt to silence me from pointing out an injustice is horrible. My position is a valid one, you can argue the otherside and I will not accuse you of or shame of of nonsense, I will say I disagree and that you are wrong.
Developers^3, perhaps I am not understanding where you coming from. Do you think we should judge our policies by their outcomes? That is to say, do you feel that the results of our policies should be considered when determining what our policies should be?
Ullere: How are “most americans” defining, “affirmative action”.
Because, (as USian who pays attention to these things) the average US citizen thinks Affirmative Action = preferential quotas in lieu of merit.
More to the point, those very concerns were raised in the article you cited, which points out that Quinnipac (the polling company) admits to having some serious difficulties with the results because of the problems inherent to the internals of polls on such topics.
Among the difficulties I see with the internals is that a significant (about 1/4) of the questions were about the use of, “affirmative action” to, “increase diversity”. That is likely to skew any sort of overall claim to how “americans feel about affirmative action” because even with the caveat of, “preference to minorities of equal qualification” diversity increase has always been the most hotly contested of affirmative action justifications.
Which means that on reviewing the evidence, I don’t find that poll compelling, which undermines arguments based on it.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2010/07/13/Poll-Voters-so-so-on-affirmative-action/UPI-75951279046865/
‘When asked specifically about government programs that give special treatment to women and minorities when hiring, the opposition rises to 55 percent,
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2010/07/13/Poll-Voters-so-so-on-affirmative-action/UPI-75951279046865/#ixzz1g3WRd5zN‘
‘Women and men show little difference of opinion on preferential hiring.’
So the women and the men also have victim fantasies. I am fuming that Bagelsan said that, it is disgusting.
It is actually not about the polls, if I was in a minority of one I would continue to oppose affirmative action for the reason I laid out. To respond to my reasoned argument with nonsense and insults along with an appeal to majority is not ok.
Opposing affirmative action is a reasonable position to take, I have explained my position and linked polls that show that others also opoose affirmative action. But instead of considering my view I am accused of having victim fantasies and that my very position is infact a pretense, as though I don’t really hold the opinion that I do.
Instead of responding to my position, or arguing a different side, or indeed rising to my defense in the defense of free debate, opinion and thought you have instead penicium went on a tangets saying that polls can vary depending on phrasing. Well yes, yes they can. My position however has not varied depending on phrasing, be compelled by my arguement that affirmative action causes unjust results and that action taken to further boost the social group who is current out performing all others is unjust.
Women are out performing men in education bagelsan, so by giving women even more of an advantage in education through affirmative action we are causing and furthering an injustice.
ANother example of the racism in MRATROLLLAND: it’s not all white men/white women, and although there are some recent figures on how women in different ethnic groups outperform the men in those groups, there are still affirmative action needs relating to men who are in ethnic minorities. I can’t find the figures via google, but I think I saw them on my LJ reading list so will check when I have time. But, yes, it’s impossible to say anything about women vs. men without taking race, ethnicity, and socio-economic class into account because it plays a pretty big freaking part: but then MRAworld never seems to see all the people who aren’t white, and they only ever seem to think men are poor because women are clearly robbing all men all the time (doesn’t say much for the intelligence of these men in MRA fantasies).
And you do know, it’s not just gender, issues right: equal opportunity involves considerations of age, religion, ethnicity, ability status, etc.
http://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html
Equal Employment Opportunity Laws: Five laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical handicap and mental handicap in any terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. The five EEO laws are:
The Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 and the Pregnancy Disability Act of 1978.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended.
The Civil Rights Act of 1991
@ithiliana No I think thats an example of you delliberately mis-representing my arguement. I never mentioned races, the example of affirmative action I gave was helping 6ft people. I have repeatedly said I don’t care who the affirmative action helps, previously people have mentioned that affirmative action even benefits white men, but I responded by saying I don’t care who it benefits.
I have said I do not agree with affirmative action regardless of who it benefits.
You’ve called me racist, baselessly.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/cwg/cwg-report.pdf
the white house council on women and girls listing benefits and support availabe disproportionately to women and girls. I don’t consider this a gender, race, etc issue. This is a question of whether it is right or wrong to give additional support to the social group who are out performing the rest.
Women are out performing men in education bagelsan, so by giving women even more of an advantage in education through affirmative action we are causing and furthering an injustice. I accept a minimum standard of socially progressive policies, but programs should be based on ability.
Um, women are quite often NOT the ones getting an advantage in education. See, for example, here: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/articles/070617/25gender_4.htm
@ithiliana No I think thats an example of you delliberately mis-representing my arguement. I never mentioned races, the example of affirmative action I gave was helping 6ft people. I have repeatedly said I don’t care who the affirmative action helps, previously people have mentioned that affirmative action even benefits white men, but I responded by saying I don’t care who it benefits.
Which is disingenous. Any form of structural redress only hurts those who have social advantage. Saying you are against it, “no matter whom it helps” pretends that all being affected are in the same boat.
It’s not true. To say that ensuring social equality in areas where merit is not seen as equal, and one group has situational preference is, tacitly, saying those inequalities should continue, and explicitly not caring if a group is harmed.
So, while you may not be a racists, you are supporting practices which encourage, and continue, those who are racists.
Ullere: It is actually not about the polls, if I was in a minority of one I would continue to oppose affirmative action for the reason I laid out. To respond to my reasoned argument with nonsense and insults along with an appeal to majority is not ok.
If are not making an argument with the polls, then why bring them up.
If you don’t like our reasoned responses to your arguments, better to just ignore them than to try and handwave them away by pretending those responses are nothing but insults and appeals to the majority (which is, actually, what you attempted by linking an argument to that Quinnipac poll).
Instead of responding to my position, or arguing a different side, or indeed rising to my defense in the defense of free debate, opinion and thought you have instead penicium
Are you reading the same thread I am? The one where I wrote several hundred words directly addressing your arguments? Because I did, and you saying that I’m going on tangents when I directly respond to a flaw in an argument you make… is foolish. It’s a poor tactical move, because anyone who is reading has read what I said and already come to some understanding of what (and likely why) I addressed the poll.
My position however has not varied depending on phrasing, be compelled by my arguement that affirmative action causes unjust results and that action taken to further boost the social group who is current out performing all others is unjust.
Your assertion that the results are unjust is just that, an assertion. Your appeal to the majority with that poll is just that, an appeal to the majority.
Give us an argument. Show that what affirmative action does is an actual harm which outweighs the good. So far you’ve not done that. So far I can’t see that you’ve really tried to do that. You’ve rather bleated that people (like me) are being unfair for responding to the actual arguments you make.
Polliwog Women make up close to 60% of all those attending universities. Responding to affirmative action is wrong with discrimination is wrong is foolish.
a higher % of women are rejected from some universities than men, but not always. It doesn’t somehow invalidate my position that affirmative action is wrong. If women are being rejected from certain colleges (although nationally have better rates of admissions) even though they are the best candidates because men are being given additional support/grants/places that do not reflect the ability of all candidates then that is wrong.
‘the admissions rates for both men and women at William and Mary have plummeted’
‘the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which over the past decade has admitted women at a rate that is 17 percentage points higher than for men.’
‘since most colleges are “open admission,” meaning that they admit all or nearly all qualified applicants, women have a better overall admissions rate than men.’
‘no one here is interested in your little victim fantasies.’ is an appeal to majority. Linking a poll to show that I am not alone in my view is not an appeal to majority but a response to ‘noone here is interested’.
I’ve said people have been unfair in calling me racist, holding a pretense of victim hood, trying to silence my position because they disagree with it.
‘you may not be a racists,you are supporting practices which encourage, and continue, those who are racists.’ Well thanks, you too may not be racist but you are supporting a practice of affirmative action that causes harm to every other minority who is not the targetted group.
‘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 running in 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.’
Was my original post on the subject and I stand by it. I clearly said I don’t know much other than the theory I outlined.
‘since most colleges are “open admission,” meaning that they admit all or nearly all qualified applicants, women have a better overall admissions rate than men.’
This quote does not mean what you seem to think it means. What it literally says is, “At colleges that accept everyone or nearly everyone who applies, if more women apply than men, more women end up attending than men.” You cannot simultaneously hold this up as a problem and say that you’re against affirmative action for the purposes of diversity.
Also, I’m baffled by your snippage of the W&M quote. The actual quote, in context:
“An hour’s drive east of the University of Richmond, the College of William and Mary also is altering its admissions rates to achieve gender balance, if not parity. In the past decade, the school’s portion of women in the undergraduate body has fallen from 60 percent to 54 percent. Overall, because of the rising number of students applying to colleges, the admissions rates for both men and women at William and Mary have plummeted, from 51 percent for men and 43 percent for women in 1997 to 40and 26 percent in 2006. But over that period, men had an admittance rate 12 percentage points higher than their female counterparts had.”
What point did you even think you were trying to make there?
@Ullere: Saying men never benefit from affirmative action when there are men (who because of ethnic group, disability status, age, and socio-economic class) pretty much means you don’t acknowledge the existence of those men which in my book means you’re reflecting general mainstream racism, yes.
THat is not saying you are a member of the KKK, but institutional/systemic racism affects us all.
For example, you probably don’t know that white women have benefitted more from affirmative action programs in terms of academic hiring (in some fields esp), than have men of color (but they have benefitted more than women of color). I actually follow the published research on this issue since it relates to my profession. But it’s not just “women winning out over all the men.”
Any funding that is not aimed at ability promotes other things over ability.
Uh huh. It’s really cute that you think there is some objective way to measure ‘ability’ or even to define it that in no way is affected by socio-cultural constructions, ideologies, and prejudices.
Really, really cute.
Right up there with the 19th century scientists who figured out by their objective scientific methodology that white men had bigger brains than women and black men, therefore white men were smarter, and thus deserved all the goodies (you want affirmative action–look at George Bush’s college record–the laws and procedures limiting access to education and employment to white men for the earlier centuries of this country’s history was one of the most sweeping examples of rewarding skin color and genitals). The fact that the few changes in the past century have created the results they have makes me laugh nasty evil feminist laughter in your direction.
Ullere: ‘no one here is interested in your little victim fantasies.’ is an appeal to majority. Linking a poll to show that I am not alone in my view is not an appeal to majority but a response to ‘noone here is interested’.
It’s not an appeal to the majority. It’s a rhetorical dismissal. You linking to a poll to “prove” that most Americans share your view, and so it ought not be dismissed is an appeal to majority.
‘you may not be a racists,you are supporting practices which encourage, and continue, those who are racists.’ Well thanks, you too may not be racist but you are supporting a practice of affirmative action that causes harm to every other minority who is not the targetted group.
You’re welcome, glad to be of service. From a structural standpoint your argument is nonsense. Is it possible that when a consideration of factors of outgroup history are added to selection criteria that another, qualified, applicant belonging to one of those groups won’t be given the job? Of course. If there is but one slot and more than one outgroup applicant then one of them will lose.
But that’s not affirmative action “harming” them, it’s simple math.
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.
And pretending that the grounds for past injustices (“those people are just not as talented/smart/trustworthy as “we” are) no longer inform present decisions is, at best, disingenuous. To allow them to continue is also unjust. You happen to be in favor of the greater injustice; in the name of “fairness”. Again, this is giving freedom to racists/sexists/etc. to continue in their unjust practice.
Maybe they tattooed “hello” onto their dicks and then plunked them down on the desk in front of her. But in a friendly way. 😀
…
Aaaand Ullere both has his facts wrong and draws stupid conclusions from those facts that manage to still be wrong. Color me astonished. :p
@Polliwog my point was in my post.
‘Responding to affirmative action is wrong with discrimination is wrong is foolish’
Using affirmative action to cancel out other non related injustices and discrimination is wrong.
‘Saying men never benefit from affirmative action ‘
Actually I said that men do indeed benefit from affirmative action, however that affirmative action was still wrong, regardless of who the targetted group was.
‘But it’s not just “women winning out over all the men.”’
To repeat, affirmative action is wrong regardless of who it benefits.
‘It’s really cute that you think there is some objective way to measure ‘ability’ ‘
Other than grades, qualifications and past performance sure. If you have a degree in mathematics it implies you have an ability in mathematics.
‘Is it possible that when a consideration of factors of outgroup history are added to selection criteria that another, qualified, applicant belonging to one of those groups won’t be given the job? Of course. If there is but one slot and more than one outgroup applicant then one of them will lose.’
And it is possible that if you give funds and support entirely to the group currently doing the best that another, more qualified applicant belonging to one of those groups won’t be given the job? However as I have already said the main loss is to everyone in society, the opportunity cost of not promoting merit and achievement.
‘And pretending that the grounds for past injustices (“those people are just not as talented/smart/trustworthy as “we” are) no longer inform present decisions is, at best, disingenuous. To allow them to continue is also unjust’
Actually I’ve said I’m pro the most able candidates getting the place. Not done by social groups but individual merit. I haven’t mentioned other forms of injustice at all, they exist. Trying to mend them with state sponsored injustice is still injustice.
‘You happen to be in favor of the greater injustice; in the name of “fairness”’
i happen to be in favour of merit, of ability. Being against the injustice of affirmative action does not make me pro the other injustices of society.
‘Again, this is giving freedom to racists/sexists/etc. to continue in their unjust practice.’
Wow so the only answer to discrimination is affirmative action? No that ridiculous, I am anti affirmative action and also anti discrimination. There are always ways to solve racism/sexism such as anonymous applications, test based entry, and many others. Saying I don’t want the state to use affirmative action because it is injust does not give freedom to other unjust practices.
All of society is a massive, brutal “affirmitive action” system by that definition. So the actual attempts to rebuff it and make it fair by instituting systems to combat the pre-existing bias (what normal folks call “affirmitive action”) is just and is anti-“affirmitive action”?
Ullere is basically arguing there is that oppression is a merit based system, and that the oppressor class is intrinsically better than the oppressed. Which not only endorses racism, but also endorses every other systematic social oppression.
I am hot. Here is a poll that proves it: http://red_lockerishot.com
Checkmate, motherfuckas. Check. Mate.
“All of society is a massive, brutal “affirmitive action” system by that definition. So the actual attempts to rebuff it and make it fair by instituting systems to combat the pre-existing bias (what normal folks call “affirmitive action”) is just and is anti-”affirmitive action”?
Ullere is basically arguing there is that oppression is a merit based system, and that the oppressor class is intrinsically better than the oppressed. Which not only endorses racism, but also endorses every other systematic social oppression.”
Hahahahahaa, THIS.
Ullere, seriously, you are, like, the master of Ourosburos-like arguments, man.