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.
Upheld by appellate courts, % that are appealed, etc etc. Anything measurable would be ideal.
It’s not your failing Sharcluese, If I am missing something right infront of me then It’s my bad. I still don’t see it though.
ullere, i’m gonna try one more time to bring you up to speed on this, but it’s going to take me a minute to write it out
before i get started i want to say that judging something called ‘correctness’ is really difficult to talk about in discussing the law, but this:
Upheld by appellate courts, % that are appealed, etc etc. Anything measurable would be ideal.
is definitely a poor measure of it. when i’m done i hope youll see why.
Thanks I appreciate it sharcluese, It’s nice of you to go out of your way.
okay so basically let’s go backed to what you said about bias being coded into the law. this is not how law works in america. i’m pretty sure it’s not how law works in scotland, either.
the law we’re talking about is called title vii- it covers a lot more than sexual harassment, but the relevant part is this:
“it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to… discriminate against any individual… because of such individual’s… sex.”
almost everyone agrees this bars some level of sexual harassment. (i don’t have time to explain why, just assume that it does, because it’s pretty much taken for granted). the question is how much? basically the way this is decided will always be that the supreme court sets rules for determining it, which are then applied by lower judges and sometimes juries. but talking about appellate success is a very bad way of figuring out how well judges are getting the supreme court’s rules right, because appellate judges arent better than trial judges across all subjects, and a lot of the times the supreme court will hear an appeal because they plan on changing the rules somehow.
it’s also important to note that the fact that a claim is dismissed doesnt mean there was no sexual harassment, only that it didnt rise to the level set by the courts to make it actionable sexual harassment. this is why looking at dismissed claims and concluding they must be ‘unfounded’ as you did earlier, is wrong.
ignoring the question of ‘correctness’ in interpreting this law, which is only going to complicate the problem, if you value the freedom of companies to conduct their own affairs over ending sexual harassment, your going to set the bar high. if your values are reversed, your going to set the bar lower. this is part of the what i’m talking about when i talk about problems. i want the bar set a lot lower. but one of the reasons i want the bar lower is that the current landscape of the law doesnt work because it involves people who as a whole overestimate their ability to gauge whether behavior is inappropriate making those decisions, and these leads to far more cases being dismissed than should be.
Not really-what it shows is that male judges can and do treat women litigants differently. That includes sexual harassment claims (that also means that they might be less likely to acknowledge that males suffer from it as well.)
Also, here is a study actually looking at the issue
Here is another: with the key point right there in black and white: Only in cases implicating sex discrimination do we observe sex-based effects: the probability of a judge deciding in favor of the party alleging discrimination decreases by 10 percentage points when the judge is a male.
I went to a National Association of Women Judge’s conference (this one was in May of this year) and sat in on a discussion by the judges about sexual harassment. Every single one of the 30 female judges in the room reported having had sexual harassment-the worst experiences were by the oldest female judges (70s) and the least, but still there, was by the youngest judge (30s.) And all of them stated it came from the litigants for the most part as the changes over the years has resulted in fewer instances from fellow male judicial officers due to the task forces put into place after the early 1990s.
Since the harassment comes from litigants, most of the female judges simply tell the litigant to stop their behavior and if it continues, they will be held in contempt, which means it generally is not a huge problem but it does happen and male judges rarely experience it. The one notable case was a male judge here in the building I work at who had a female defendant ask him out several times during a hearing.
westlaw isn’t loading, unfortunately. there were a couple of studies i wanted to pull from to help illustrate my point, but honestly, if youre looking for straightforward statistics, you’re going to be disappointed, because that’s not quite how legal research works. there is some statistics, but there is also a lot of shifting through what various judges have said in various cases trying to get a grasp of how everything fits together.
We could always use the Wal Mart class action case showing why appellate judges are not always the best determiners of what is legally correct.
How can there be sexual harrassment without any sex taking place?
I’m woman. My feelings are hurt. Now pay me and punish a man. This is the first basis of sexual harrassment.
I’m a woman. I want free stuff. I want an edge in court, employment, an arguement, ect. Punish a man. The second basis for sexual harrassment.
I’m a woman. I need an excuse for something I did or didin’t do. I want attention. Punish a man. The third basis for sexual harrassment.
There’s no such thing as sexual harrassment.
How can there be sexual harrassment without any sex taking place?
owlslave do you not actually know what ‘sexual’ means?
Boring ignorant troll ulere is boring and ignorant…
Also, nameless’ sources for “hearing” things are apparantly NWO/Meller.
@Sharculese
If I call someone on the job a dumb ass, no biggie. If a call a woman a stupid bitch on the job it’s sexual harrassment. Hurt feelings = sexual harrassment.
There’s no such thing as sexual harrassment.
Hey, everybody! NWO is being an asshat while demonstrating a complete and total ignorance of the English language! That’s never happened before, I’m super fucking shocked.
it’s almost as if different words have different meanings or something. weird.
but seriously, that’s sexual harassment but its not actionable unless youre screaming it at her all day every day or something.
…
ooooohhh, now i see where you got that impression from
Last of the night cause I’m tired.
Do women get money, (sue) for sexual harrassment in the work place?
Since the answer is yes. It’s in a womans best interest of monetary gain to claim sexual harrassment in the workplace.
Is sexual harrassment whenever any woman claims her feelings have been hurt?
The answer again is yes.
There’s no such thing as sexual harrassment.
NWP: So you’d be fine with a woman supervisor (hypothetical, if necessary) telling you that the only way you’d get a promotion was by sleeping with her? Or if female co workers made bawdy jokes about your manhood? Groped you? Hung up pictures of naked men in the break room? Asked you out and wouldn’t take no for an answer? You’d would be fine and shiny with any of this happening to you? Somehow I doubt that.
@NWO you call someone a dumb ass, no biggie. Groovy. Most women I know don’t feel singled out being called a dumb ass.
You only call women stupid bitch. Which is what gives gender to the insult.
Now if you’d said you call men stupid bitches all the time, no biggie, you only get in trouble when you say the exact same thing to women, your “I’m a woman” thing might have some basis. But, no. You instead try to make some kind of comparison between the reactions to a gender-neutral insult and a gendered one, imagining it illustrates female hypersensitivity.
Dumbass.
So no woman or man ever, in the history of earth, has been subject to pressure to sleep with his or her boss in order to keep her job? I mean, let’s face it, that would be bad and must have happened at least once, right? So, there might be, at some point, on earth, even say, before sexual harassment law… one instance of sexual harassment? Just one?
And do men never sue for anything, anything that might award them damages? EVER?
Does anything that might result in compensation not exist?
P.S. are you ever going to get back to me on taxes in NWO land?
yeesh, that should be NWO, not NWP. I has a tired.
owlslave you know you have to prove these things in court, right? as i was explaining before you lumbered in brandish your trademark disregard for reality, despite your paranoid fantasies that’s actually tough to do
@ kathleen
owlslave would never have a woman supervisor because he would be fired the first time he couldnt help it and called her a stupid bitch.
(note to owlslave!: this is also not actionable sexual harassment, no manner how many times you called her a stupid bitch. not when she’s your direct supervisor and can get rid of the problem by firing you)
And do men never sue for anything, anything that might award them damages? EVER?
the oncale case i mentioned above was actually brought by a man
@Unimaginative
“Now if you’d said you call men stupid bitches all the time, no biggie, you only get in trouble when you say the exact same thing to women, your “I’m a woman” thing might have some basis. But, no. You instead try to make some kind of comparison between the reactions to a gender-neutral insult and a gendered one, imagining it illustrates female hypersensitivity.”
What the hell, one more comment. So a non-gendered insult results in nothing of note but a gendered insult allows a woman to sue?
So the lessson is, never insult in a gendered manner?
Bitch and slut are off limits, but vile, worthless, shitsucking waste of flesh who’d be better off dead is okilydokily.
There’s no such thing as sexual harrassment.
“NWO – @Sharculese
If I call someone on the job a dumb ass, no biggie. If a call a woman a stupid bitch on the job it’s sexual harrassment. Hurt feelings = sexual harrassment.
….”
If you were calling a guy a dumb ass, over and over again, singling him out, making his work environment hostile, playing increasingly cruel “jokes,” holding him to inconsistent standards and making him fear for his livelihood if he doesn’t play along, causing severe distress… Well, that would be harassment. If you added a sexual component, calling him, say “fine dumb ass,” and adding leering let’s say, that would be sexual harassment. Is that just “hurt feelings?”
(Incidentally, let’s say I went full bore jackass glibertarian here on the hiring and discrimination front. Let’s say I thought you could hire or fire somebody based on sex or race or haircut no question. At least no legal question. That would still be separate from whether you can harass a person or coerce them into sexual favors, and whether they could seek damages for that, which is why I have some problems with sexual harassment law being tied so firmly to discrimination law – Though I’m not an expert on the area.
But the point is, NWO, this isn’t a way to line your pockets, and if somebody has been treating you this way, well, not everything should result in a prison sentence, and monetary compensation is a pretty good option as restitution for what they’ve done. Actually, they can go together, but let’s not bend your mind. )
So the lessson is, never insult in a gendered manner?
well, actually… yeah. that is one of the lessons.
“Bitch and slut are off limits, but vile, worthless, shitsucking waste of flesh who’d be better off dead is okilydokily.
There’s no such thing as sexual harrassment.”
There is harassment, and if you add a sexual component, it becoems SEXUAL harassment. WOAH!