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.
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.