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.
BTW Ullere:
Companies move overseas mainly to find cheaper workers, to benefit from lower/no taxes, to benefit from differences in currency rates, and to move factories closer to raw materials.
When companies started moving overseas, feminism was just starting out. The recession in the rust belt started in the 60s and 70s, as iron and steel production moved to poorer countries who could do it for less. And yes, some can produce products of similar quality (if not better) than we can.
I am a student of economics, and while I disagree with many of economic ideas, there are some that hold validity. The main one that affects off-shore jobs is competitive advantage. The United States is lucky as it has a wide variety of resources, both material and people. Our education system, as problematic as it is, produces a quality of worker above that of many countries around the world. Therefore, we have the potential to be self-sufficient, or close to it. The reason we don’t is that, while we can produce what we want, other countries can produce certain goods for less cost (in time, money, labor etc) than we can. Therefore, we let them produce those goods while we focus on production of corn, soy, services, and machinery that makes more specialized machinery. This has led to a dearth of factory jobs, jobs we have relied on for years. This also has negative effects on poorer countries, as their potential to develop is hindered by their need to keep companies and corporations in their country, to provide jobs and money for the government and people.
Thus, feminism, while potentially a cause for movement overseas, it is not nearly the sole cause. There are many varying causes for sending jobs overseas, and proving causality is extremely difficult for any single factor.
Yes, sexual harassment lawsuits cost companies money. But so do lawsuits over unhealthy job conditions, unequal pay, unsafe working conditions, and many other reasons. The US has a legal system designed to provide some protections to workers. Now, we don’t do nearly as good of a job as, say, Germany or Sweden, but compared to Nigeria or Vietnam, not to mention China, we do a damn good job at protecting the rights of our workers.
So don’t try to bring in legal costs. Legal costs are one section of a much larger clump of costs faced by companies in the US. Feminism is not as damaging as the companies themselves, as they are the ones perpetrating the illegal acts leading to lawsuits.
Sharculese: 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.
I’m sorry if you thought I was being charitable. I think he was hoping we’d not notice that the costs of sexual harassment were those caused by it, and treat it as if those were the burdens of efforts to deal with, “unreasonable” complaints about it.
Ullere, what are you trying to prove, and to what end?
Your first post appeared to be defending Mr. No Name’s assertion that sexual harassment was a bonanza for any woman claiming it.
Your subsequent posts are things I agree with–that sexual harassment itself is a bigger problem than harassment lawsuits, and that over half sexual harassment lawsuits are not paydays.
So I’m not sure why we’re arguing unless you’re trying to sort of agree with Mr. No Name while not actually saying so.
i take it back, youre not dishonest just incoherent
it would have been nice the first time if you had mentioned that you were talking about eeoc charges, not lawsuits. but whatever, you still dont understand what youre talking about.
again. this doesnt prove anything, by itself, and it certainly doesnt prove your conclusion. ‘no reasonable cause’ doesnt mean that sexual harassment didnt occur, what it means is that for one of many reasons, the charge did not meet the eeoc requirements. this is article i law, not article iii, but the contours are essentially the same, because its all still governed by title vii. ‘bitches are lying’ is a conclusion you just pulled out of your ass, and youve provided nothing to back it up, and havent addressed the very real barriers ive pointed out to proving a sexual harassment claim.
this is like basic law stuff. i really don’t like that i have to explain it to you.
to reiterate
that’s scalia for the court in oncale v.sundowner offshore services, and i picked it because it basically reflects why sexual harassment law is stacked in favor of men. because judges are primarily male, and because men don’t get sexually harassed as much as women, the systematically underestimate the severity of conduct and end up writing things off as harmless flirtation. and again, ‘she was dressed like she wanted it’ is totally a thing your allowed to argue (meritor savings bank v. vinson)
@Holly Pervocracy I didn’t think we were arguing. Someone claimed that sexual harrasment charges rarely go anywhere, that claim is untrue.
Mr no name claims that sexual harassment is a bonanza for women, that claim is also untrue. Especially since so many claimaints are men, and the % of claimants that are men is rising.
It is foolish for anyone to overstate the impact of sexual harassment (note: I mean all the impact, not merely the transfer of money as a result of sucessful suits), but it also foolish for someone to unstate the impact of sexual harrassment and claim that it has neglible impact, or indeed that suits rarely result in anything,
@Sharculese Sexual harassment is not my field, it is yours. The ‘basic’ laws that you are explaining to me are not my countries laws. If you have more accurate data on the % of suits that result in positive monetary outcomes I would be interested to read them.
My position was sexual harassment has a substantial impact and cost on companies, as a result you can gain from relocating your company to a country without sexual harassment laws.
I really don’t see how you can be in disagreement sharacluse, this is your field so you must have some notion of the numbers of sexual harassment suits that result in a positive outcome and in the additional costs due to various factors that sexual harassment causes. With these costs in mind how can you say object to my position? These costs prove my position.
A: If sexual harrasment has costs then
B: relocating to a country without sexual harassment law reduces/removes cost.
As for your ridiculous notion of ‘bitches are lying’ which I can only assume is a direct quote from me, men make up a substantial number of the claimants. This isn’t a gender issue, I never said it was one, when I said that the rise in unfounded claims suggests a rise I meant exactly what I said. Men will make up a % of unfounded claims (it would be interesting if it wasn’t a proportianal %) and men will make up a % of malicious claims. What is your problem?
Your position is wrong. While sexual harassment laws can impose costs on companies, so does sexual harassment. A hostile and sexually charged atmosphere, where men play grab-ass instead of working, lowers the employer’s productivity and results in losses. Discriminating against competent workers on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity also ends up costing companies money, but, in the absence of laws, companies discriminate. Why? Because companies are run by people, and it’s foolish to assume that their number one priority is always making the most money they can. There are other aims that may be important to those executives, and they will pursue them even if it hurts the bottom line.
‘sexual harassment law is stacked in favor of men. because judges are primarily male, and because men don’t get sexually harassed as much as women, the systematically underestimate the severity of conduct and end up writing things off as harmless flirtation’
Yes quite possibly, you have an information advantage in this area since this is presumably your country, your system and your field. I don’t actually see how the law is stacked against women or men. It looks more stacked against claimants and in the favor of the accused/coporations. I assume that the 16% of men who launched claims in the eoc data are subjected to the same standard of proof?
I disagree with your assertation that the gender of the judge has any impact.
Also the levels of men because sexually harassed compared to women are unprovable and indeed unimportant, men are also murdered more than women, that doesn’t somehow mean the system is anti male.
@Amused Ok this is getting weird, do people not read my posts?
‘note: I mean all the impact, not merely the transfer of money as a result of sucessful suits’
vs ‘so does sexual harassment.’
So i meant all sexual harassment, including everything you mention Amused.
You claim my position is wrong because moving to a country cannot have any affect on the costs of sexual harassment.
This is ridiculous, there are varying rates of crime across nations, moving to a country with less of a particular crime would reduce costs associated with the particular crime.
The companies aren’t outsourcing to nations where there is mass political or social upheaval, they aren’t moving to war zones. There is near slave labour like conditions in many countries with a history of genocide and violence, companies do not relocate there because the savings are not more than the additional costs.
Sexual harassment is not my field, it is yours. The ‘basic’ laws that you are explaining to me are not my countries laws. If you have more accurate data on the % of suits that result in positive monetary outcomes I would be interested to read them.
great now that we’ve established that, stop trying to lecture me on how it works. again, i keep telling you looking only at outcomes is a shitty way to talk about the law. stop doing it.
no, they don’t throwing around a bunch of contextless numbers doesnt prove anything, because in real life things happen in context. what company bases their strategy on liability to a particular kind of lawsuit, out of the many that they could be subject to, especially considering that as i’ve pointed out upthread, there are far easier ways to shield yourself from liability.this is an argument that makes absolutely zero sense.
okay, ‘people are lying’. that doesnt change the myriad problems with your argument. you’re still ignoring the difference between ‘unfounded’ claims and claims that are based on real harassment but turn out to be legally insufficient. you dont really seem to get the realities of sexual harassment, like how it happens or why it happens. you still havent provided any evidence that there is a serious problem with ‘malicious claims’; it’s just something you made up.
like i said, this isnt actually what i’m interested in. i do schools. it’s similar, but different. it’s just that your arguments betray such a total ignorance of the law that what i do know is enough to knock them down.
I disagree with your assertation that the gender of the judge has any impact.
–Seriously? Why? It’s not some sort of act of misandry to realize that institutionally (not necessarily individually), men tend to underestimate sexual harassment. It ascribes no malice. You aren’t gonna shrivel up and die if you admit there’s institutional bias. But, if you have reasoning for this, please state it. Because – “ANY impact” is a big statement. And again, SYSTEMATIC is not an individual judge. This isn’t “the judge” it is “The judicial system”
So, please, can you elaborate?
I disagree with your assertation that the gender of the judge has any impact.
how would you know? you admit your just guessing?
murder victims are also never accused of not being able to take a joke or of manipulating the system for revenge or money, so your comparison is pretty much worthless
Then I will do it without numbers.
Sexual harassment has a cost, the cost can be measured by companies in $’s.
The company can reduce these costs by moving to a country with a lower cost of sexual harrassment.
That is what I’ve said.
Everything else you’ve written is nonsense, and I can’t be bothered dancing with you over and over so I’ll stop repeating myself and just point out where you have just made things up.
‘stop trying to lecture me’ I haven;t lectured you, I have made my position clear.
‘i keep telling you looking only at outcomes is a shitty way to talk about the law. stop doing it’
I never commented on the law in my position, only the cost of sexual harassment.
‘throwing around a bunch of contextless numbers’
You agree that there are numbers? that the number isn’t zero? therefore this is a cost, therefore position.
‘there are far easier ways to shield yourself from liability’
Quite possibly, I’ve not said that sexual harassment costs is the most important factor in decisions companies make.
‘you’re still ignoring the difference between ‘unfounded’ claims and claims that are based on real harassment but turn out to be legally insufficient’
I’m ignoring them because they have no impact on my position. It doesn’t matter how many cases are malicious, all cases both justified and evil to the core have a cost. I have at no point commented on morality.
‘you still havent provided any evidence that there is a serious problem with ‘malicious claims’; it’s just something you made up.’
Yes that is made up, in the way that I never said there was a serious problem, or any problem at all. Indeed the issue of malicious claims doesn’t matter to my position at all, I said the level of unfounded claims increasing points to an increasing number of false claims, and it does, while there are other factors that could explain it completely, it still does.
‘this isnt actually what i’m interested in’
yeah me either, I saw someone make a bland and ridiculous claim that sexual harassment has no real costs and that the cases rarely come to anything and said hey your wrong because. Then you just ran wild with your nonsense.
‘it’s just that your arguments betray such a total ignorance of the law ‘
My argument that someones claim is wrong doesn’t really need a law degree, but ok then.
I did read your post. You said that a company can avoid the costs of sexual harassment by moving to a country with no sexual harassment LAWS. Which makes no sense. Countries that have no laws against sexual harassment, have lots of sexual harassment. Which costs companies money. Therefore, a company does not save money on sexual harassment by moving to a jurisdiction with no sexual harassment laws.
So what you are a saying is sexual harassment is profitable.
@zhinxy Certainly I will elaborate. I believe that female judges would show the same instituional bias, I believe the bias is based in the instituion and the coding of the law, not in how common it is to have a male judge. It seems a reasonable position to take, but if you have evidence that it isn’t a baseless claim then provide it. I would add that since the number of claimaints that are male is significant this also renders the claim baseless.
@Sharculese No my comparison shows that it doesn’t matter what % of the claimants are female. Not without more evidence. As with murder it doesn’t matter what % of the victims are male, it doesn’t show that men
‘how would you know? you admit your just guessing?’
No I saw a baseless claim and objected to it. I still do, I still believe your assertation that the gender of the actors in the legal system matters is incorrect. As it is your claim you need to prove it, I don’t need to prove baseless claims wrong.
@Pecunium are you trolling? I have said sexual harassment costs companies a substantial amount. Costs them, as in harms the economy. As in the oposite of what you just asked me.
@Amused Change laws to costs. My mistake.
Really where is the controversy?
You all agree that my original post was correct, that sexual harassment has a cost and that sexual harassment claims do not only rarely go anywhere. So what is the problem, why is this ongoing?
Sorry but I have to disagree with the idea that the judge’s gender has no impact because it does.
It can be a small amount or a large amount-and it is a lot better then the days a male judge threw a woman wearing pants out of his courtroom-but judges are not 100% immune to subconscious biases or ignore their conscious ones.
i never said you needed a law degree. fwiw pecunium upthread has a great understanding of the law, and he’s not a lawyer.
but seriously, you think you can prove me wrong without knowing the facts my claim is based on? what’s wrong with you?
i’m gonna spell this out for you real slowly. you don’t get to pick which facts are relevant to reality. actually, you doubly don’t get to because you dont have the understanding to sort th relevant from the irrelevant. if this is your central argument:
no, this is completely false. it completely ignores the context of sexual harassment laws and the costs associated with uprooting your entire company and moving it overseas, or that companies may have other reasons to prefer having their business litigated in american courts. it is puerile, ignorant and unsophisticated, and seems to be mostly based on speculation. any time i try to point out to you that in reality, things are different, you mumble ‘quite possibly’ or something equally banal before wandering off to your next non sequitur. this is not a way anybody should argue past the age of thirteen or so.
you’ve got a theory on the economic effects of sexual harassment laws? great, go out and do some real research, then get back to me. don’t cobble together a few random numbers because you think they’re the rights numbers (for the billionth time, you keep talking about eeoc complaints, this is different thing from lawsuit, and bringing it up when everyone else was talking about lawsuits suggests you don’t know what you’re talking about and are too lazy to find).
Based on what exactly?
it doesnt. victims of sexual harassment are regularly disbelieved for the reasons i listed above, most of which are rooted in gender inequality. nobody disbelieves a murder victim because theyre a little bit to dead make claims. different offenses are different. again, know what youre talking about before deciding people are wrong.
how do you know it’s baseless if you dont actually know anything about how american judges rule? seriously, do you not get the fundamental problem your lack of knowledge is causing you. you dont just get to declare things right or wrong because you want them to be.
Ullere: You said that moving to a place where sexual harassment isn’t a cost and one makes money.
Ergo, the company is making money by going to places where their employees may harass.
Ergo sexual harassment is profitable.
ullere, where exactly are you from. this sounds like something somebody who came from a country that’s based on civil law?