Categories
antifeminism consent is hard dude you've got no fucking idea what you're talking about empathy deficit entitled babies mansplaining men created civilization men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny post contains jokes post contains sarcasm PUA rape rape culture red pill return of kings rhymes with roosh

Professor Douchecanoe manosphere-splains feminism to coeds

profcollage
Professor Douchecanoe will see you now

One of the strange superpowers of the modern Manosphere intellectual is the ability to pontificate endlessly, and with utmost confidence, on a subject — feminism — that they know absolutely nothing about. You could even say they know less than nothing about it, in that the few things they do think they know about it are completely and utterly wrong.

Today, the reliably terrible Return of Kings posted a prime example of what we might call the manosphere-splaining of feminism in the form of a post (archived here) by Beau Albrecht with the patronizing title “An Open Letter To Women Who Still Believe In Feminism.”

In other words, a guy who doesn’t know crap about feminism has decided to explain feminism to women who do actually know something about it. To paraphrase Mary McCarthy’s famous dis of Lillian Hellman, pretty much every word of Albrecht’s post is wrong, including “and” and “the.”

The post goes completely off the rails by the second paragraph:

I’m here to discuss radical feminism, which is the only variety that gets much attention and media access.

Like most antifeminists, Albrecht doesn’t actually know what radical feminism is, or what sets it apart from non-radical feminism, simply using it as a synonym for “all the feminists I don’t like,” a group that pretty much includes, well, all feminists except for mythologized first-wave feminists who were all polite and stuff, and possibly anti-feminist “feminists” like Christina Hoff Sommers.

Since the Second Wave arose—beginning in the mid-1950s, and kicking into high gear in the mid-1960s—feminism has been telling you that we live under a patriarchy, men are responsible for all your problems (“the personal is political”), we’re a bunch of evildoers, and so forth.

Here’s my Open Letter to dudes trying to explain feminism to feminists:

Dear dudes trying to explain feminism to feminists, 

It helps if you get the basic facts about feminism straight. 

Love, David

PS: Second wave feminism didn’t start in the 1950s; it started, very tentatively, in the early 1960s and only really took off on the late 1960s.

PPS: What difference does it make if you’re off by five or ten years in your dates, you ask? Because history involving women matters as much as history involving men. If you were writing an essay about Ronald Reagan and you said he had been elected to the presidency in 1972 or 1976, everyone reading your essay would know that you don’t know crap about crap.

PPPS: I mean, this is all stuff you could look up in two seconds on Wikipedia, or with a single Google search. 

Albrecht continues on in this fashion, piling nonsense upon nonsense; his attempts to rebut statistics showing that a significant number of female college students are raped every year are undercut not only by his disingenuous use of stats but also by the fact that he keeps referring to said female college students as “coeds,” which conjures up images like the one at the start of this post.

The rest of Albrecht’s post is a collection of manosphere clichés we’ve all seen dozens of times. He suggests that the root case of misogyny is women being mean — and that some men are so disgusted by snarky women that they literally turn themselves gay, “finding it to be better than nothing.” He mentions sexbots, and Japanese “herbivores,” and “cultural Marxism.” He declares that antifeminists like him “care about you more than the feminists.”

There is the obligatory reference to Sex and the City, which Albrecht naturally refers to as Sex in the City.

If you spend your 20s partying and “finding yourself” as you’ve been encouraged to do, don’t expect Mr. Big to be waiting around patiently to sweep you off your feet after you’ve aged and decided it’s time to settle down. Actually, many Mr. Bigs used to be those nerds you wouldn’t have given a second look to back in college. 

Sex and the City is such a completely fresh and original cultural reference that it’s likely many of Albrecht’s manosphere readers are going to spend much of the night tonight creepily hitting on women born after the show first went on the air in 1998.

There’s even a genuine “we hunted the mammoth” moment as Albrecht tries to convince women of the many fine benefits of patriarchy:

It was all on us to provide for you and the kids; be it by working on an assembly line all day, in a coal mine, digging ditches, or under the hot sun tilling the fields. … We got drafted in wars to protect you. We let you have first place on lifeboats. Meanwhile, women were tending the children and doing housework. All told, it wasn’t quite such a bad trade-off for women.

Look at this picture of men gallantly farming away for their pampered stay-at-home wives.

the-gleaners-1857-jpglarge

I don’t know why they’re all dressed as women. Probably just some gleaner thing.

Perhaps the most telling moment in the post comes during Albrecht’s attempt to prove that rape culture isn’t real.

Think about it a minute. We’re bigger and stronger than you. If we really were savages, we would be doing whatever we wanted to you, especially if that truly was approved by our culture. The reason you don’t have to pepper spray someone every day is that the vast majority of us are actually decent, civilized people. There are a few exceptions; they end up going to prison, and rightly so, where they’re despised even by the other criminals.

There’s just a teensy bit of an irony in the fact that Albrecht is posting this on a site run by everybody’s favorite repugnant “pickup artist” Roosh Valizadeh, an allegedly “ironic” proponent of rape legalization who has himself been accused of rape.

Yeah, the rest of this post isn’t going to be terribly funny.

In his book Bang Iceland, Roosh offered this account of one of his “dates,” if they can be called that:

While walking to my place, I realized how drunk she was. In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she couldn’t legally give her consent. It didn’t help matters that I was relatively sober, but I can’t say I cared or even hesitated.

I won’t rationalize my actions, but having sex is what I do.

In a book called 30 Bangs, Roosh wrote about his inability to take no for an answer:

It took four hours of foreplay and at least thirty repetitions of “No, Roosh, no” until she allowed my penis to enter her vagina. No means no—until it means yes.

Roosh went on to note that:

The sex was painful for her … She whimpered like a wounded puppy dog the entire time, but I really wanted to have an orgasm, so I was “almost there” for about ten minutes. After sex she sobbed for a good while … .

In Bang Ukraine, Roosh wrote this about a woman he got into an argument with during sex:

She tried to squirm away while I was laying down my strokes so I had to use some muscle to prevent her from escaping.

Apparently some men really are savages, at least by Albrecht’s definition of the term.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

187 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

I love Cubans and wish the Cuban people all the very best. I do not mistake my appreciation for the Cuban people with the man who took control of the land in which they live. He may have done good things, but if the cost for “the good things” is the expulsion, execution or imprisonment of anyone who disagrees with Dear Leader, there’s too much of a taint on those “good things” for them to be good anymore.

StephToe
StephToe
4 years ago

He did indeed.

Hambeast (fan of diversity)
Hambeast (fan of diversity)
4 years ago

IP – Well, I *did* work at a craft store, so I saw a lot more women than men! But a goodly portion of them were annoying and clueless!

Probably also a craft store phenomenon, but the men were usually more apt to listen to what we told them. I guess because they weren’t (in general) too familiar with our wares.

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

@Scildfreja Unnýðnes

Wow, what the fuck.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

I know, right, Jack? I was half expecting Paul Elam to come out singing about Amanda Marcotte from a side room or something. I’ve been on tilt since that night. I need a vacation or something!

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

@Scildfreja Unnýðnes

Good luck and godspeed with that third dinner.

Good luck and godspeed.

comment image

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
4 years ago

*wince* some people actually had great respect and admiration for Castro. Please don’t be so American about every political death 😖 Please read about him from a non American or British source.

http://i.imgur.com/7twtbRN.gif

LindsayIrene
4 years ago

Wait, didn’t Castro put gay men in work camps?

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
4 years ago

I got my first perfect (15-15-15) IV pokemon! A Kingler.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo

Yeah, I know it’s cool to hate on the US. I don’t blame people for that. We’ve earned that. But that doesn’t mean every one who is a US opponent is automatically good.

Moocow
4 years ago

“Some people had respect for X”. Setting aside the journalistic weasel word “some” people, in what way does that make X valid? Plenty of terrible people exist and have respect for terrible things/people. Excuse the blatant Godwin but “Some people had great respect for Hitler” would be a pretty laughable defense of Hitler.

Imperator Kahlo
Imperator Kahlo
4 years ago

JFC, Scildfreja. That sounds awful. Sorry you had to put up with that.

RE Castro, I’m firmly on the side of fuck that dude. Nuance is absolutely important, and I recognise his (certainly not uniformly positive) anti-colonialist legacy in Africa and Latin America. I would also point out that Guevara was the Revolution’s committed communist, while Castro was initially more concerned simply with overthrowing Batista and freeing the island of American imperialist influence. The US’ outsized reaction pushed Cuba into the arms of the USSR and arguably created the monster that one-party rule there became.

But regardless of how it occurred or the benefits that might have accrued, I refuse to believe that universal free health care* and education must be paid for in blood or loss of liberty.

I visited Cuba in 2012 and met with a number of dissidents and a former political prisoner. One of the events I attended was a two-day workshop run by a socialist political party to celebrate the cultural and historical contributions of Afro-Cubans and protest continuing social prejudice. On day two, I arrived to find the place surrounded by state police and later discovered the organisers had all been arrested. In the workers’ paradise, you see, there is no such thing as racism! /s

I believe it does the left a serious disservice to turn a blind eye to abuses like Castro’s. We have to believe there’s a better way.

Imperator Kahlo
Imperator Kahlo
4 years ago
History Nerd
History Nerd
4 years ago

Castro’s dictatorship was relatively benign compared to other communist leaders. He wasn’t a Stalin or a Pol Pot. But that means many people on the left are willing to give him a pass and that’s maybe led some people on the left to be more accepting of authoritarianism. Leftists, especially now, really need to support democracy and civil liberties.

The scary thing about Trump is that he (like other fascists) values authoritarianism over his political ideology. His political views have been all over the place throughout his life, but he’s consistently valued harshness and authoritarianism as his way of doing things. He’s impulsive and thin-skinned, and that makes him fundamentally different from a “normal” conservative like Ronald Reagan.

Dalillama, Effort Chicken
Dalillama, Effort Chicken
4 years ago

@Ddog

some people actually had great respect and admiration for Castro.

And those people are foolish or evil. Castro was an autocratic dictator, opposition to which is the core feature of the Left, and indeed the reason there is such a thing as the left in the first damn place.

@LindsayIrene
Yes, he damn well did.

AsAboveSoBelow
AsAboveSoBelow
4 years ago

@The Adjunct, Ooglyboggles, Rhuu, Mish, thank you. Hugs back to any and all who want them. And kitties!

@NicolaLuna, may you get justice. I am sorry for your pain.

@Scildfreja, how horrible. I’m sorry you experienced that. So disgusting.

More hugs to all who want them. These days seem to be rough on almost everyone.

NickNameNick
NickNameNick
4 years ago

I just noticed the posts, so apologies for the late reply – but I feel I need to clarify some things:

@StephToe:

I see where you are coming from but I think it should just be equal pay for equal work and equal support to citizens irrespective of their personal lifestyle choices.

A universal minimum wage seems ideal until you consider that different people, especially with families, might need more on average than a childless bachelor who likely doesn’t need to feed anyone but themselves and whose expenses only really effect them. This also applies to single mothers who not only to provide for their children but also have enough for their needs as far as health goes – something that a childless male bachelor would not have to pay as much for either.

I’d also argue paying a guy with a wive and kids or a single mother the exact same amount who lives by themself is inherently unfair. And, if they’re paid the same hourly rate, wouldn’t that mean the father and single mother might have to work more hours to provide? Wouldn’t that, in fact, discourage the idea of having a family at all or perhaps cause them to become bitter towards their family? You’re essentially punishing people for having families while giving all the benefit to those who are single, despite each of them earning a “fair” wage.

I think Japan who could do with completing rethinking their approach to corporate work but without penalising those of use who, for whatever reason do not have children or are unmarried. I’d have a serious issue being told I was to be paid less than my colleague purely because they happened to have kids. Or that I would be expected to have more work hours purely because I don’t have children. The private lives of the childless still matter.

Um, where did I say the lives of single people didn’t matter? I have no problem with people who choose to be single nor want them punished but, again, that wasn’t the topic – it was about the “herbivore” phenomenon in Japan and I was speculating on ways the government, especially in its current form, could handle it.

Also: You do get that a very low birth rate with an increasingly aging population has been an issue for years and youths less inclined to have families further exacerbates that? I’m not sure if you do, based on how vague that all was – you could easily apply it to anywhere, while completely ignoring their individual situation as a society. That’s yet another problem I have with the concept of a universal minimum wage – it’s a one-size-fits-all solution that ignores little complexities like that.

@Rhuu:

Gotta chime in and agree with StephToe, here. A rethink of what they expect their workers to do is more in line with what is needed, rather than penalising those who either can’t or choose not to have kids.

Once more, I never said anything about punishing single people for being single. Ever.

I’m talking about how, in Japan, adjusting wages and hours for those with families along with other benefits would deal with their “herbivore” problem as well as the fact the rate of death overshadow the birth rates.

If we are talking about adults who want children and can’t naturally: I would apply many of those same suggestions I made before to those who adopt as well.

I really, really, really, really, really hope I do not have to keep repeating myself.

Otherwise it feels like the pressure is going to be on the women to just have babies, so the men can either get more time off or be paid more, and that is a frightening thought.

Except many women in Japan already forgo having children entirely because of that and it’s due to Japan‘s (I’m going to keep italicizing it until it’s made clear that’s the place I’m talking about and no where else) patriarchal tendencies that pressure women to give up developing a career or having a life outside of the household once they have children.

I was speculating that, were the Japanese government to try instilling some policies to deal with the issue mentioned, it would mean that perhaps women could pursue a career while having a family as well instead of forced to choose one or the other. Maybe, just maybe, if the Japanese government put forth such policies – such attitudes might relax and allow women to do both, if they wished.

@Headologist:

Nope, nope, nope. People who can’t have children, or don’t want them, shouldn’t be forced to work more, earn less, or have lower quality of life post-work. No people should view children as a tool to a better life economically. IF a country must increase the birth rate, it should be done by increasing wages across the board, allowing better work-life balance for every worker, enforcing greater gender equality in work and home life, encouraging a societal shift from discussion of “productivity” as life goal, and allowing everyone the freedom to make the choices that suit them. Then those who want children can have them for the sake of raising a child and those without are not penalised. The only child-specific breaks should be universal subsidised childcare, and even that should be less of an issue in a society where all parents are allowed flexibility in work hours and proper wages allow a work week of fewer hours.

I. Never. Said. We. Should. Punish. Single. People. Not. Once. Ever.

Other than that, I already addressed a lot of what you stated and am not repeating myself again.

I mean, since we’re designing societies here :p

…What…? “Designing societies”?

Is it that hard to understand I’m talking about Japan and it’s current situation? I’m not just bringing up what I think would be an ideal form of compensation for work in every area of the globe and, honestly, I’m not sure how you’d come to that conclusion unless you totally ignored that I’m talking about Japan.

Also, can we talk about this whole imperative to increase birth rates? Cos that’s… fractally fucked up. Like, any talk of birth rates at all is mired in unbelievable levels of fuckery. And that’s without the bio social engineering aspects, which are just squick all around. It always sounds like 1 step away from giving medals to ‘propagators of our people’ or some such

I’m talking about the situation in one country and one alone, Japan, and not any other. Their situation in particular is unique, especially due to their culture, and I simply suggested ways their government – in its current form – could possibly remedy it. I would not apply this same thinking to another disparate nation.

@Weirdwoodtreehugger:

There’s a whole lot of economic problems with having a population that’s disproportionately elderly. You have a huge segment of the population who can’t work and who are more likely to have health problems and not enough working adults to carry the load. Although, given the fact that globally, the human population is plenty large, I would favor wealthy countries with low birth rates allowing more immigration rather than trying to engineer baby making. But nationalism and xenophobia make a lot of people reluctant to that. From what I’ve Japan is really hostile to immigration and makes it very hard to get citizenship and it seems to be to their detriment because their aging population is an issue for them.

Nice to see someone who’s actually talking about the issue directly…

And, yes, I’d love it if Japan opened its borders and let in more immigrants – which would not only increase the overall population but also their dwindling birthrates – but its current form of nationalistic xenophobia would make it impossible at this time.

@Ooglyboggles:

Yeah the multiple routes that Japan has to take in order to avoid the impending economic hit requires them to change alot of older ways of thinking.

Increase immigration? That requires the Japanese government to be less xenophobic and isolationist.

Increase birthrate? That requires the entire business culture to change, like lowering the work hours and increasing wages so people can have more time to themselves.

Of the two things they can do, I see the changing of business culture the more likely thing. It’s 2016 and 60 hour workweeks are still commonplace there, amongst the high suicide rates that come as a side effect of such over demanding practices. Currently there are talks in labor organizations over there that are criticizing how previous policies relied solely on self regulation.

You’re completely on the money, right there.

StephToe
StephToe
4 years ago
Reply to  NickNameNick

You do know that what you have written was essentially historically the justification given for the pay gap right?

My private life is none of my employer’s business. If I am doing the same job I deserve the same wage. Full stop. Anything else IS penalising me for my personal lifestyle choices (and for many it’s not a choice.)

Incidentally when your argue that the same work should be remunerated differently depending on the personal circumstances of an individual you are arguing that single people’s lives don’t matter or at least are less important. If I do the same job as my colleague pay me the same. Don’t penalise me for my lifestyle. Equal pay for equal work has long been a feminist rallying cry has it not.

And yes paying me less for the same work is penalising me.

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

@StephToe

Pretty sure all of what NickNameNick suggested are some ideas to encourage people living in Japan to work and have families. Do you live in Japan?

StephToe
StephToe
4 years ago
Reply to  NickNameNick

Oh and expecting people to work longer hours for the same money as somebody who happens to have a family also penalises that single person. Or would you be happy to do the same work for less money than your colleague.

Salary should be valued based on the job not personal circumstances. It devalues the lives of us who happen not to have families and tells us we are worth less to society than those who have families.

Also, curiously this would mean I should be paid more than somebody who doesn’t have children but is part of a couple?

No no no we have come too far on pay equity to go back now. The only support should be from the government, whether it be paid parental leave, childcare etc.

But we shouldn’t be penalised for being single by having our work devalued.

StephToe
StephToe
4 years ago

@handsome

No – why, do I have to live their to have an opinion on whether policies to penalise people for not having children / being single are a good idea?

Am I only allowed believe in the concept of equal pay for equal work if I live in Japan?

Is believing my marital status is my personal business only a valid viewpoint if I live in Japan?

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

@StephToe

The work culture of Japan is different from other countries. Ever heard of salarymen? Not to mention peeps have already been talking about how people are turned off from having a family due to the culture of Japan and what’s expected from men and women.

While the ideas aren’t perfect, they’re tailored to what could be done to help Japanese workers, and aren’t for everyone, and, on top of that, are just ideas thrown out there on a forum by someone who likely can’t really control what Japan does anyway. Hypotheticals that won’t impact you or anyone.

StephToe
StephToe
4 years ago

I am well aware of the issue in Japan. I am disagreeing with the idea of penalising single people and devaluing their work to fix the problem.

Especially when there are many other, non discriminatory options available. I think it should always be equal pay for equal work. No exceptions.

I get they are just ideas being thrown around but I am still allowed to thing said ideas are wrong aren’t I? Surely that’s the basis of this entire blog? Disagreement with some ideas being thrown about online? 😀

StephToe
StephToe
4 years ago

And of course if companies were required to pay those with families more they would just start prioritising single people without families – more hours for lesss money.

It would also reinforce the corporate culture if the practice was to devalue the lives of those without families – the message being “work is all that matters, unless you have a family”.

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

And of course if companies were required to pay those with families more they would just start prioritising single people without families – more hours for lesss money.

It would also reinforce the corporate culture if the practice was to devalue the lives of those without families – the message being “work is all that matters, unless you have a family”.

Yeah, but even with an “equal pay for equal work and equal benefits”, that still happens.

Still a struggle for working women

It’s been 30 years since the law mandating equal employment opportunities for men and women, aimed at eliminating gender-based discrimination in the recruitment, promotion and other treatment of workers, was introduced. Female labor participation in Japan has since steadily increased, and some of the obsolete stereotypes, practices and outright discrimination against women in the workplace have either disappeared or been reduced. However, new legislation that took full effect on the very anniversary of the 1986 law highlights the continuing challenges that confront working women.

There are a variety of reasons why women quit their jobs in mid-career. But the departure of married women from work is often attributed to the difficulties they face in balancing their jobs and family needs. Many women quit their jobs when they give birth to their first child, and the hurdles they face as they return to work while raising children are compounded by prevalent male-centric practices at many companies such as notoriously long working hours, which force women to make a tough choice between their families and their careers while leaving men little time to share the housework, as well as the chronic shortage of day care services for their children. Employers placing subtle or outright pressure on women to quit or demoting them when they become pregnant and try to take maternity leave is so common that it has led to the coining of the phrase “maternity harassment.”

Imperator Kahlo
Imperator Kahlo
4 years ago

I’m with StephToe on this one, both in the specific case of Japan and more broadly. I think any inclination towards paying people different rates for the same work is something that should be quashed immediately, because, as they point out, that way lies the pay gap. Men were traditionally paid more because they had a wife and children to support, while women were working for ‘pin money’. People’s lifestyle and reproductive choices should have no bearing on their salaries, I believe.

Not to mention there’s a wealth of policy options to encourage people to have families. Tax breaks for families with children, subsidised or free childcare, encouraging a culture of work/life balance and flexible hours, etc, etc. No need to start valuing people’s work at different rates based on irrelevant personal details.

Yeah, but even with an “equal pay for equal work and equal benefits”, that still happens.

Totally, which is why you shouldn’t then codify such attitudes in salaries. Better to encourage a culture that values work/life balance for everybody.

Croquembouche of patriarchy
Croquembouche of patriarchy
4 years ago

I’m also with Steph. Not only would paying the childless lower salaries be fundamentally unjust, it would not remove the primary barrier to motherhood especially and also to fatherhood: the demand by employers that the salaried work at least until mid evening, and the strong expectation they will then socialise with colleagues and clients for a few hours more.

Paying childless staff less money, or paying parents more, will not allow parents to go home to their families. Only a change in the work culture can do that.

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

EDIT: Weird double post there. Look down.

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

@Imperator Kahlo

The problem is outdated gender roles and traditions that aren’t compatiable with modern business thinking, pushing women out of business positions and discouraging both men and women from having families in Japan. Nick’s suggestion is a way to make having both a family and a job more attractive since more and more men and women in Japan are opting out of having a family over favoring a job.

Obviously a long-term solution would be, you know, stopping sexism and the salaryman culture but that’s not going to happen soon so creating a system that favors families would, in fact, help Japan get more more people having families and jobs.

(This suggested along with allowing easier immigration to Japan would help Japan’s aging population and economy, which would also require Japan to lessen its xenophobia but that’s not what people are jumping at.)

Japan already has equal pay for equal work instated there and it isn’t helping people have families or bring new people into Japan.

Besides, tax breaks are already a way of paying people who have families, just government sanctioned. Of course, I don’t know what the tax code is in Japan but I do know the Japanese government IS paying people to have children already and it’s working on making more babies, so…

StephToe
StephToe
4 years ago

It is partially a struggle for women but generally the gender pay gap is an earnings gap not a pay gap.

But I am not sure the fact the in some places the fact a gender pay gap may exist justifies adding single people to the list of those who are discriminated against and who have their work devalued.

Instead of requiring single people to work longer for less pay change the work culture that requires ridiculously long hours and the social culture that mandates housework and childcare is solely the responsibility of women.

Also put into place paid childcare options, paid parental leave.

But don’t start paying people different salaries based on their personal circumstances.

Croquembouche of patriarchy
Croquembouche of patriarchy
4 years ago

@Handsome Jack, yes, you’ve got a phantom double post, Stephs older post did the migrate to bottom thing, and now Stephs newest post has jumped to the middle
https://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/26/professor-douchecanoe-manosphere-splains-feminism-to-coeds/comment-page-3/#comment-1079204 . Makes this hard to follow.
@Steph, replying from a notification email? That can cause weirdness.

StephToe
StephToe
4 years ago

@handsome

But you can make starting a family “more attractive” (or less unappealing) without penalising those who are single / have no children.

Why choose the method that codifies pay discrimination on the basis of personal circumstance?

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

@StephToe

Okay, let me break it down for you.

The population of Japan is shrinking, which is the whole reason Nick proposed the money incentives.

And not by an inconsiderable amount either: The 2010 census showed a population of 128,057,352, but the 2015 figure, released Friday, shows just 127,110,000.

Japan’s population had shrunk by almost 1 million people in five years.

While data on birth and death rates has long given clear evidence that Japan’s population was on the decline, this is the first time since records began that the census has confirmed the nation’s population has actually dropped.

Without a short term solution to the problem of a declining population (like giving people more money to pop out babies OR as Nick also suggested making immigration easier), Japan’s elderly population will become too much for itself to handle AND with it being the 3rd largest economy in the world, can in fact screw the entire Earth economy over.

Also, for the fifty millionth time, people aren’t opting out of having kids because they don’t want them but rather it’s literally either having a family or having a job for many people.

The culture of Japan is so that women are pushed to quit their jobs after marriage to raise children while men, particularly of the salaryman variety, are pushed to work up to and over 80 hour work weeks to provide for the family they never see.

This makes having both a family and job practically impossible to do so they are forced to choose one or the other. They are punished for wanting both a job and family.

While, obviously, dismantling the sexism and salaryman culture would be the optimal solution, it isn’t gonna go easily or fast enough to help maintain the population of Japan before we all get fucked over in fifty years because the economy of Japan can’t sustain its elderly population.

So, the short term solution for this problem is to incentify having families, which, as I linked to before, Japan is already doing and it’s working.

And, I keep mentioning, this is a short term solution. Obviously salaryman and the sexism in the culture has to be lessened for equal pay for equal work to not punish people who want both family and jobs but until then, give people money for popping out babies so Japan doesn’t cave in on itself.

Or make immigration to Japan more viable. (But, that requires they stop with the racism and xenophobia, which is also a long-term goal that isn’t gonna help now.)

EDIT: Or, I guess, as a third solution, completely change how the world’s economy works so it doesn’t fuck us over in the next fifty years.

StephToe
StephToe
4 years ago

@Handsome

A tax break sends quite a different message to pay discrimination.

The government choosing to direct funds towards those most in need is rather different to a company deciding to pay its female or childless workers less although the work they produce is the same as male / workers with children.

And requiring single people to work longer hours reinforces the culture message that lives without children in them are worth less/of less importance. Work /life balance should be promoted for all, not solely those with children.

I understand you see it as a short term solution it devaluing the lives of those without children should never be a solution imo short term or not.

Besides the cultural impact of that messaging wouldn’t be short term.

As I said I don’t disagree with incentivising children just not at the cost of discriminating against those without children.

It really is identical to paying people less on the basis of their gender or skin colour.

StephToe
StephToe
4 years ago

@Handsome

Incidentally the link you posted about lying for babies is about government assistance – not about employers valuing their jobs based by the personal circumstances of their employees.

StephToe
StephToe
4 years ago

Incidentally there really is no need to “break it down for me” that’s really rather patronising.

I am aware of the situation. I disagree with employers taking employees personal circumstances into account when setting salary levels (particularly as single people are already at a disadvantage having not other income to draw on.

Any assistance should be set at the redistributive level (government and tax policy.) Employees should all be equal in the eyes of the employers

Paying differently based on personal circumstances is the whole reason we have a pay gap to begin with. If you are doing the same work you deserve the same money. That’s it.

(And of course that encourages more discrimination when employers learn that the same job will be cheaper when done by an unmarried childless person.)

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

@StephToe

Okay, like, I posted nothing about “lying for babies”, and I DID in fact, point out that it’s the government paying for it.

Besides, tax breaks are already a way of paying people who have families, just government sanctioned. Of course, I don’t know what the tax code is in Japan but I do know the Japanese government IS paying people to have children already and it’s working on making more babies, so…

Now, I will quote almost the entire article:

Japan’s nationwide fertility rate just hit its highest level in 21 years.

The total rate increased to 1.46 in 2015, slightly up from the previous rate of 1.42 in 2014, according to the health ministry.

The biggest contribution to the increase came from women 30 to 34, according to Bloomberg.

This is no doubt a good sign for a country struggling with a looming demographic crisis.

But what’s particularly interesting about this spike in fertility is that there was a correlation with cash incentives for new parents.

Christopher Wood, author of CLSA’s weekly Greed & Fear newsletter, pointed out in his latest installment that the highest fertility rate among Tokyo’s wards was in the Minato Ward, where parents get one-time cash payouts of up to 180,000 yen — about $1,684 — a birth.

Moreover, he noted that the biggest improvement in fertility in the country was in a town called Ama on the island of Nakanoshima, which has a “leveraged scheme to incentivize mating”: parents get 100,000 yen (about $940) for the first baby, but get 1 million yen (about $9,400) for the fourth kid. The town’s fertility rate bumped up to 1.80 from 1.66 between 2014 and 2015.

Now, like, what Nick hypothetically suggested it just more of the same but from a business standpoint. The concept Nick brought up however is, in fact, working from an actual government standpoint.

Now, like, I didn’t read any of Nick’s suggestion making it completely in the hands of the employers to make them give more money for family oriented people. The government giving incentives for employers to favor family makers would make the most sense.

But, the question is, does Japan continue to do equal pay for equal work in its climate where it’s declining population growth will fuck itself and the world over or does it do a short-term incentive program to make people have babies so the population is more stable even though it will fuck over the single people?

Which do you think would be better? Fucking over MORE people (i.e. the world economy) or only SOME people (i.e. the single population of Japan for however long Japan has a population crisis)?

comment image

I don’t even know why I got into this argument the first place.

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

You know, reading that over, I sound much angrier than I am and much more patronizing than I’m trying to be. Also, like, making it much more black and white. @StephToe, I apologize for that. I’m being irrational.

I mean, the whole reason I even got into this mess is because people kinda just latched onto the whole “pay people to have babies” thing while ignoring the rest of what Nick suggested, as if the whole point of Nick’s post is an idea to make life better for people in Japan rather than just an idea to increase the population of Japan. So, for some reason, I’m taking the idea of more pay for family people and running with it. Don’t ask me. I have no clue. It works as a broad concept, I guess.

Yes, it has it’s flaws, that’s true. It would in fact make a pay gap but the point IS in fact to make a pay gap to make it so people will want to have children. (Well, my point. It’s not fair but it seems there’s proof that it works already.)

Also, I’m sorry for taking over the thread.

StephToe
StephToe
4 years ago

We’ll have to agree to disagree then won’t we.

No problem with government assistance aimed where it’s needed.

I have huge problems problems with workplace discrimination on the basis of private family situations or requiring single people to work longer hours for less pay.

Equal pay for equal work.

I don’t know why you keep insisting we haven’t understood what Nick is saying. Disagreement doesn’t mean a failure to understand. I get his point about encouraging an increase in the Japanese birth rate. I just happen to disagree with penalising single and/or childless people to do that (and yes paying somebody less for the same work is a penalty.)

It’s actually a pet peeve when people insist that disagreement must come from an inability to understand the point being made!

Always struck me as kinda arrogant 🙂

StephToe
StephToe
4 years ago

I am also confused as to why that post of mine is randomly at the bottom of the thread . It shall have me puzzled all day.

Handsome "Punkle Stan" Jack

@StephToe

Hey, question, what do you think would help raise Japan’s population within the next 60 years enough to sustain the aging population and keep the economy afloat anyway?

richardbillericay
richardbillericay
4 years ago

“We fought wars to protect you” = “You women should be grateful to us men for fighting wars to protect you and our other possessions from us men going to war to advance the wealth and power of our leaders in the hope of personal gain in this world ir the next”
How is that an argument *for* patriarchy?

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ croquembouche

the demand by employers that the salaried work at least until mid evening, and the strong expectation they will then socialise with colleagues and clients for a few hours more.

One of my mates got a job working for Nomura in London. He was the only westerner in his particular team. We were fascinated by his tales as to the work culture.

One aspect was that there was massive pressure to not be the first to leave of an evening. He said it was almost like an endurance challenge gameshow; who would be the first to ‘crack’.

The silly thing was, no-one was actually getting any real work done. They’d finished their actual tasks for the day ages ago; so they were just sat there, bored silly, pretending to look at spreadsheets.

When he realised that it made no actual difference he was happy to confirm the lazy gaijin stereotype and just bugger off at five o’clock.

We did tag along some nights though to the karaoke sessions after work. Again though it was all artificial. You could see the poor blokes were desperate just to go home and get some sleep, but there was huge stigma in doing so (not just a ‘party pooper’ thing; it was seen as a real character flaw). I know 1984 comparisons are trite but it was very like the thing where you had to spend at least three nights a week doing some pointless community activity and actually going home and spending time on your own was seen as suspect.

StephToe
StephToe
4 years ago

@Handsome

I have already named a fair few – tax breaks, paid childcare, good quality parental leave provisions (all government funded) in the short term.

A wholesale shift in societal attitudes towards gender roles in the home and working culture out of it.

What I cannot support is a policy which allows employers to penalise single workers by making them work longer hours for less pay.

It’s not that I think it won’t work (although I do think there is a danger whereby single employees become more valued because the same job will be performed by them for less money) but that I think it reinforces the notion of the importance not of corporate activity where those without partners / children are essentially told their free time outside of work is of less importance.

And I think paying people salaries which are divorced from the work they do and instead are based on personal life circumstances is morally wrong. And I don’t think is ever, not even to increase numbers of children born, is ever justified.

It’s the very justification that was given for paying women less in the past – that as there were not the breadwinner they didn’t need to be paid as much. I think I should be paid as much as those I do the same job as. Plain and simple.

If the state wishes to target its welfare provisions at those most in need / encouraging things that will be viewed as benefitting the state I have no issue. My objection starts when we start promoting discrimination in the workplace. Something I find objectionable no matter the desired outcome.

StephToe
StephToe
4 years ago

Although Japan will enact whatever measures it feels are necessary. Personally if ever I lived in a country where the government decided to codify discrimination against me in the workplace based on nothing more than my skin colour, gender, or family circumstances I’d leave at the first opportunity.

Kat
Kat
4 years ago

@Scildfreja

Right down to the laughing comments about how-to-be-an-alpha-man, and the requisite comments about how they just can’t look away from dat ass cause the woman across the room is bending over. My favourite part was the jokes about how the dip they served with the churros looked like semen, followed by how much they’d like to see me drink it.

Wow!

Their behavior is AFAIC completely gross and unacceptable.

If you meet with them again, stay strong — and I wish you the best of luck!

Verily Baroque
Verily Baroque
4 years ago

@Jack

Hey, question, what do you think would help raise Japan’s population within the next 60 years enough to sustain the aging population and keep the economy afloat anyway?

In Japan’s situation, the most obvious would be to cap the weekly work time at, say, 40 hours, make working overtime optional and make it illegal for the employer not to pay extra for the overtime. To give an example, 1,5xsalary for first three hours of overtime and then 2x for any time after that and even more for doing overtime on weekends. That would motivate the employers to organize the work in such a way that there was minimal need for long days, since each long day they ask the employees to pull would cost them quite a lot.

Combine that with free or subsidized childcare services (=kindergartens) and paid maternity&paternity leave (paid from tax money, not by employer) and it pretty much would work. Japan already has (at least mostly) free healthcare, if I remember correctly, so being pregnant and giving birth shouldn’t cause the couples a financial crisis from the hospital bills alone either.

None of the above would cause the childless single people to end up working for less pay and longer days for the rest of their lives but would help people combine having a career and kids.

Kat
Kat
4 years ago

@hottotrotsky

It never ceases to amaze me that some people just cant grasp that being chattel SUCKS. . . . There has never been a time when women in patriarchal societies weren’t actively struggling to improve their lives.

That was my observation from way back in the way-back times. Women may have deferred to their husbands, but the husbands paid for that by their wives being resentful. I think that the guys may have thought that was just the high price of being a powerful, powerful patriarch.

And yeah, along with the resentment came the struggle. Women often seemed to be determined to somehow get around their husbands — usually for the sake of the children.

********

It reminds me of a time I was at the dentist (who turned out to be a creepy mormon) and on gas for a root canal, so I suppose he thought I either couldnt hear him, or he just didn’t care, but anyway. He started talking about how polygymy is really just the best kind of charity, that men who want multiple wives just want to help, like, single moms out, and why shouldn’t they be allowed to do that?

Oh hey, I had a similar experience when I had my wisdom teeth out! I went to a dentist in Beverly Hills, who was probably used to treating an affluent crowd, including celebrities.

He was deferential to me, an attitude I find false and kind of alarming.

After I was sedated, I came to a couple of times and heard him talking to his staff, who were assisting him, in a cold, abrupt way. Ick!

StephToe
StephToe
4 years ago

@Alan Robertshaw

That’s crazy! No wonder the birth rate plummeted as more women entered the workforce.

I am glad to live in Oz. Not sure if it’s the companies I work for or the culture itself but having a life outside of work seems to be far more valued here (irrespective of what you do with it.)