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.
Of course! Ouroborous is GREAT for this shit – Consider :
The Serpent eats its own tail, and thus is self-sufficient. Be more like the Serpent. He never asks for a handout, cause his mouth is stuffed with his own damn tail. He worked hard to get to the end of his tail, and now you wanna pull that tail out of his mouth and bite on that tail yourself, just because he was there first. You could have gotten to the tail if you wanted to. He deserves that tail!
darksidecat
No my arguement was that affirmative action creates unjust results and is wrong.
‘All of society is a massive, brutal “affirmitive action” system by that definition.’
If you say so, I am happy to say that at every point in society were people are provided state benefit on anything other than merit is unjust,
‘Ullere is basically arguing there is that oppression is a merit based system, and that the oppressor class is intrinsically better than the oppressed. ‘
You have taken the statement affirmative action is wrong and twisted it into your own communist nonsense of class warfare.
‘Which not only endorses racism, but also endorses every other systematic social oppression.’
vs
‘I am anti affirmative action and also anti discrimination.’
‘Ullere, seriously, you are, like, the master of Ourosburos-like arguments, man.’
Affirmative action is wrong. It’s hard to extend that statement into a philososphical theory but ok then.
“Of course! Ouroborous is GREAT for this shit – Consider :
The Serpent eats its own tail, and thus is self-sufficient. Be more like the Serpent. He never asks for a handout, cause his mouth is stuffed with his own damn tail. He worked hard to get to the end of his tail, and now you wanna pull that tail out of his mouth and bite on that tail yourself, just because he was there first. You could have gotten to the tail if you wanted to. He deserves that tail!”
Doffing my hat off so fucking hard.
“‘Ullere, seriously, you are, like, the master of Ourosburos-like arguments, man.’
Affirmative action is wrong. It’s hard to extend that statement into a philososphical theory but ok then.”
So you’re able to say how wrong it is for people to get handouts based on biology and not on merit, yet you’re not able to see how that is ultimately contradictory in practice and blinds you to the affirmative action YOU are get?
Huh.
YOU get*
Sorry about my spelling.
Well, see, Ullere, DSC IS a marxist, and I’m what most people would call an anarcho-capitalist, (we won’t go into the current left-libertarian crisis of naming or voluntary socialism here 😉 ) and I still agree that there’s a ridiculous amount of class oppression going on here, and that CERTAIN forms of affirmative action may be a very very libertarian solution – Certainly, affirmative action does not at base necessarily conflict with such principles – See Stephan Kinsella here –
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella11.html
Money quotes –
“But whose rights are violated by affirmative action policies practiced by public schools? The policy does not threaten the person or property of anyone. It simply is part of a test that determines whether or not someone has access to the property. Marginal white students who do not get admitted because of the policy — are their rights violated? It would seem that their rights are violated only if they have a right to attend the university, which is “taken” as a result of the affirmative action policy. But why do they have a right to attend a state university? If merely being denied admission means an applicant’s rights are violated, what about all the dumb kids who are denied admission? If a 10 year old applies he will not be admitted. Are his rights violated? If someone from out of state applies, he has a lower chance of being admitted. So what? How does this demonstrate any aggression or violation of the rights of the non-admitted masses?
By having any admission standards at all, some individuals or classes of people will be denied the “right” to attend the university. Clearly it cannot be argued that rights are violated by virtue of the university having standards for admission. So what, then, is the argument?”
The mere existence of classes and conflict thereof isn’t communist nonsense. I think you have a lot of learning to do, to put it mildly.
“Doffing my hat off so fucking hard.”
Ty! *blushes*
“Ty! *blushes*”
No prob.
Seriously, we should spam that thing every time someone from an priviledged height goes off on the opressed classes being “lazy”. Yeah, it would probably be assholish, but it sums up their position in a nutshell.
a priviledged*
GOD DAMN IT, MY SPELLING
Ullere: Using affirmative action to cancel out other non related injustices and discrimination is wrong.
And allowing those injustices to continue is right? Have you a method which is as effective in mind to use instead of just returning to a world where active discrimination is allowed and passive is ignored?
However as I have already said the main loss is to everyone in society, the opportunity cost of not promoting merit and achievement.
Which is not happening. You are implying that the person selected is, apart from being in the subject class, otherwise unqualified. Since the laws which deal with adding preference as one of the criteria specifically prohibit the pratice you are either misinformed (most likely; given that you are not in the US the most likely source for your information is that of people who have a specific agenda against any form of externally imposed preference. They are more than happy to impose internal preferences and outright bans of those they dislike), or being intentionally false.
‘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?
Show me where I said that. I mean it. I would like to know what you think I said that means that. This is not the only time you have made a bald assertion of someone saying something they didn’t say (as with the “we are all agreed” nonsense”)
What I said is your lack of remedy would permit those who wish to have unfair selection criteria to do that, and that you are, from the available evidence, just fine with that.
Ullere: No my arguement was that affirmative action creates unjust results and is wrong.
You have yet to make an acutal argument. You keep asserting it, but offering no support.
<iAffirmative action is wrong. It’s hard to extend that statement into a philososphical theory but ok then.
It’s perfectly easy to put it into a philosophical theory. There are several groups who have done just that. What you seem to find difficult is what I said above, supporting the philosophical idea with actual argument.
@Ullere: read this and maybe we can talk.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm15.htm
Man, this business of working for a living is really cutting into my internet time.
No. You seem to be having trouble seeing through your own privilege. They are not “previously poorly performer runners”. They are “previously excluded runners”.
To use your race analogy, historically advantaged groups (white men) not only got a head start, they were the only ones allowed in the race, they were the only ones who had access to funding so they could afford shoes, food and training, they had whole groups of people devoting all their energies to their success.
The historically disadvantaged groups (people of colour, white women) were allowed to race only if they were hobbled or handicapped in some way, or were not allowed to race at all, or were not even allowed in the stadium to watch. If they wanted to participate in the race, they could do so only as the audience, or as the support staff for the racers.
What I’m advocating for is to take off the hobbles, let everyone in the race, let everyone run. Some day, in my dreams, the track will be even and everyone will be able to excel or not purely on their merit. That is not the case right now.
Right now, white women and people of colour are still barred from the race, are still hobbled. You say that women are outperforming men academically. Why, then, are the majority of deans, chairs, and executive administrators in universities not women? Also, others have pointed out that gender is not the only factor that comes in to play.
If you’re not as successful in your academic career as you think you ought to be, it is not the fault of the women in your classes, even if they are getting funding that you are not. Affirmative action is not standing in your way to academic success.
Cassandra:
I don’t think it’s that he thinks women don’t work. It’s that, since women can sit in the street and cry and have men give them things, when they do work (cruelly depriving a man of a job he needs and deserves) they don’t get to complain about the conditions.
D3:
The activities in question pretty much only occur in the workplace (except some forms of quid pro quo harassment that outside the workplace aren’t “protected speech” so much as “rape”). If your friends start creating a hostile environment, you’ll find other people to hang with.
Moreover, and along the lines of what Holly and Leni said, it’s actually entirely reasonable to say that the range of acceptable behavior in the workplace is narrower than the range of acceptable behavior in the world. You’re there to do your job. I’m not in favor of explicitly banning or intentionally discouraging or chilling office romance, but nor am I opposed to it as a matter of principle, and if it’s a consequence of other policies or practices, I can live with that, because that’s not what the workplace is for.
D3, attempting to derail:
As far as I can tell sexual freedom is a pillar of her belief system, making this tautological.
Amused:
Yes, exactly. And a policy consistent with that isn’t automatically a bad thing.
Pecunium:
I’ve noticed MRAs and people who believe MRMish things often have trouble with the notion that pro-X isn’t anti-Y unless Y precludes/opposes X.
A few years later MRAs will probably say that feminists did 9/11 and that women are responsible for men being abduced by aliens or something else just as outlandish.
Give them time. Sooner or later, knowing how they mentally function, they’re bound to say something this stupid in the not too distant future.