Thoughts on Feminists

[wufwugy]

The Lily Ledbetter act is retarded because, all things being equal, a man should be paid somewhat more than a woman. With a female employee there is always a statistical threat that she will have to take maternity leave, and this has a real money cost to the employer. This statistical threat is much reduced to near non-existence for the equally qualified man, and there is a monetary value to that difference in risk. This is unfortunate for careerist women who have no intention of having children, as they are penalized anyway, but it is just reality. Young single males pay more for auto insurance because they are in a statistically risky demographic. This is unfortunate for young single males who are intelligent, mature, and safe drivers.

Your rationale is one, that when applied to other areas, has been deemed inappropriate. It is the kind that can (and has) been used to explain why black people shouldn't be treated equally. You are definitely statistically more likely to make less money if you have black employees than white ones; therefore, the logic is that it would only make sense that it is okay to discriminate against black people just like we discriminate against women

But even without that, the notion that women can be discriminated against due to maternity leave is textbook misogyny and is the type of reason for why feminism exists in the first place. Maternal roles are a necessary part of human life, and when we treat those roles as subservient to non-maternal roles, we are subordinating the gender that comes with it. This is wrong and bigoted

Besides, the solution to maternity leave is to include equal paternity leave. But even if that wasn't the solution, these popular justifications for discriminatory practices against women are really no different than ones against other subgroups we already consider wrong.


We live in a very misogynistic country and we don't even know it

[Renton]

Your rationale is one, that when applied to other areas, has been deemed inappropriate. It is the kind that can (and has) been used to explain why black people shouldn't be treated equally. You are definitely statistically more likely to make less money if you have black employees than white ones; therefore, the logic is that it would only make sense that it is okay to discriminate against black people just like we discriminate against women

What? How did you make that leap? There aren't physically existent attributes to black people that cost employers more than whites. I don't think you can state that you are "definitely" likely to make less money with black employees.

But even without that, the notion that women can be discriminated against due to maternity leave is textbook misogyny and is the type of reason for why feminism exists in the first place. Maternal roles are a necessary part of human life, and when we treat those roles as subservient to non-maternal roles, we are subordinating the gender that comes with it. This is wrong and bigoted

No it isn't. Whenever you ignore an economic reality for moral reasons you've hurt the economy. Risk assessment is extremely important to running a business, and maternity leave risk needs to be reconciled, one way or the other. It's not about maternal roles being subservient to anything. It's just accounting for reality.

Besides, the solution to maternity leave is to include equal paternity leave.

If I'm not mistaken, that already exists in America. Are you suggesting that we should now force men with newborn children to take six months off work?

But even if that wasn't the solution, these popular justifications for discriminatory practices against women are really no different than ones against other subgroups we already consider wrong.

I think your example with blacks is completely wrong, do you have any other examples?

We live in a very misogynistic country and we don't even know it

.

[surviva316]

Whenever you ignore an economic reality for moral reasons you've hurt the economy. Risk assessment is extremely important to running a business, and maternity leave risk needs to be reconciled, one way or the other.

I'm pretty sure with all of the anti-discrimination laws that exist for handicaps (both mental and physical), agism, etc. that we could find an insane amount of examples where the law forces employers to make employment decisions that would be non-optimal on an open market. Earlier in this post you distinguished between risks that are taken on because of a pure biologic observation vs other logistical disadvantages, but given the quoted sentence I have no idea how that's relevant to your point and only seems to serve to make the female discussion unique, when it isn't according to your central argument.

Anyway, all I can say is that I disagree that there's no moral imperative that's worth sacrificing the economy for. This isn't really something that can be argued with facts or numbers, and I dread saying something that's so rhetorical as the sentence I'm tempted to say to sum up my thoughts on it. But I suppose there's no other direction for this post to go in:

I think it's worth forcing employers to make ever-so-slightly sub-optimal decisions in order to give 50% of our population equal access to (uuugggggghhhh) the "American dream."

Okay, I'm gonna go take a bath now.

PS: There are variants of the modest proposal that lead to more optimal economic results that we don't allow for because it goes against moral imperative.

[Renton]

I'm pretty sure with all of the anti-discrimination laws that exist for handicaps (both mental and physical), agism, etc. that we could find an insane amount of examples where the law forces employers to make employment decisions that would be non-optimal on an open market. Earlier in this post you distinguished between risks that are taken on because of a pure biologic observation vs other logistical disadvantages, but given the quoted sentence I have no idea how that's relevant to your point and only seems to serve to make the female discussion unique, when it isn't according to your central argument

Most if not all of those anti-discrimination laws are outmoded in modern American society, and many serve to worsen the problems that they aim to mitigate.

Affirmative action, for example, increases unemployment among Blacks because firms are reluctant to hire uncertain black applicants whom they cannot easily fire. Instead they are more prone to speculate on white applicants, and hire the bare minimum of Blacks.

Tenure is in effect one of the anti-discrimination policies universities employ to combat the ageism you speak of, and it only serves to lower the quality and quantity of professors and increase the cost of education for everyone. And if you look at the American average income statistics for the elder age brackets, you'll see that the old are in no need of a subsidy.

I think it's worth forcing employers to make ever-so-slightly sub-optimal decisions in order to give 50% of our population equal access to (uuugggggghhhh) the "American dream."

It's not fair to use the "ever-so-slightly" treatment for the economic consequences but not the benefits to women. The income gap between equally qualified men and women in most fields is a very small percentage. In some fields women actually are higher. The jury isn't even in on whether this is a problem in America. It's one of those made up feminist issues that doesn't have concrete basis. So, to say that equalizing would pull women out of abject wage oppression is hyperbolic to say the least. On the other hand, any government wage control has a great risk of having a much more than "ever-so-slight" effect on prices, and is likely to be overkill because keeping tabs on the wages of 100+ million Americans is a costly and complex endeavor.

[surviva316]

Tenure is in effect one of the anti-discrimination policies universities employ to combat the ageism you speak of, and it only serves to lower the quality and quantity of professors and increase the cost of education for everyone.

Tenure is not designed to combat discrimination. It is a completely different discussion since it has completely different intentions that have to do with some of the core bases of academia (publications, reputation, etc). Agree with it or disagree with it, it has nothing to do with agism.

And if you look at the American average income statistics for the elder age brackets, you'll see that the old are in no need of a subsidy.

I'm not arguing that they are in need of subsidy. The fact that they make more is the exact reason why the protection (supposedly) needs to exist.

It's not fair to use the "ever-so-slightly" treatment for the economic consequences but not the benefits to women. The income gap between equally qualified men and women in most fields is a very small percentage. In some fields women actually are higher. The jury isn't even in on whether this is a problem in America. It's one of those made up feminist issues that doesn't have concrete basis. So, to say that equalizing would pull women out of abject wage oppression is hyperbolic to say the least. On the other hand, any government wage control has a great risk of having a much more than "ever-so-slight" effect on prices, and is likely to be overkill because keeping tabs on the wages of 100+ million Americans is a costly and complex endeavor.

It is at least possible (though I admit to not having the data to back it up, I'm just arguing it on a logical basis) for the "ever-so-slightly" to go one way and not the other. The ever-so-slightly sub-optimal effect on employment refers to the risk that is taken on by hiring someone who's more likely to take maternity leave; the other half of the equation addresses any and all factors that might go into unequal pay, which can go well beyond maternity leave.

I realize there isn't a ton of meat in this post, so you don't need to feel the need to reply if you don't think there's much to rebut.

EDIT [post-kiwi's remarks]: Like with kiwi, I'm moreso just arguing against the premise you setup in the post I quoted earlier, which is why I'm sidestepping arguments about the statistics behind if there actually is wage disparity, etc. I'm just really getting at the fact that I disagree with the premise that so long as you can prove that Lily Ledbetter is bad for the economy, then given your premise, the moral considerations don't matter.