Feminism lowers pay rates ?
Peter Zohrab
rates, because more women working means a bigger labour force, and a bigger
labour force drives down pay-rates, by the law of supply and demand.
Also, the benefit to the individual household income if both partners work is
not necessarily very great, as there are often additional overheads, such as
extra transport and childcare costs.
I got a reply from a learned female economist (I myself am no economist), to
the effect that the extra income generated by the women working would generate
more demand for goods and services, and therefore generate more jobs and/or
higher-paid jobs.
I now think I was too quick to accept her point, though I did make some useful
points in reply.
I now realise that the extra income from women working is only a factor at the
individual household level -- it may be that individual households thereby
earn more income and spend (or invest) more, but at the macroeconomic level,
every woman who works is just taking away a job from some other person (male
or female) who would otherwise have that job.
It may be that some of the potential housewives in the workplace are better
qualified than some of the men or single women who would otherwise have these
jobs, and this may have some economic effect.
But it still seems to me, on the whole, that increasing the potential (not
actual) workforce by encouraging housewives to find paid work (as Feminists
do) must indeed have the effect of lowering the rates of pay that employers
are forced to offer in order to attract quality applicants for their jobs.
So I restate my point, which I think is an important one in the context of
Men's Rights and Feminism, in the hope that some economists will comment on
it.
Peter Zohrab
--
ASK ME FOR MY FREE INTERNATIONAL MEN'S RESOURCE-LIST AND/OR MEN'S ISSUES LIST
Two Rights of Man: 1. The right to equality with Woman;
2. The right to an equal say in how "equality" is interpreted.
A MAN'S GOT TO DO WHAT A MAN'S GOT TO DO -- BUT ... WOMEN CAN DO ANYTHING !
Paul Walker
says...
>In a previous thread, I discussed the possibility that Feminism lowers pay
>rates, because more women working means a bigger labour force, and a
>bigger labour force drives down pay-rates, by the law of supply and
>demand.
More of your anti-feminist propaganda petey? Well at least this time you
got something right...........your no economist!
What do you mean by 'payrates'? In the simple supply and demand model of
the labour market that you seem to want to use, the relevant price is the
real wage. This will decrease if there is a 'rightward' shift in the supply
curve. So what? My first year students can tell me this! What happens in a
second labour market in which labour is a complement to the labour in the
first market? Would not the decrease in the real wage in the first market
lend to an increase in demand in the second, thereby causing an increase in
the real wage in the second market? If the real wage is, however, decreased
would this not increase employment, decrease unemployment?
>Also, the benefit to the individual household income if both partners work
>is not necessarily very great, as there are often additional overheads,
>such as extra transport and childcare costs.
Maybe. But they could also make some savings, like on heating for example.
If you are at work you don't have to pay to heat your home. ( as the
university is finding out right now!!!)
>I got a reply from a learned female economist (I myself am no economist),
>to the effect that the extra income generated by the women working would
>generate more demand for goods and services, and therefore generate more
>jobs and/or higher-paid jobs.
>I now think I was too quick to accept her point, though I did make some
>useful points in reply.
What are these points?
>I now realise that the extra income from women working is only a factor at
>the individual household level
What does this mean? A factor of what?
>-- it may be that individual households thereby earn more income and spend
>(or invest) more,
If the women is getting more income then by definition the household of
which is apart must be getting more and they can only do two things with
it, spend it or save it.
>but at the macroeconomic level, every woman who works is just taking away
>a job from some other person (male or female) who would otherwise have
>that job.
If this is true at the macro level why is it not true at the micro? If this
is true for every woman who works is it also not true for every man that
works? What is the point here?
>It may be that some of the potential housewives in the workplace are
>better qualified than some of the men or single women who would otherwise
>have these jobs, and this may have some economic effect.
How? Why? What effects could it be having? From what you have said the
people who are best qualified to do the jobs have got the jobs, how can
this be bad? Is the value of their marginal product not the higher than the
others?
>But it still seems to me, on the whole, that increasing the potential (not
>actual) workforce by encouraging housewives to find paid work (as
>Feminists do) must indeed have the effect of lowering the rates of pay
>that employers are forced to offer in order to attract quality applicants
>for their jobs.
What are you going on about? Employers are being *forced* to offer *lower*
wages to attract quality applicants???????????
>So I restate my point,
Do! I can't understand it as it is.
> which I think is an important one in the context of Men's Rights and
>Feminism, in the hope that some economists will comment on it.
I have, but I can't see why.
Paul.
...........................................................
Paul Walker p.wa...@econ.canterbury.ac.nz
Department of Economics
University of Canterbury
Christchurch, New Zealand
bren...@richmond.infi.net
>In a previous thread, I discussed the possibility that Feminism lowers pay
>rates, because more women working means a bigger labour force, and a bigger
>labour force drives down pay-rates, by the law of supply and demand.
[Other stuff deleted to save space...]
>But it still seems to me, on the whole, that increasing the potential (not
>actual) workforce by encouraging housewives to find paid work (as Feminists
>do) must indeed have the effect of lowering the rates of pay that employers
>are forced to offer in order to attract quality applicants for their jobs.
>
>So I restate my point, which I think is an important one in the context of
>Men's Rights and Feminism, in the hope that some economists will comment on
>it.
>
>Peter Zohrab
I think it's irrelevant as to whether or not more women in the workforce would
raise or lower wages... basically, if a woman wishes to work, then she should
be able to work.
It isn't about men or women's rights... it's about the right of an individual to
do what the individual feels is best for him/herself, whether that individual be
white, black, indian, asian, hispanic, male, female, or anything else. The
highest common demoninator should be the individual, and that's it.
I've noticed a lot of posts that basically take the same boring "we've got to
protect this special interest group's rights" stance (whether that special
interest group be male, female, white, black, ad hominum, ad infinitum), and
it's divisive. The only way to stop discrimination is to oppose it everywhere
you see it, not by picking the fight you want to keep and ignoring all the others
to conserve your strenght or whatever. Sacrificing one groups rights (i.e., the
right of a housewife to work should she choose) to protect another groups rights
(i.e., the right of a man to work should he choose) is ridiculous.
Basically, if your standard of living is lowered because other groups of people
start exercising the same rights you've always had, it's probably because your
standard of living was artificially inflated - you had advantages because of
your gender (though I don't imply that you knowingly exploited them - just that
you have them - I have them too). One of the facts we will have to accept is
that if everyone is equal we aren't special just because we're male - just as I
must accept that I am not special just because I'm white - the only way to
define ourselves and separate ourselves from others is through our actions as
individuals.
*-------------------------------------------------
* Bren...@richmond.infi.net
* "We are all born originals - why do so many die copies?"
* (Edward Young)
*-------------------------------------------------
catherine bousquet
Zohrab) writes:
>
>In a previous thread, I discussed the possibility that Feminism lowers
pay
>rates, because more women working means a bigger labour force, and a
bigger
>labour force drives down pay-rates, by the law of supply and demand.
>
I suspect that you and admittedly many economists are working under
"outdated" precepts....New economic theory presupposes that the
technology variant , which in the past was viewed as random...is in
fact NOT random but quantifiably increases at a given rate. What does
this have to do with "supply / demand" ?? Well...think of
Microsoft---the number of creative people required to produce an
operating system ...compared to what is required to "stamp out" the
disks and ship them. The act of creation is increasingly the product,
and ability, intelligence, aptitude the requirements of the employed.
The larger the labor pool to select qualified candidates from---the
more US technology advances and we all win.
The "women ( or whoever) take away from men" is a fine maxim)--but only
for jobs that require no exceptional talents (hmm..like stamping out
disks ?) As the economy rapidly moves toward technology as a product,
our advancement will be tied to how successfully we encourage the best
and the brightest----not men or women or martians :))
See latest issue of FORBES FYI supplement for complete discussion by
leading economists :))
>
>So I restate my point, which I think is an important one in the
context of
>Men's Rights and Feminism, in the hope that some economists will
comment on
>it.
>
>Peter Zohrab
>
>
GES HU
>
>In <D9M3D...@actrix.gen.nz>, zohr...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Peter Zohrab)
writes:
>>In a previous thread, I discussed the possibility that Feminism lowers pay
>>rates, because more women working means a bigger labour force, and a bigger
>>labour force drives down pay-rates, by the law of supply and demand.
>
>
>>But it still seems to me, on the whole, that increasing the potential (not
>>actual) workforce by encouraging housewives to find paid work (as Feminists
>>do) must indeed have the effect of lowering the rates of pay that employers
>>are forced to offer in order to attract quality applicants for their jobs.
>>
>>Men's Rights and Feminism, in the hope that some economists will comment on
>>it.
>>
>>Peter Zohrab
>
>raise or lower wages... basically, if a woman wishes to work, then she should
>be able to work.
>
>It isn't about men or women's rights... it's about the right of an individual to
>do what the individual feels is best for him/herself, whether that individual be
>white, black, indian, asian, hispanic, male, female, or anything else. The
>highest common demoninator should be the individual, and that's it.
>
>I've noticed a lot of posts that basically take the same boring "we've got to
>protect this special interest group's rights" stance (whether that special
>interest group be male, female, white, black, ad hominum, ad infinitum), and
>it's divisive. The only way to stop discrimination is to oppose it everywhere
>you see it, not by picking the fight you want to keep and ignoring all the others
>to conserve your strenght or whatever. Sacrificing one groups rights (i.e., the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>right of a housewife to work should she choose) to protect another groups rights
>(i.e., the right of a man to work should he choose) is ridiculous.
>
>Basically, if your standard of living is lowered because other groups of people
>start exercising the same rights you've always had, it's probably because your
>standard of living was artificially inflated - you had advantages because of
>your gender (though I don't imply that you knowingly exploited them - just that
>you have them - I have them too). One of the facts we will have to accept is
>that if everyone is equal we aren't special just because we're male - just as I
>must accept that I am not special just because I'm white - the only way to
>define ourselves and separate ourselves from others is through our actions as
>individuals.
>
First off, to answer the question that was originally posed, which you chose to
sidestep and did not answer, yes, in my limitied opinion, I think women
in the workforce has served to lower pay of the individual because of
supply and demand.
This may or maynot be a direct relationship. I suspect it is nonlinear.
But what makes it worse, is that not only is pay lowered due to
increased competition for jobs, but inflation is increased because of
more money chasing goods...particularly in the housing market..so there
is sought of a double whammy here.
Should women be allowed to work, perhaps. I can think of arguments for
and against this. It depends on ones interpretation of society,
individualism and the common good. While it outwardly seems logical to
say, well women are individuals and as individuals they *should* be
allowed to work is like saying.. well , how about the draft, women are
individuals like men and should be drafted for active combat to the
extent men are. Why should the men only be selectively chosen to get
killed off because of their sex.
But in addition, my major gripe with feminism is that women have
selectively targeted those things they see as being benefits to them of
the man's world but have cleverly left behind some of the social
obligations that have gone with these benefits. For example, ask out.
Most american women still refuse to share equally in the asking process
to get relationships started in a 1)proactive and 2) self accountable
way yet they claim equality this and that on other fronts. Clever of
them since the rights *they* want are attachable by law but the social
obligations are not, at least in our society. Many of them that have
posted to former posts of mine on this topic hide behind the
smokescreen of 'well as individuals, we should be allowed to ask out
who we choose..duh, men can do the same'. How quaint. ges hu
GES HU
writes:
>
>In <D9M3D...@actrix.gen.nz> zohr...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Peter
>Zohrab) writes:
>>
>>In a previous thread, I discussed the possibility that Feminism lowers
>pay
>>rates, because more women working means a bigger labour force, and a
>bigger
>>labour force drives down pay-rates, by the law of supply and demand.
>>
>
>
>"outdated" precepts....New economic theory presupposes that the
>technology variant , which in the past was viewed as random...is in
>fact NOT random but quantifiably increases at a given rate. What does
>this have to do with "supply / demand" ?? Well...think of
>Microsoft---the number of creative people required to produce an
>operating system ...compared to what is required to "stamp out" the
>disks and ship them. The act of creation is increasingly the product,
>and ability, intelligence, aptitude the requirements of the employed.
>The larger the labor pool to select qualified candidates from---the
>more US technology advances and we all win.
>
>The "women ( or whoever) take away from men" is a fine maxim)--but only
>for jobs that require no exceptional talents (hmm..like stamping out
>disks ?) As the economy rapidly moves toward technology as a product,
>our advancement will be tied to how successfully we encourage the best
>and the brightest----not men or women or martians :))
>
>See latest issue of FORBES FYI supplement for complete discussion by
>leading economists :))
>
>
increases, not
only do 'men take away from men'..if you wanna look at it that way, but
technology will be taking away from men and women. I have noticed
programmer salaries going down in general. Why is this? Perhaps because
there are too many damned programmers. Increasingly many are coming
from other countries. And technology will permit exploitation of people
from lower paying countries by artificially making them available to
the labor pool. For example, who's to say someone in Ireland can't dial
in via modem to an American company and create programs. I think most
of the financial benefits regarding technology will
accrue to the stock holders that own the right companies and to the
chief officers of the companies that realize the productivity gains. I
see it where I work. Increased productivity leads to fewer people
needed to do the job leads to layoffs leads to low if any salary
increases for employees and big bonanza raises for the CEO. Our ceo
gave himselve 27% last year on top of his friggin millions.
How does it feel to be an employee and be fed the company line day
after day, being encouraged to be a 'good' and productive
employee...then get your 2% if anything or being told you make too much
relative 'to the market' and not be given a raise and then to see your
bold leader get 27%. This is pure shit and seems rampant in America. I
don't see technology helping the common folk. Rather I see it taking
away jobs. Any new jobs it creates will probably be fewer and limited
to those who have been trained, like perhaps new college graduates. I
have noticed that many companies shy away from hiring perhaps qualified
people who just happen to come from 'another' industry and don't have
'industry' experience. ges hu
GES HU
writes:
>
>In a previous thread, I discussed the possibility that Feminism lowers pay
>rates, because more women working means a bigger labour force, and a bigger
>labour force drives down pay-rates, by the law of supply and demand.
>
>not necessarily very great, as there are often additional overheads, such as
>extra transport and childcare costs.
>
>the effect that the extra income generated by the women working would generate
>more demand for goods and services, and therefore generate more jobs and/or
>higher-paid jobs.
however did she mention the inflationary effect it would have..especially on home
prices. Two married people usually still occupy only one house. Now with more
family income available , more money is available to chase houses, as well as
other goods. ges hu
>
>I now think I was too quick to accept her point, though I did make some useful
>points in reply.
>
>I now realise that the extra income from women working is only a factor at the
>individual household level -- it may be that individual households thereby
>earn more income and spend (or invest) more, but at the macroeconomic level,
>every woman who works is just taking away a job from some other person (male
>or female) who would otherwise have that job.
>
>It may be that some of the potential housewives in the workplace are
better
>qualified than some of the men or single women who would otherwise
have these
>jobs, and this may have some economic effect.
maybe maybe not. what about affirmative action that gives jobs to women
and minorities even if they are less qualified? ges hu
>
>But it still seems to me, on the whole, that increasing the potential
(not
>actual) workforce by encouraging housewives to find paid work (as
Feminists
>do) must indeed have the effect of lowering the rates of pay that
employers
>are forced to offer in order to attract quality applicants for their
jobs.
>
i agree. ges hu
>So I restate my point, which I think is an important one in the
context of
>Men's Rights and Feminism, in the hope that some economists will
comment on
>it.
>
>Peter Zohrab
>
>
Arinna
>I now realise that the extra income from women working is only a factor at the
>individual household level -- it may be that individual households thereby
>earn more income and spend (or invest) more, but at the macroeconomic level,
>every woman who works is just taking away a job from some other person (male
>or female) who would otherwise have that job.
>
>It may be that some of the potential housewives in the workplace are better
>qualified than some of the men or single women who would otherwise have these
>jobs, and this may have some economic effect.
>
>But it still seems to me, on the whole, that increasing the potential (not
>actual) workforce by encouraging housewives to find paid work (as Feminists
>do) must indeed have the effect of lowering the rates of pay that employers
>are forced to offer in order to attract quality applicants for their jobs.
>
>So I restate my point, which I think is an important one in the context of
>Men's Rights and Feminism, in the hope that some economists will comment on
>it.
>
Perhaps if housework were paid work as it should be, then feminists would
not be encouraging women to find work outside the home. It's a form of
family socialism isn't it, to expect women to contribute for the good
of the family without any right to claim a salary for their work. This
leaves the woman at the mercy of the man in the family who owns and
controls the monetary wealth. It is the exact paralell of communism where
the state controls and distributes the wealth and the citizens work for the
good of the state.
You seem to be suggesting that housewives should contribute their work for
free for the good of the family and ultimately the State because by doing
so they will open up more higher paying jobs for men and single women
and allow them to enjoy the real benefits of capitalism.
Using communism to make capitalism work is kind of hypocritical, don't you
think?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Arinna~~~~~~~
Peter Zohrab
> In <D9M3D...@actrix.gen.nz>, zohr...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Peter Zohrab) writes:
> >In a previous thread, I discussed the possibility that Feminism lowers pay
> >rates, because more women working means a bigger labour force, and a bigger
> >labour force drives down pay-rates, by the law of supply and demand.
>
>
> >actual) workforce by encouraging housewives to find paid work (as Feminists
> >do) must indeed have the effect of lowering the rates of pay that employers
> >are forced to offer in order to attract quality applicants for their jobs.
> >
> >So I restate my point, which I think is an important one in the context of
> >Men's Rights and Feminism, in the hope that some economists will comment on
> >it.
> >
>
> I think it's irrelevant as to whether or not more women in the workforce would
> raise or lower wages... basically, if a woman wishes to work, then she should
> be able to work.
>
possible I might argue that in a different context). I'm glad you actually
come round to talking on the topic lower down the "page".
> It isn't about men or women's rights... it's about the right of an individual to
> do what the individual feels is best for him/herself, whether that individual be
> white, black, indian, asian, hispanic, male, female, or anything else. The
> highest common demoninator should be the individual, and that's it.
You're very idealistic, but it's not that simple. People's rights often
conflict with other people's rights, and society makes choices -- that's what
politics is all about.
>
> I've noticed a lot of posts that basically take the same boring "we've got to
> protect this special interest group's rights" stance (whether that special
> interest group be male, female, white, black, ad hominum, ad infinitum), and
> it's divisive. The only way to stop discrimination is to oppose it everywhere
> you see it, not by picking the fight you want to keep and ignoring all the others
> to conserve your strenght or whatever.
I like your point. I plead guilty to the "crime" you've just described.
Again, you're just too idealistic. No one has the time or energy to do what
you suggest.
Sacrificing one groups rights (i.e., the
> right of a housewife to work should she choose) to protect another groups rights
> (i.e., the right of a man to work should he choose) is ridiculous.
Now we're getting down to the nitty gritty. First of all, Feminists have long
been putting pressure on housewives to feel they *ought* to be working for
payment outside the home.
Secondly, there just aren't that many jobs around (Have you ever heard of
"unemployment" ? -- excuse the sarcasm). So there has to be competition for
those jobs. That includes competition between men and women. And Society is
entitled -- no, Society *has* to consider whether it is better to have Mr. and
Mrs. Smith both working, and Mr. Jones (with a wife and six kids, say)
unemployed -- or Mr. Smith working, Mrs. Smith at home giving her kids a
quality upbringing, and Mr. Jones in work (or some other combination, if you
like).
>
> Basically, if your standard of living is lowered because other groups of people
> start exercising the same rights you've always had, it's probably because your
> standard of living was artificially inflated - you had advantages because of
> your gender (though I don't imply that you knowingly exploited them - just that
> you have them - I have them too). One of the facts we will have to accept is
> that if everyone is equal we aren't special just because we're male - just as I
> must accept that I am not special just because I'm white - the only way to
> define ourselves and separate ourselves from others is through our actions as
> individuals.
You state your point well, but it ignores some important points.
1. Men have never (except in communist countries) had the right to a job --
only the right to *look for* a job.
2. If the population of your home town suddenly doubled because of the influx
of refugees from some other region or country, and you lost your job because
they were willing to work harder for less money than you, would that mean your
standard of living had been artificially inflated ?
3. If your country decided to let Bangla Desh become the 51st State (I assume
you're from the USA), and wage rates in the rest of the USA suddenly were
halved because of the sudden influx onto the mainland of poor job-seekers from
that new state, would that mean that your standard of living previously had
been artificially high ?
4. Having a job, for men, is not some sort of privilege. Being able to stay
at home as a kept woman seems fairly privileged to me. Of course, some women
have managed to make a big moan about the life of a housewife, but women are
very ready to moan, and Society is very quick to sympathise with women's
problems (not with men's). But if you think life in the ratrace is much
better than life as a housewife, then I think you live on some other planet.
>
> *-------------------------------------------------
> * Bren...@richmond.infi.net
> * "We are all born originals - why do so many die copies?"
> * (Edward Young)
> *-------------------------------------------------
Peter Zohrab>
Peter Zohrab
Paul Walker <p.wa...@econ.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> In article <D9M3D...@actrix.gen.nz>, zohr...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz
>
>
> >In a previous thread, I discussed the possibility that Feminism lowers pay
> >rates, because more women working means a bigger labour force, and a
> >bigger labour force drives down pay-rates, by the law of supply and
> >demand.
>
> got something right...........your no economist!
And you haven't learned how to spell.
>
> What do you mean by 'payrates'? In the simple supply and demand model of
> the labour market that you seem to want to use, the relevant price is the
> real wage. This will decrease if there is a 'rightward' shift in the supply
> curve. So what? My first year students can tell me this! What happens in a
> second labour market in which labour is a complement to the labour in the
> first market? Would not the decrease in the real wage in the first market
> lend to an increase in demand in the second, thereby causing an increase in
> the real wage in the second market? If the real wage is, however, decreased
> would this not increase employment, decrease unemployment?
Fascinating ! But this is not relevant in the current context, unless you
mean to claim that any increase in real wage in "second markets" would cancel
out any decrease in real wages in "first markets" across the whole of a real
economy in the real world. Do you claim that ?
>
> >Also, the benefit to the individual household income if both partners work
> >is not necessarily very great, as there are often additional overheads,
> >such as extra transport and childcare costs.
>
> Maybe. But they could also make some savings, like on heating for example.
> If you are at work you don't have to pay to heat your home. ( as the
> university is finding out right now!!!)
>
> >I got a reply from a learned female economist (I myself am no economist),
> >to the effect that the extra income generated by the women working would
> >generate more demand for goods and services, and therefore generate more
> >jobs and/or higher-paid jobs.
>
> >I now think I was too quick to accept her point, though I did make some
> >useful points in reply.
>
> What are these points?
The main one was, as I recall, that many firms would have slack capacity, so
that increased demand for their output would not automatically be translated
into extra jobs in any direct or linear fashion.>
>
>I now realise that the extra income from women working is only a factor at
> >the individual household level
>
> What does this mean? A factor of what?
A factor, an issue, a consideration, a possibility, an occurrence.>
> >-- it may be that individual households thereby earn more income and spend
> >(or invest) more,
>
> If the women is getting more income then by definition the household of
> which is apart must be getting more and they can only do two things with
> it, spend it or save it.
>
> >but at the macroeconomic level, every woman who works is just taking away
> >a job from some other person (male or female) who would otherwise have
> >that job.
>
> If this is true at the macro level why is it not true at the micro? If this
> is true for every woman who works is it also not true for every man that
> works? What is the point here?
One of us is being dense. If I work and my partner doesn't, and then she
suddenly goes out and gets a job, then our household income is increased, to
some extent, depending on overheads, etc.. But her getting that job and that
income does not necessarily affect the economy as a whole, because, if she
didn't have that job and that income, then someone else would have it (who
otherwise might be unemployed, or holding down another job that an unemployed
person would otherwise have, and so on down the job-chain) -- whether she or
someone else does the spending and/or investing does not affect the economy as
a whole.
>
> >But it still seems to me, on the whole, that increasing the potential (not
> >actual) workforce by encouraging housewives to find paid work (as
> >Feminists do) must indeed have the effect of lowering the rates of pay
> >that employers are forced to offer in order to attract quality applicants
> >for their jobs.
>
> What are you going on about? Employers are being *forced* to offer *lower*
> wages to attract quality applicants???????????
Talk about spelling things out ! "lowering the pay-rates that attracting
quality applicants forces on employers". Jeez !! Do you want me to write in
some other language, if you find my English so hard to follow !
>
> >So I restate my point,
>
> Do! I can't understand it as it is.
>
> > which I think is an important one in the context of Men's Rights and
> >Feminism, in the hope that some economists will comment on it.
>
> I have, but I can't see why.
You missed the earlier discussion, which didn't help, but I really do wish
you'd hire someone to do your thinking for you !
>
> Paul.
>
>
> ...........................................................
> Paul Walker p.wa...@econ.canterbury.ac.nz
> Department of Economics
> University of Canterbury
> Christchurch, New Zealand
>
catherine bousquet
(prior cut to conserve space)
I do not disagree with you regarding technology enabling global
competition for jobs etc. But I do disagree with your point that this
is a bad / negative thing. The person best qualified to do the job
will be the one hired...at non-inflated salaries. While I admit that
this will wreak some havoc with "entitlement mentality" as we know
it....I view that as a good thing.
Those not afraid to compete in a global marketplace will succeed---the
talented, the risk takers and be rewarded. Those who choose to sit and
wait to be "provided for" and given what they deserve...will remain on
the bottom rungs of the new economy. No different than the law of the
jungle :)) Obviously , some measure of social programs ( the ever
favorite take from those who succeed maxim) will insure the bottom is
far higher than what we allow today. I have faith that US citizens can
compete effectively and will---- then there will be those who whine
about "not fair" ....those who believe in "equal results" not "equal
opportunity" .
James Buster
>zohr...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Peter Zohrab) writes:
>I am no economist either, but there seem to be some fairly obvious flaws
>in your argument. Your view of the labour market seems to be very
>simplistic. As your learned female economist friend pointed out, women
>joining the workforce also creates greater demand for goods and services.
>If this is true, then obviously this demand creates more jobs.
Until extra demand soaks up excess production capacity, no extra jobs are
created. Also, having money does not by itself increase demand. You might
instead choose to buy the same number of more expensive goods, which
just shifts demand to another part of the economy (you might want an
expensive German luxury car instead of a Toyota, for example).
--
James Buster
bit...@netcom.com
bren...@richmond.infi.net
>First off, to answer the question that was originally posed, which you chose to
>sidestep and did not answer, yes, in my limitied opinion, I think women
>in the workforce has served to lower pay of the individual because of
>supply and demand.
I wasn't intentionally sidestepping it - my response was that it is unimportant.
To say "women are reducing the pay in the workforce so they shouldn't work"
is not a valid argument against women in the workforce for the reasons I gave
in my post. It's like saying we shouldn't let minorities in the workplace
because they take jobs away from white people.
>This may or maynot be a direct relationship. I suspect it is nonlinear.
>But what makes it worse, is that not only is pay lowered due to
>increased competition for jobs, but inflation is increased because of
>more money chasing goods...particularly in the housing market..so there
>is sought of a double whammy here.
I could be flip and say that the housing market problem would be solved if we
all claimed squatters rights, but I know that's not adding to the discussion so
I'll refrain. In a completely free market this would not be a problem because
when new people enter the workforce there is new demand for goods - people
who earn want to spend. People who do not earn depend on others to spend for
them so are not able to purchase as much.
>Should women be allowed to work, perhaps. I can think of arguments for
>and against this. It depends on ones interpretation of society,
>individualism and the common good.
I just wanted to comment on this point first. I am an anarcho-individualist, I
feel the individual is much more important that society because society is an
artificial construct and the individual is real. I society is endangered by an
individual wanting to be an individual, then the society needs to be rethought.
>While it outwardly seems logical to
>say, well women are individuals and as individuals they *should* be
>allowed to work is like saying.. well , how about the draft, women are
>individuals like men and should be drafted for active combat to the
>extent men are. Why should the men only be selectively chosen to get
>killed off because of their sex.
Women are not drafted because men don't want them to be. In my view,
nobody should be drafted - it's legalized slavery.
>But in addition, my major gripe with feminism is that women have
>selectively targeted those things they see as being benefits to them of
>the man's world but have cleverly left behind some of the social
>obligations that have gone with these benefits. For example, ask out.
>Most american women still refuse to share equally in the asking process
>to get relationships started in a 1)proactive and 2) self accountable
>way yet they claim equality this and that on other fronts.
I agree there are feminists who 1) want cake and 2) eat it too but this is not
an excuse for ignoring the basic things they say (women and men are equal is I
think the most distilled version of it). You can't deny all women equality
simply because some women want priveleges of equality and priveleges of being
a coddled slave as well. You simply refuse to meet those women on their
and assert YOURSELF as an individual!
>Clever of
>them since the rights *they* want are attachable by law but the social
>obligations are not, at least in our society. Many of them that have
>posted to former posts of mine on this topic hide behind the
>smokescreen of 'well as individuals, we should be allowed to ask out
>who we choose..duh, men can do the same'. How quaint. ges hu
I can't really comment on rights under the law, since I'm an anarchist, and yes
it would be nice if more women would ask men out, but again, just because
some women expect you to treat them both ways doesn't mean you have to...
and more importantly, it doesn't mean ALL women feel that way.
David Kay
> [some introductory stuff]
>
>I now realise that the extra income from women working is only a factor at the
>individual household level -- it may be that individual households thereby
>earn more income and spend (or invest) more, but at the macroeconomic level,
>every woman who works is just taking away a job from some other person (male
>or female) who would otherwise have that job.
I am no economist either, but there seem to be some fairly obvious flaws
in your argument. Your view of the labour market seems to be very
simplistic. As your learned female economist friend pointed out, women
joining the workforce also creates greater demand for goods and services.
If this is true, then obviously this demand creates more jobs.
>It may be that some of the potential housewives in the workplace are better
>qualified than some of the men or single women who would otherwise have these
>jobs, and this may have some economic effect.
Like maybe increasing competitiveness, raising the standards of training
and qualification in the workforce. Which in turn could provide a boost
to the economy and create new jobs. And these days, isn't competition
everything?
>But it still seems to me, on the whole, that increasing the potential (not
>actual) workforce by encouraging housewives to find paid work (as Feminists
>do) must indeed have the effect of lowering the rates of pay that employers
>are forced to offer in order to attract quality applicants for their jobs.
This is based upon your assumptions above, which are not necessarily true.
If economics were only as simple as you theories. My point is not really
that any of my comments above are necessarily true, but that economic
theories, like statistics, can be used to show just about anything if they
are misused. And unqualified people like you and I can only misuse them.
Even trained economists seem to be pretty lost these days.
>So I restate my point, which I think is an important one in the context of
>Men's Rights and Feminism, in the hope that some economists will comment on
>it.
Why is it important to "Men's Rights". Do men have some sort of inherent
claim to employment that women do not have? If not, then the question of
the economic effect of women joining the workforce is, in fact, irrelevant.
David Kay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kay's paradox: If the human intellect has been evolving for millions of
years, how do we explain creation "science"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Buster
>I think it's irrelevant as to whether or not more women in the workforce would
>raise or lower wages... basically, if a woman wishes to work, then she should
>be able to work.
Well, its rather more complicated than that. If she wishes to work, *and*
there is a job available in the field she desires, *and* she is more qualified
than the other applicants, *then* she should be able to work.
--
James Buster
bit...@netcom.com
bren...@richmond.infi.net
(This is an excerpt from my post, to put it in perspective)
>>I wasn't intentionally sidestepping it - my response was that it is unimportant.
>>To say "women are reducing the pay in the workforce so they shouldn't work"
>>is not a valid argument against women in the workforce for the reasons I gave
>>in my post. It's like saying we shouldn't let minorities in the workplace
>>because they take jobs away from white people.
(and ges hu responds)
>I agree with you and see your point. I was just pointing out that the question
>was 'have women entering the work force served to lower pay'. The question wasn't
>do they deserve to be in the work force. The two are different. I think they
>have. I also think that it has resulted in inflation regarding certain items.
>so what? I don't know. ges hu
Ok, the two basic questions are different, but posting "women in the workforce tends to
lead to inflation by lowering the common wage" in alt.politics.correct, alt.discrimination,
alt.feminazis, etc., tends to lead one to naturally develop a relationship between the
two. So I apologize if I actually twisted the slant of the original posting, but I feel the
original question naturally raises the issues I was addressing. So I addressed 'em.
>>I could be flip and say that the housing market problem would be solved if we
>>all claimed squatters rights, but I know that's not adding to the discussion so
>>I'll refrain. In a completely free market this would not be a problem because
>>when new people enter the workforce there is new demand for goods - people
>>who earn want to spend. People who do not earn depend on others to spend for
>>them so are not able to purchase as much.
>Right. But if you now have a bunch of 2 earner families, there is more money
>available to buy the existing homes (from man and from woman). Usually the market
>adjusts to such a situation my raising the price of the item in question (in this
>case the house). Because Family units could afford to spend more. However, single
>men get screwed in this process. ges hu
Ah... you are assuming you are buying a house from only one source. There would be
many sources competing for the increased population of consumers... ALL of them, and
if one source has high prices, it's certain another source will lower theirs to better
compete.
Note that I am using a completely free market as my model - which isn't what we have
right at the moment, exactly.
>>>Should women be allowed to work, perhaps. I can think of arguments for
>>>and against this. It depends on ones interpretation of society,
>>>individualism and the common good.
>>
>>I just wanted to comment on this point first. I am an anarcho-individualist, I
>>feel the individual is much more important that society because society is an
>>artificial construct and the individual is real. I society is endangered by an
>>individual wanting to be an individual, then the society needs to be rethought.
>
>This is very difficult and philosophical topic. I am sure books have been written
>on it. Perhaps it also depends on the size of the society we are dealing with.
>Perhaps there is a critical mass beyond which individuals have to yield to the
>common good. One thing that makes the individualist approach fall apart is the
>direct independancies we have with each other in a big society. Where do you get
>your food. In the market. Did you hunt that chicken or did you depend on someone
>else to raise it? It all depends. ges hu
What is common good? There is not dictate among individualists that we cannot
cooperate. Is a big society necessary? Not really, since big societies tend to ignore
a large minority of its citizens. An individual doesn't have to do everything, barter and
trade are perfectly legitimate means of ensuring survival.
>>>While it outwardly seems logical to
>>>say, well women are individuals and as individuals they *should* be
>>>allowed to work is like saying.. well , how about the draft, women are
>>>individuals like men and should be drafted for active combat to the
>>>extent men are. Why should the men only be selectively chosen to get
>>>killed off because of their sex.
>>
>>Women are not drafted because men don't want them to be. In my view,
>>nobody should be drafted - it's legalized slavery.
>
>again it depends. Regarding Vietnam, I agree. Regarding fighting for some other
>countries rights, I agree. But what if the bombs started falling here and you had
>nowhere else to go? What then? ges hu
I have no problems with volunteers to fight. If someone directly attacked the home in
which an individual was living, I suspect a great many of us would fight back. Some
wouldn't, they'd run. Some individuals would be willing to volunteer for armed conflicts
overseas. I suspect had I been alive during WWII, I would have volunteered to fight.
Probably would have come home in a box, too... survival is not my most developed
trait... :)
>>I agree there are feminists who 1) want cake and 2) eat it too but this is not
>>an excuse for ignoring the basic things they say (women and men are equal is I
>>think the most distilled version of it). You can't deny all women equality
>>simply because some women want priveleges of equality and priveleges of being
>>a coddled slave as well. You simply refuse to meet those women on their
>>and assert YOURSELF as an individual!
>This sounds all well and good, but my experience suggest that well over 90% of
>women fit your last definition above. Men in america have the option to
>ask
>or remain alone. Women have the option to ask, be alone or be asked.
>Most of them opt to be asked. How does a man assert himself as an
>individual without doing all the asking and not remain alone. Acting
>like a hoosy (i made that up) doesn't buy it. ges hu
I'd be willing to agree, tentatively, that a great number of women may feel that way.
However, I do not think that a majority of women, in the US at least, are feminists.
Women's liberation has suffered from a lot of media coverage of some 'out there'
people (well, I consider them out there, but that's because I don't like them :) ). Most
women today, in my view, are not feminists - but they reap the benefits of the gains
feminists have made without making any effort to try and futher those gains. If you
were to see how many actual feminists did what you were complaining about, I would
be willing to bet the number was substantially smaller - though not non-existent.
>>>Clever of
>>>them since the rights *they* want are attachable by law but the
>social
>>>obligations are not, at least in our society. Many of them that have
>>>posted to former posts of mine on this topic hide behind the
>>>smokescreen of 'well as individuals, we should be allowed to ask out
>>>who we choose..duh, men can do the same'. How quaint. ges hu
>>
>>I can't really comment on rights under the law, since I'm an
>anarchist, and yes
>>it would be nice if more women would ask men out, but again, just
>because
>>some women expect you to treat them both ways doesn't mean you have
>to...
>>and more importantly, it doesn't mean ALL women feel that way.
>Of course a man doesn't have to treat them that way, but usually such a
>man remains alone. A woman acting the same way gets asked and has
>options. This is a verrry unbalanced situation here. And such
>situations are usually met by dysfunctional reaction. ges hu
As to this, it depends on the crowd you run with. I have quite a few female friends who
have very forceful personalities, and they have no problems 'asking guys out'. They
have, however, run into problems - a lot of guys get offended if they get asked out by
girls, according to my friends experiences (and some of my own observations).
I really don't think this is something you can blame entirely on women. While you and
I may like/want/be flattered if women ask us out, we are the minority among men: most
other men feel funny about it, feel that as "The Man" they have to be the aggressor. Just
more proof that yes, stupidy runs rampant in both sexes.
Vincent Patrick
>Secondly, there just aren't that many jobs around (Have you ever heard of
>"unemployment" ? -- excuse the sarcasm). So there has to be competition for
>those jobs. That includes competition between men and women. And Society is
>entitled -- no, Society *has* to consider whether it is better to have Mr. and
>Mrs. Smith both working, and Mr. Jones (with a wife and six kids, say)
>unemployed -- or Mr. Smith working, Mrs. Smith at home giving her kids a
>quality upbringing, and Mr. Jones in work (or some other combination, if you
>like).
>Peter Zohrab>
Peter, your discussion with W.Brennan has been most interesting, and
highlights areas which do not appear to get the public recognition they
deserve.
Your Smith and Jones households paragraph really does illustrate how
feminism is a form of giving to the privileged and taking from the less
lucky families in our society. The privileged (those with a good
education and able to get the best jobs) push out the less privileged
much more when there are both partners working. We can see the results
already in Australia, where the rich get richer and the poor get even
more impoverished.
The thing I find surprising is that so many feminists claim to be
basically left wing / socialist and supporters of the underdog, when the
policies they espouse create a greater divide between rich and poor.
Regards
Vincent Patrick
vpat...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
Carol Ann Hemingway
>The thing I find surprising is that so many feminists claim to be
>basically left wing / socialist and supporters of the underdog, when
the>policies they espouse create a greater divide between rich and
poor.
>
>Regards
>
>Vincent Patrick
>vpat...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
>
policy which enables them to obtain freedom thru equality is not so
surprising to most of us. The fact that the freedom comes at a price
of upsetting the status quo is never a new ploy to seekers of freedom.
Everyone who has studied economics knows that Marx's dialectical
materialism is about cycles and new results. Change is not always a
negative thing, and economic cycles do not threaten our economy; they
are a part of all economies. Do I believe that feminism lowers pay
rates, not for a minute!
LeftyLu
catherine bousquet
Patrick) writes:
>zohr...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Peter Zohrab) writes:
>
>>Secondly, there just aren't that many jobs around (Have you ever
heard of
>>"unemployment" ? -- excuse the sarcasm). So there has to be
competition for
>>those jobs. That includes competition between men and women. And
Society is
>>entitled -- no, Society *has* to consider whether it is better to
have Mr. and
>>Mrs. Smith both working, and Mr. Jones (with a wife and six kids,
say)
>>unemployed -- or Mr. Smith working, Mrs. Smith at home giving her
kids a
>>quality upbringing, and Mr. Jones in work (or some other combination,
if you
>>like).
>
>
>Peter, your discussion with W.Brennan has been most interesting, and
>highlights areas which do not appear to get the public recognition
they
>deserve.
This I agree with....interesting discussion !!
>
>Your Smith and Jones households paragraph really does illustrate how
>feminism is a form of giving to the privileged and taking from the
less
>lucky families in our society. The privileged (those with a good
>education and able to get the best jobs) push out the less privileged
>much more when there are both partners working. We can see the
results
>already in Australia, where the rich get richer and the poor get even
>more impoverished.
>
This is where the agreement ends..sorry. With all the egalitarian
programs that exist at the current time---the playing field is being
leveled and the "lucky" as you put it are the talented/competitive/
achievers willing to take risks to succeed. Society does not OWE
anyone a job....you earn / qualify for it---- The fact that one person
is more talented or educated than another should increase
competitiveness ....not a whine for entitlement programs.
I apologize if Australia is not as "into leveling the playing field" as
the USA is....In fact we have gone too far---
>The thing I find surprising is that so many feminists claim to be
>basically left wing / socialist and supporters of the underdog, when
the
>policies they espouse create a greater divide between rich and poor.
>
Perhaps by espousing values of hard work and competitiveness they have
indirectly caused an economic divide...However, nowhere will you find
stronger support for women's health issues (all economic levels), and
the basic rights of women to control their own destinies.
>Regards
>
>Vincent Patrick
>vpat...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
>
David Meyers
Now we're getting down to the nitty gritty.
First of all, Feminists have long
been putting pressure on housewives to feel they *ought* to be working for
payment outside the home.
So have husbands who like the higher houshold income.
Come to think of it, so, too have housewives long pushed
their husbands to work outside the home.
There is lots of social pressure to do all sorts of things.
Big deal.
Secondly, there just aren't that many jobs around (Have you ever heard of
All the more reason to make sure they go to the most qualified
people -- regardless of sex,race,etc.
Society *has* to consider whether it is better to have Mr. and
Mrs. Smith both working, and Mr. Jones (with a wife and six kids, say)
unemployed -- or Mr. Smith working, Mrs. Smith at home giving her kids a
quality upbringing, and Mr. Jones in work (or some other combination, if you
like).
"Society"? Do you mean _you_? Or the ever-loving paternalistic
State? You are assuming not only that someone is qualified to make
these decisions, but that someone ought to be given that POWER,
too. I don't trust the State to decide who ought to do what.
I trust you even less. The employer is the best qualified to
decide who is best capable of doing a given job. In you example,
perhaps Mr. Jones really _needs_ a job, and Mr. and Mrs. Smith
could live off either of their income. The problem is -- is
Mr. Jones qualified or capable of doing either Mr. or Mrs. Smith's
job? If not, you would be forcing Mrs. (why not Mr.?) Smith
to not work, and it wouldn't do a damn bit of good for Mr. Jones.
The point is that it is none of your business.
1. Men have never (except in communist countries) had the right to a job --
only the right to *look for* a job.
Something I can agree with! (I'd nearly given up hope for you!)
2. If the population of your home town suddenly doubled because of the influx
of refugees from some other region or country, and you lost your job because
they were willing to work harder for less money than you, would that mean your
standard of living had been artificially inflated ?
Yes, if your standard of living is being propped up by
violating the rights of other to *look for* a job. You
have no right to prohibit others from working. (Unless
it is your company, and you are the one choosing to not
hire them -- in which case, they still have the right
to try to get a job from another employer).
4. Having a job, for men, is not some sort of privilege. Being able to stay
at home as a kept woman seems fairly privileged to me. Of course, some women
It is no just "being _able_". You are talking about _forcing_
them to not work. What gives you that right?
And if you are not talking about forcing others to not work,
the entire discussion is pointless.
But if you think life in the ratrace is much
better than life as a housewife, then I think you live on
some other planet.
Ever been a housewife?
--D
"In any case, C must have some merit, otherwise Perl
wouldn't have been written in it. :-)" - Peter Bruells
bren...@richmond.infi.net
>> It isn't about men or women's rights... it's about the right of an individual to
>> do what the individual feels is best for him/herself, whether that individual be
>> white, black, indian, asian, hispanic, male, female, or anything else. The
>> highest common demoninator should be the individual, and that's it.
(That was me.) :)
>You're very idealistic, but it's not that simple. People's rights often
>conflict with other people's rights, and society makes choices -- that's what
>politics is all about.
I don't believe what I said was simple. However, 'society' is an artificial
ideal, and if an artificial ideal is enforced on a real individual so that the
ideal is protected and the individual hindered, it's time to clean house.
>>
>> I've noticed a lot of posts that basically take the same boring "we've got to
>> protect this special interest group's rights" stance (whether that special
>> interest group be male, female, white, black, ad hominum, ad infinitum), and
>> it's divisive. The only way to stop discrimination is to oppose it everywhere
>> you see it, not by picking the fight you want to keep and ignoring all the others
>> to conserve your strenght or whatever.
(That was me, too). :)
>I like your point. I plead guilty to the "crime" you've just described.
>Again, you're just too idealistic. No one has the time or energy to do what
>you suggest.
Yes they do. I'm not saying join every movement and organization that exists.
I'm just saying when you live your live, hold yourself to the highest standard
possible, and don't quit just because you mess up (hint: you will). I suppose
that's idealistic, and I suppose ideals are unrealistic, but I don't believe in
letting a little thing like reality get in my way. :)
>
> Sacrificing one groups rights (i.e., the
>> right of a housewife to work should she choose) to protect another groups rights
>> (i.e., the right of a man to work should he choose) is ridiculous.
>
>Now we're getting down to the nitty gritty. First of all, Feminists have long
>been putting pressure on housewives to feel they *ought* to be working for
>payment outside the home.
Yes, and I oppose that most strongly - IF the housewife wants and freely
chooses to be a housewife. I know some people who have freely made that
choice, and I respect them for it. There is nothing at all wrong with choosing
to raise your children.
>Secondly, there just aren't that many jobs around (Have you ever heard of
>"unemployment" ? -- excuse the sarcasm).
Sarcasm excuses. I've been known to dabble myself.
> So there has to be competition for
>those jobs. That includes competition between men and women. And Society is
>entitled -- no, Society *has* to consider whether it is better to have Mr. and
>Mrs. Smith both working, and Mr. Jones (with a wife and six kids, say)
>unemployed -- or Mr. Smith working, Mrs. Smith at home giving her kids a
>quality upbringing, and Mr. Jones in work (or some other combination, if you
>like).
Yes... there will be competition. This is not necessarilly a bad thing. However
this competition need not be to everyone's detriment. There is a lot of
unemployment in this country because the govt wants to control the economy -
therefore, it is difficult for someone to go out and "start their own thing"
due to zoning laws, fees, licencing, etc. This must be changed.
Which sort of goes with my point that we can't just focus on one issue. Most
problems are related in some way with all the other problems. We have to
tackle them all, and acknowledge that they all exist.
Is this idealistc? Probably. Does it happen? Not yet, anyway. Am I cynical?
You bet. (Can't tell, can you?)
>>
>> Basically, if your standard of living is lowered because other groups of people
>> start exercising the same rights you've always had, it's probably because your
>> standard of living was artificially inflated - you had advantages because of
>> your gender (though I don't imply that you knowingly exploited them - just that
>> you have them - I have them too). One of the facts we will have to accept is
>> that if everyone is equal we aren't special just because we're male - just as I
>> must accept that I am not special just because I'm white - the only way to
>> define ourselves and separate ourselves from others is through our actions as
>> individuals.
>
>You state your point well, but it ignores some important points.
>
>1. Men have never (except in communist countries) had the right to a job --
>only the right to *look for* a job.
Ok.
>2. If the population of your home town suddenly doubled because of the influx
>of refugees from some other region or country, and you lost your job because
>they were willing to work harder for less money than you, would that mean your
>standard of living had been artificially inflated ?
I wasn't referring to that. However, if you try to keep your standard of living
by denying other people a chance to achieve something similar, then YOU ARE
ARTIFICAILLY KEEPING YOUR STANDARD OF LIVING INTACT.
>3. If your country decided to let Bangla Desh become the 51st State (I assume
>you're from the USA), and wage rates in the rest of the USA suddenly were
>halved because of the sudden influx onto the mainland of poor job-seekers from
>that new state, would that mean that your standard of living previously had
>been artificially high ?
It would be artifically high if you tried to keep the job-seekers from seeking.
>4. Having a job, for men, is not some sort of privilege. Being able to stay
>at home as a kept woman seems fairly privileged to me. Of course, some women
>have managed to make a big moan about the life of a housewife, but women are
>very ready to moan, and Society is very quick to sympathise with women's
>problems (not with men's). But if you think life in the ratrace is much
>better than life as a housewife, then I think you live on some other planet.
Having a job is a way to survive, so in that respect is not a privelege. And
the ratrace may be worse than life at home, but being able to make your own
choices is much better than being denied that option, and I'll support people
who want to do this at any time.
Gary Valentin
|> In a previous thread, I discussed the possibility that Feminism lowers pay
|> rates, because more women working means a bigger labour force, and a bigger
|> labour force drives down pay-rates, by the law of supply and demand.
|>
|> not necessarily very great, as there are often additional overheads, such as
|> extra transport and childcare costs.
|>
|> the effect that the extra income generated by the women working would generate
|> more demand for goods and services, and therefore generate more jobs and/or
|> higher-paid jobs.
|>
|> I now think I was too quick to accept her point, though I did make some useful
|> points in reply.
|>
|> individual household level -- it may be that individual households thereby
|> earn more income and spend (or invest) more, but at the macroeconomic level,
|> every woman who works is just taking away a job from some other person (male
|> or female) who would otherwise have that job.
|>
|> qualified than some of the men or single women who would otherwise have these
|> jobs, and this may have some economic effect.
|>
|> actual) workforce by encouraging housewives to find paid work (as Feminists
|> do) must indeed have the effect of lowering the rates of pay that employers
|> are forced to offer in order to attract quality applicants for their jobs.
|>
|> Men's Rights and Feminism, in the hope that some economists will comment on
|> it.
|>
|>
|>
|> --
|> ASK ME FOR MY FREE INTERNATIONAL MEN'S RESOURCE-LIST AND/OR MEN'S ISSUES LIST
|> Two Rights of Man: 1. The right to equality with Woman;
|> 2. The right to an equal say in how "equality" is interpreted.
|> A MAN'S GOT TO DO WHAT A MAN'S GOT TO DO -- BUT ... WOMEN CAN DO ANYTHING !
|>
This may be so. But the bottom line is that feminism has brought women the
same rights and powers as men have always enjoyed (well - at least in some
countries). This is more important than money.
gary
Mark Witte
James Buster <bit...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <3qvan3$p...@world.net>, David Kay <d...@world.net> wrote:
>>I am no economist either, but there seem to be some fairly obvious flaws
>>in your argument. Your view of the labour market seems to be very
>>simplistic. As your learned female economist friend pointed out, women
>>joining the workforce also creates greater demand for goods and services.
>>If this is true, then obviously this demand creates more jobs.
>
>created. Also, having money does not by itself increase demand. You might
Oh come on! Higher income it the major factor in predicting higher
consumption at both the micro and macroeconomic levels.
>instead choose to buy the same number of more expensive goods, which
>just shifts demand to another part of the economy (you might want an
>expensive German luxury car instead of a Toyota, for example).
Hmm, and more expensive goods might be more expensive because they require
more resources to produce? So this might actually be a real increase in
demand?
>--
> James Buster
> bit...@netcom.com
GES HU
>
>In <3qvab3$e...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, mxb...@ix.netcom.com (GES HU ) writes:
>
>>First off, to answer the question that was originally posed, which you chose to
>>sidestep and did not answer, yes, in my limitied opinion, I think women
>>in the workforce has served to lower pay of the individual because of
>>supply and demand.
>
>I wasn't intentionally sidestepping it - my response was that it is unimportant.
>To say "women are reducing the pay in the workforce so they shouldn't work"
>is not a valid argument against women in the workforce for the reasons I gave
>in my post. It's like saying we shouldn't let minorities in the workplace
>because they take jobs away from white people.
>
was 'have women entering the work force served to lower pay'. The question wasn't
do they deserve to be in the work force. The two are different. I think they
have. I also think that it has resulted in inflation regarding certain items.
so what? I don't know. ges hu
>>This may or maynot be a direct relationship. I suspect it is nonlinear.
>>But what makes it worse, is that not only is pay lowered due to
>>increased competition for jobs, but inflation is increased because of
>>more money chasing goods...particularly in the housing market..so there
>>is sought of a double whammy here.
>
>I could be flip and say that the housing market problem would be solved if we
>all claimed squatters rights, but I know that's not adding to the discussion so
>I'll refrain. In a completely free market this would not be a problem because
>when new people enter the workforce there is new demand for goods - people
>who earn want to spend. People who do not earn depend on others to spend for
>them so are not able to purchase as much.
Right. But if you now have a bunch of 2 earner families, there is more money
available to buy the existing homes (from man and from woman). Usually the market
adjusts to such a situation my raising the price of the item in question (in this
case the house). Because Family units could afford to spend more. However, single
men get screwed in this process. ges hu
>
>>Should women be allowed to work, perhaps. I can think of arguments for
>>and against this. It depends on ones interpretation of society,
>>individualism and the common good.
>
>I just wanted to comment on this point first. I am an anarcho-individualist, I
>feel the individual is much more important that society because society is an
>artificial construct and the individual is real. I society is endangered by an
>individual wanting to be an individual, then the society needs to be rethought.
This is very difficult and philosophical topic. I am sure books have been written
on it. Perhaps it also depends on the size of the society we are dealing with.
Perhaps there is a critical mass beyond which individuals have to yield to the
common good. One thing that makes the individualist approach fall apart is the
direct independancies we have with each other in a big society. Where do you get
your food. In the market. Did you hunt that chicken or did you depend on someone
else to raise it? It all depends. ges hu
>
>>While it outwardly seems logical to
>>say, well women are individuals and as individuals they *should* be
>>allowed to work is like saying.. well , how about the draft, women are
>>individuals like men and should be drafted for active combat to the
>>extent men are. Why should the men only be selectively chosen to get
>>killed off because of their sex.
>
>Women are not drafted because men don't want them to be. In my view,
>nobody should be drafted - it's legalized slavery.
again it depends. Regarding Vietnam, I agree. Regarding fighting for some other
countries rights, I agree. But what if the bombs started falling here and you had
nowhere else to go? What then? ges hu
>
>>But in addition, my major gripe with feminism is that women have
>>selectively targeted those things they see as being benefits to them of
>>the man's world but have cleverly left behind some of the social
>>obligations that have gone with these benefits. For example, ask out.
>>Most american women still refuse to share equally in the asking process
>>to get relationships started in a 1)proactive and 2) self accountable
>>way yet they claim equality this and that on other fronts.
>
>I agree there are feminists who 1) want cake and 2) eat it too but this is not
>an excuse for ignoring the basic things they say (women and men are equal is I
>think the most distilled version of it). You can't deny all women equality
>simply because some women want priveleges of equality and priveleges of being
>a coddled slave as well. You simply refuse to meet those women on their
>and assert YOURSELF as an individual!
This sounds all well and good, but my experience suggest that well over 90% of
women fit your last definition above. Men in america have the option to
ask
or remain alone. Women have the option to ask, be alone or be asked.
Most of them opt to be asked. How does a man assert himself as an
individual without doing all the asking and not remain alone. Acting
like a hoosy (i made that up) doesn't buy it. ges hu
>
>>Clever of
>>them since the rights *they* want are attachable by law but the
social
>>obligations are not, at least in our society. Many of them that have
>>posted to former posts of mine on this topic hide behind the
>>smokescreen of 'well as individuals, we should be allowed to ask out
>>who we choose..duh, men can do the same'. How quaint. ges hu
>
>I can't really comment on rights under the law, since I'm an
anarchist, and yes
>it would be nice if more women would ask men out, but again, just
because
>some women expect you to treat them both ways doesn't mean you have
to...
>and more importantly, it doesn't mean ALL women feel that way.
>
Amy Whinston
>From: zohr...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Peter Zohrab)
>Subject: Feminism lowers pay rates ?
>Date: 4 Jun 1995 23:30:34 -0700
>Summary: resumption of previous thread
>In a previous thread, I discussed the possibility that Feminism lowers pay
>rates, because more women working means a bigger labour force, and a bigger
>labour force drives down pay-rates, by the law of supply and demand.
>But it still seems to me, on the whole, that increasing the potential (not
>actual) workforce by encouraging housewives to find paid work (as Feminists
>do) must indeed have the effect of lowering the rates of pay that employers
>are forced to offer in order to attract quality applicants for their jobs.
So why doesn't the government just limit the number of children a family can
have. China does it. Fewer children today = fewer adults later=fewer
workers=higher salaries that have to be paid to attract someone from this
smaller pool.
(FYI, I'm being sarcastic for anyone who didn't realize it.)
Paul Walker
says...
>In article <3qug5h$b...@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>,
>Paul Walker <p.wa...@econ.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>> In article <D9M3D...@actrix.gen.nz>, zohr...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz
>> says...
>> >In a previous thread, I discussed the possibility that Feminism lowers
>> >pay rates, because more women working means a bigger labour force, and
>> >a bigger labour force drives down pay-rates, by the law of supply and
>> >demand.
>> More of your anti-feminist propaganda petey? Well at least this time you
>> got something right...........your no economist!
>And you haven't learned how to spell.
Spell what petey?
>> What do you mean by 'payrates'? In the simple supply and demand model of
>> the labour market that you seem to want to use, the relevant price is
>> the real wage. This will decrease if there is a 'rightward' shift in the
>> supply curve. So what? My first year students can tell me this! What
>> happens in a second labour market in which labour is a complement to the
>> labour in the first market? Would not the decrease in the real wage in
>> the first market lend to an increase in demand in the second, thereby
>> causing an increase in the real wage in the second market? If the real
>> wage is, however, decreased would this not increase employment, decrease
>> unemployment?
>Fascinating !
Yes indeed it is!
>But this is not relevant in the current context, unless you mean to claim
>that any increase in real wage in "second markets" would cancel
>out any decrease in real wages in "first markets" across the whole of a
>real economy in the real world. Do you claim that ?
It is very relevant petey. What it shows is that even with a very simple
model the affects on the real wages can be ambiguous. You can not say that
the real wage will fall in all cases, the affects in different markets will
be different depending on conditions in each market.
Exactly what does 'cancel out' mean? Do you mean that the averge real wage
will remain unchanged? Even if this is so what does it tell us about total
employment?
Now let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that you are right and we
get a decrease in the real wage in general. Would this not bring about a
decrease in unemployment? You have a problem with less unemployment?
On the other hand, (economists always have two hands!), what if the women
coming into the labour market are entering markets were there is already an
excess supply, which cannot be cleared for some reason. May be a minimum
wage law or some such thing. What happens then? What happens to real wages
and employment?
>> >Also, the benefit to the individual household income if both partners
>> >work is not necessarily very great, as there are often additional
>> >overheads, such as extra transport and childcare costs.
>> Maybe. But they could also make some savings, like on heating for
>> example. If you are at work you don't have to pay to heat your home.
>> ( as the university is finding out right now!!!)
>> >I got a reply from a learned female economist (I myself am no
>> >economist), to the effect that the extra income generated by the women
>> >working would generate more demand for goods and services, and
>> >therefore generate more jobs and/or higher-paid jobs.
>> >I now think I was too quick to accept her point, though I did make some
>> >useful points in reply.
>> What are these points?
>The main one was, as I recall, that many firms would have slack capacity,
>so that increased demand for their output would not automatically be
>translated into extra jobs in any direct or linear fashion.
But why have they got slack capacity? You seem to have the economy in some
sort of disequilibrium, how? Why are prices not adjusting to clear markets?
>>I now realise that the extra income from women working is only a factor
>>>at the individual household level
>> What does this mean? A factor of what?
>A factor, an issue, a consideration, a possibility, an occurrence.
Yes but my question still stands, what does this mean? What are the
economic consequences of this?
>> >-- it may be that individual households thereby earn more income and
>> >spend (or invest) more,
>> If the women is getting more income then by definition the household of
>> which is apart must be getting more and they can only do two things with
>> it, spend it or save it.
>> >but at the macroeconomic level, every woman who works is just taking
>> >away a job from some other person (male or female) who would otherwise
>> >have that job.
>> If this is true at the macro level why is it not true at the micro? If
>> this is true for every woman who works is it also not true for every man
>> that works? What is the point here?
>One of us is being dense.
And we all know which one, petey!!
>If I work and my partner doesn't, and then she suddenly goes out and gets
>a job, then our household income is increased, to some extent, depending
>on overheads, etc.. But her getting that job and that income does not
>necessarily affect the economy as a whole, because, if she didn't have
>that job and that income, then someone else would have it (who otherwise
>might be unemployed, or holding down another job that an unemployed
>person would otherwise have, and so on down the job-chain) -- whether she
>or someone else does the spending and/or investing does not affect the
>economy as a whole.
No the economy is not a zero sum game. The number of jobs in the economy is
not fixed! No two households consumption/savings behaviour are exactly the
same, there will be affects to your partners employment at both the micro
and macro levels.
>> >But it still seems to me, on the whole, that increasing the potential
>> >(not actual) workforce by encouraging housewives to find paid work (as
>> >Feminists do) must indeed have the effect of lowering the rates of pay
>> >that employers are forced to offer in order to attract quality
>> >applicants for their jobs.
There is the question here of how you define the workforce. Are
"housewives" not already in the potential workforce? Are they not already
in the actual, if unpaid, workforce?
>> What are you going on about? Employers are being *forced* to offer
>> *lower* wages to attract quality applicants???????????
>Talk about spelling things out ! "lowering the pay-rates that attracting
>quality applicants forces on employers". Jeez !! Do you want me to write
>in some other language, if you find my English so hard to follow !
Yes I think you should try some other language as English is clearly a
second language for you! Look at what you wrote "must indeed have the
effect of lowering the rates of pay that employers are forced to offer in
order to attract quality applicants for their jobs." How can the getting
more women to look for paid work *force* employers to offer less in order
to attract quality applicants? What it will do is lower the *minimum* wage
that employers can offer to get a given quality of worker *if* the incoming
workers are of that high quality. If these new applicants are quality
applicants then the increased supply of them may mean that employers are
*able* pay them less but it in no way *forces* them to do so. If on the
other hand the women coming in to the market are not high quality
applicants, and therefore not substitutes for them, then why should the
wage rates of the high quality workers change?
>> >So I restate my point,
>> Do! I can't understand it as it is.
>> > which I think is an important one in the context of Men's Rights and
>> >Feminism, in the hope that some economists will comment on it.
>> I have, but I can't see why.
>You missed the earlier discussion, which didn't help, but I really do wish
>you'd hire someone to do your thinking for you !
Perhaps I could hire a "housewife". Oh no that would just ruin the whole
economy!
What you could do is reply to the parts of my original posting that you so
conveniently managed to delete without comment!
Paul Murray
>cat...@ix.netcom.com (catherine bousquet) writes:
>Perhaps I am just too soft-hearted: I do believe that anyone born in my
>country deserves the opportunity to work, even if nature has not endowed
>them with the talents that we (on the net) take for granted. You may
>consider your job an earned reward of your hard work, but others who are
>less fortunate - by economic/social background, luck, or abilities - may
>not view it as such.
The problem is that 'everyone has a right to work" translates directly
into "you have an obligation to employ someone", whether they can do the
job or not. Since private people cannot afford unlimited charity to those
without the education or talents to do the job, the state has to wind up
employing people - either directly as in socialism or indirectly by
giving incentives to employers for hiring the useless.
We have seen the results of socialism, and we are seeing the results of
the more indirect method.
Something that 'rights' lobbyists seem to forget is that every right that
'A' has has a flip side - an obligation imposed on 'B'. And those
obligations are often unfair, regardless of how noble the right sounds.
I dont owe it to you to employ you, and by extension, neither does anyone
else.
--
Paul Murray - JT Software | ,~,_/\
MS Access, Word/Excel | / \
C/C++ windows | { }
015-268-960 | \_,~~\*/ <= Canberra, Australia
http://www.telstra.com.au | v
Peter Zohrab
> In article <D9ppE...@actrix.gen.nz> zohr...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Peter Zohrab) writes:
>
> Now we're getting down to the nitty gritty.
> First of all, Feminists have long
> been putting pressure on housewives to feel they *ought* to be working for
> payment outside the home.
>
> So have husbands who like the higher houshold income.
> Come to think of it, so, too have housewives long pushed
> their husbands to work outside the home.
>
> There is lots of social pressure to do all sorts of things.
> Big deal.
Yes, it is a big deal, because Feminism makes a big deal about women and
work. So the pressure they exert is a big deal. The fact that other
people exert other sorts of pressure is irrelevant.
>
> Secondly, there just aren't that many jobs around (Have you ever heard of
>
> All the more reason to make sure they go to the most qualified
> people -- regardless of sex,race,etc.
First of all, that is the opposite of what Feminism does. Feminism has
introduced affirmative action in all sorts of areas, so that it is *not*,
NOT, any more, the most qualified person who gets the job.
Secondly, you have been brainwashed by Feminism to concentrate on
employment, to the exclusion of wider, more important issues. Jobs are
not the only issue. There is also social cohesion, the right of children
to live with non-divorced parents, the right of men to have some
recompense for the fact that the female-majority electorate can vote in a
government that declares war and consripts men to the frontline, and so on.
Thirdly, women sharing the workplace with men causes all sorts of
problems. There is research that shows that men in such environments get
less job-satisfaction than they do in all-male work environments -- and
no wonder, with people like you brainwashed into assuming that the
woman's side of a dispute with a man is bound to be the right one. There
is also research that shows that men at work suffer more stress than
women do -- again, no wonder.
The general point is that it is simplistic to look at just the individual
-- you also have to look at the morale of the whole workforce on a given
site, and you also have to look at the impact of Feminist dogma on the
structure of Society as a whole.
> > Society
*has* to consider whether it is better to have Mr. and
> Mrs. Smith both working, and Mr. Jones (with a wife and six kids, say)
> unemployed -- or Mr. Smith working, Mrs. Smith at home giving her kids a
> quality upbringing, and Mr. Jones in work (or some other combination, if you
> like).
>
> "Society"? Do you mean _you_? Or the ever-loving paternalistic
> State? You are assuming not only that someone is qualified to make
> these decisions, but that someone ought to be given that POWER,
> too. I don't trust the State to decide who ought to do what.
> I trust you even less.
You may be some extreme anarchist, for all I know. But, if not, then
you're overlooking the obvious point that governments *do* make these
sorts of decisions all the time, so it is futile to pretend that I want
to do something that no one has ever done before.
And what's more, they usually take these decisions under the one-sided
influence of Feminist propaganda from Feminist pressure-groups, Feminist
academics, and Feminist journalists.
The employer is the best qualified to
> decide who is best capable of doing a given job.
I'm very glad to hear that you reject the concept of affirmative action.
Would you like to become an honorary member of the New Zealand Men's
Rights Association ?
In you example,
> perhaps Mr. Jones really _needs_ a job, and Mr. and Mrs. Smith
> could live off either of their income. The problem is -- is
> Mr. Jones qualified or capable of doing either Mr. or Mrs. Smith's
> job?
My example, of course, was deliberately simplified. In the real world,
there are thousands of such people, and usually lots of unemployed people
willing and *able* to fill vacancies. If a vacancy is filled by someone
who is moving from another job, then *his/her* job becomes a vacancy for
someone else further down the job-chain. So a vacancy doen't *have* to
be filled, necessarily, by an unmeployed person.
> 1. Men have never (except in communist countries) had the right to a job --
> only the right to *look for* a job.
>
> Something I can agree with! (I'd nearly given up hope for you!)
>
> 2. If the population of your home town suddenly doubled because of the influx
> of refugees from some other region or country, and you lost your job because
> they were willing to work harder for less money than you, would that mean your
> standard of living had been artificially inflated ?
>
> Yes, if your standard of living is being propped up by
> violating the rights of other to *look for* a job. You
> have no right to prohibit others from working. (Unless
> it is your company, and you are the one choosing to not
> hire them -- in which case, they still have the right
> to try to get a job from another employer).
This is interesting. Are you arguing against any border controls against
the free international movement of labour ? I don't believe it !
>
> 4. Having a job, for men, is not some sort of privilege. Being able to
stay at home as a kept woman seems fairly privileged to me. Of course,
some women
>
> It is no just "being _able_". You are talking about _forcing_
> them to not work. What gives you that right?
I never said anything about forcing housewives not to work. Some people
may argue for that, others may argue for tax or othre incentives to
encourage housewives to stay at home. I have never made any such
concrete proposals.
The point is that there are already incentives which drive housewives out
into the workplace. One is the tax system, in some countries, which
taxes spouses and partners individually, resulting in a single-income
family earning, say, $40,000 being taxed more than a double-income family
with the same totla income of $40,000.
Another incentive is the low wage rates which result from so many housewives
being in the workforce in the first place. To survive adequately, a
family is forced to consider sending both partners out to work, to the
detriment of the kids.
> But if you think life in the ratrace is much
> better than life as a housewife, then I think you live on
> some other planet.
>
> Ever been a housewife?
>
> --D
Silly question.
Peter Zohrab>
>
>
Kym Horsell
Vincent Patrick <vpat...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>Peter's point remains unrefuted: feminism may have simply meant that
>less well educated families suffer while middle class females gain, but
>feminism could easily contribute to lower wages also.
It would then be interesting to examine the wages in countries
that have until recently known relatively little of femanism.
If the thesis is generally true then it should apply
to Malaysia, Japan, S Korea, etc.
Contrarywise it should then be the case that in other
countries where femanism has been making progress (e.g.
all those where women were regarded at least as voting
citizens by (say) 1950) there should be a good correlation
with feminist publishings and a decrease in average wages.
Seriously think you'll find that kind of support for the claim?
--
R. Kym Horsell
khor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
Vincent Patrick
I agree with you, Paul. Nobody is "owed a job", whether female or poor.
Peter Zohrab and I had been discussing the possible economic ramifications
of changes brought about by feminism. I still find that I feel more
sorry for an unemployed family living under impoverished conditions than
I do for a middle class lady whose material needs are being met already.
As I said before, maybe I am just too soft-hearted. OK, so it's a fatal
flaw, but I live with it.
Regards to all
Vincent Patrick
vpat...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
Vincent Patrick
The short answer to your claims is: I doubt it.
Thanks for the analysis, but I think that economists would require far
more variables to be taken into account if using that sort of data to
experimentally show an effect of feminism.
The original discussion was based more on a model of supply and demand,
where the increased available labour due to a large influx of workers
(who were already resident and consumers in the population) would tend to
reduce wages. At one level it is a theoretical construct, at another it
may even have happened, or be happening in Australia. Who knows?
I joined this thread because it seems worth at least discussing, and
considering when looking at the broader effects of feminism.
Regards
Vincent Patrick
vpat...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
Carol Ann Hemingway
Dear Newsgroup,
If I need an education in PC, I would be happy to accomodate Vincent
Patrick. I have an aunt (in her 80s) who would not wish to be called
Ms., but rather, by Mrs.; I respect her wishes as I would respect
yours. Please let me know how you wish to be addressed.
If I were an economist, I would certainly feel cheated in my education
if I had never studied Karl Marx, and his theory of dialectical
materialism. It would be like a lawyer who had never heard of Justice
Cardozo, and his famous analysis of proximate cause. One need not
agree with Justice C., but I would question my legal education had I
not been exposed to his areguments.
It is often a ploy of those who have little or no legal argument to
challenge the "credentials" of their opponent. You question my
"leftyness"--that's ok--I don't mind. I wonder what the qualifications
might be. Let's see. Since I don't quite meet the requirements for
the middle-class wage group at the present time, that might do it. I
can't afford to volunteer as much as I would like to because, like your
father, I have a family to support; when I do volunteer, I teach adults
to read. I vote for candidates who support an equal distribution of
wealth. Is that enough yet? In the past, I have worked with Planned
Parenthood and several Seniors programs. I take one meal a day to a
man who has AIDS.
You see, women who need to work, want to work, and have a need to give
back something to society will continue to do so. Creating a divide
between rich and poor is an on-going agenda of the right wing, and not
what I seek or desire. If placing Edith Bunker in work temporarily
displaces Archie, well; they still live in the same row house, and
eventually the pendulum will swing the other way, until we progress
toward a new understanding. Equality is an interesting word because it
never comes easily, or without some suffering. By the way, the reason
I call myself LeftyLu is because I'm left-handed.
LeftyLu
In <3r2t5h$d...@styx.uwa.edu.au> vpat...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Vincent
Patrick) writes:
>
>
>>>The thing I find surprising is that so many feminists claim to be
>>>basically left wing / socialist and supporters of the underdog, when
>>the>policies they espouse create a greater divide between rich and
>>poor.
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>
>>>Vincent Patrick
>>>vpat...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
>>>
>>You are easily surprised, Mr. Patrick. That feminists would support
a
> ^^
>You should be wary of assuming one's title (e.g. Mr) on the internet.
I
>would not call you Miss or Mrs unless I were deliberately ignoring PC.
>
>>policy which enables them to obtain freedom thru equality is not so
>>surprising to most of us. The fact that the freedom comes at a price
>>of upsetting the status quo is never a new ploy to seekers of
freedom.
>>Everyone who has studied economics knows that Marx's dialectical
> ^^^^^^^^
>You are incorrect. My MBA economics units did not include Marx's
>dialectical materialism.
>
>>materialism is about cycles and new results. Change is not always a
>>negative thing, and economic cycles do not threaten our economy; they
>>are a part of all economies. Do I believe that feminism lowers pay
>>rates, not for a minute!
>
>>LeftyLu
>
>Dear LeftyLu,
>
>I do not think you are a real Lefty. Change is not always a negative
>thing - for some groups. Feminism and associated bigotted policies
such as
>affirmative action will be a positive thing for middle class females,
but
>at the expense of the less well educated men and their families.
>
>I have met middle class trendy-lefty women (and men) before. When it
boils
>down to it , many are not capable of empathising with the real
underdogs
>in our society. Most do not compare well with people like my father,
who
>was a union shop-steward and fought against unfairness in the
workplace.
>
>Peter's point remains unrefuted: feminism may have simply meant that
>less well educated families suffer while middle class females gain,
but
>feminism could easily contribute to lower wages also.
>
>Regards
>
>Vincent Patrick : who is a part of mankind - assume no
more.
>vpat...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
David Meyers
On Tue, 6 Jun 1995, David Meyers wrote:
> In article <D9ppE...@actrix.gen.nz> zohr...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Peter Zohrab) writes:
>
> First of all, Feminists have long
> been putting pressure on housewives to feel they *ought* to be working
> There is lots of social pressure to do all sorts of things.
> Big deal.
Yes, it is a big deal, because Feminism makes a big deal about women and
work. So the pressure they exert is a big deal. The fact that other
people exert other sorts of pressure is irrelevant.
Social pressure is not an economic argument. What
you suggest is as absurd as the one where some folks
were blaming all the social pressure on women to
be thin for all the teenage anorexics.
At best, it is indirect pressure - nobody is saying
"Woman - work or else!" (that's slavery).
The problem with this is -- what are you going to
do about this "social pressure"? There is very little
to discuss inasmuch as any solution to this "problem"
requires that people's freedom be restricted unfairly.
Lastly, you ignore the possibility that "feminism"
itself was the product of women wanting to work,
rather than women wanting to work being the product
of feminism. (Unless you are equating the two of
them, in which case, your definition of feminism is
far too narrow).
> All the more reason to make sure they go to the most qualified
> people -- regardless of sex,race,etc.
First of all, that is the opposite of what Feminism does. Feminism has
introduced affirmative action in all sorts of areas, so that it is *not*,
NOT, any more, the most qualified person who gets the job.
The original premise of feminism (regardless of how its
been perverted) was that people be treated the same,
regartless of their sex. Feminism originally had nothing
to do with affirmative action or any of the other, modern,
bigoted interpretations.
Secondly, you have been brainwashed by Feminism to concentrate on
employment, to the exclusion of wider, more important issues. Jobs are
not the only issue. There is also social cohesion, the right of children
to live with non-divorced parents, the right of men to have some
recompense for the fact that the female-majority electorate can vote in a
government that declares war and consripts men to the frontline, and so on.
Are you blaming women or feminism for the decline in
family values, the decline of the family unit? That's
extremely narrow-minded. Are not men and other influences
potentially also at blame? Such things as the farce we
call public education, or the pervasive welfare state?
(There are many facets of welfare and social-security
which, unintentionally, undermine family cohesion.)
As far as the draft goes, that's always been unfair.
It is called slavery and simply needs to be abolished.
But bear in mind that the draft goes back to well
before women got the vote, so blaming feminism or women
for the fact that men get drafted pathetic.
There is one, and only one area that I can tell where
men are treated in a grossly unfair way and that is
family-law. For example, a woman may unilaterally
decided whether to carry a child to term or not,
but even though the man has no say in that, if the
woman does give birth, the man is now subject to
paying child-support for 18 years. It seems that
the limit to his liability ought to be subject to
his choice, too -- if he doesn't want a child, but
she does, he ought to be able to pay the cost of
an abortion, and perhaps some insurance, and that's
it.
Well, ok - that, and affirmative action.
Thirdly, women sharing the workplace with men causes all sorts of
problems. There is research that shows that men in such environments get
less job-satisfaction than they do in all-male work environments -- and
no wonder, with people like you brainwashed into assuming that the
woman's side of a dispute with a man is bound to be the right one. There
is also research that shows that men at work suffer more stress than
women do -- again, no wonder.
This third point is irrelevant. Men do not have a right
to woman-free workplaces. It seems that employers ought
to have a right to hire whomever they choose, and if they
choose only men, so be it. But that is an individual
employer decision (which has been eliminated by anti-
discrimination laws).
The general point is that it is simplistic to look at just the individual
-- you also have to look at the morale of the whole workforce on a given
site, and you also have to look at the impact of Feminist dogma on the
structure of Society as a whole.
I look at it and see it, and think that trying to hide from
it is only counterproductive. The idea that people be treated
without regard for their sex is clearly sensible, at least
economically and socially. The fact that they are not only
means that we are living in a system where there has been
unfortunate skewing going on for a while. It is like the
sugar price supports in florida. The status quo is to the
liking of the sugar growers, and society as a whole just
doesn't pay all that much attention to it, but in reality,
without those price supports, sugar would cost us ALL less,
and the sugar growers in FL would be subject to real competition
and have to either improve or go out of business -- which in
the long run is better for all of us. So, too, it had been
when women were excluded from the workplace and the
electorate. Those whose jobs were protected because better
qualified people of the wrong sex were excluded from
consideration now have to either improve and compete, or
lose out to the better person - which is better for us all.
> "Society"? Do you mean _you_? Or the ever-loving paternalistic
> State? You are assuming not only that someone is qualified to make
> these decisions, but that someone ought to be given that POWER,
> too. I don't trust the State to decide who ought to do what.
> I trust you even less.
You may be some extreme anarchist, for all I know. But, if not, then
you're overlooking the obvious point that governments *do* make these
sorts of decisions all the time, so it is futile to pretend that I want
to do something that no one has ever done before.
And what's more, they usually take these decisions under the one-sided
influence of Feminist propaganda from Feminist pressure-groups, Feminist
academics, and Feminist journalists.
Only for the last twenty years or so has affirmative action
and other forms of discrimination been used against white
men. For a long time, white men were the beneficiaries
of these policies.
It is my position that these policies are unjust regardless
of whether the beneficiaries are men or women. I believe
that _true_ feminism - that sex is irrelevant - is the best
policy -- not the modern discriminatory form of it, and not
reverse, which you seem to be proposing - that women be
discriminated against.
The employer is the best qualified to
> decide who is best capable of doing a given job.
I'm very glad to hear that you reject the concept of affirmative action.
Would you like to become an honorary member of the New Zealand Men's
Rights Association ?
No thank you. I'd not want to become a member until I
know more about the rest of your positions. Thus far,
I find only "anti-feminism", not "equal rights for all".
This is interesting. Are you arguing against any border controls against
the free international movement of labour ? I don't believe it !
As a matter of fact, yes. However, only in the context
of the elimination of all welfare and other handouts.
I never said anything about forcing housewives not to work. Some people
may argue for that, others may argue for tax or othre incentives to
encourage housewives to stay at home. I have never made any such
concrete proposals.
I'm glad to see that.
The point is that there are already incentives which drive housewives out
into the workplace. One is the tax system, in some countries, which
taxes spouses and partners individually, resulting in a single-income
family earning, say, $40,000 being taxed more than a double-income family
with the same totla income of $40,000.
If they were taxed individually, in a system with progressive
tax rates (most systems, particularly the US have this), they
would pay less, not more taxes. For example -- suppose that
the tax rate is 10% of all income above $10,000. If only one
individual were earning $40k, he'd pay $3000. If two individuals
were earning 20k each, they'd each pay $1000, totalling $2k --
far less. Now, of course, it doesn't work like this -- a
married couple with one earner has a much larger deduction, so
the difference is less. In any case, the tax code is far
more complicated than either of our examples. At present,
there is a marriage-penalty built into our tax code, so that
two individuals who both work who are married to each other
pay _more_ in taxes than two individuales who both work who
are not married. This is a disincentive to marriage (though
not a really significant one), not a disincentive or incentive
for women to work. (There are far more serious disincentives
to marriage, like asset division upon divorce and financial
liability for spouse's actions).
Of course, the tax code needs to be trashed completely anyway,
so this is not really a big part of the feminism vs. wages
discussion. (If you want to talk about alternate tax systems,
I'll be happy to, though.)
Another incentive is the low wage rates which result from so many housewives
being in the workforce in the first place. To survive adequately, a
family is forced to consider sending both partners out to work, to the
detriment of the kids.
Now you are going in circles. Is the low wage caused by,
or is it causing the women to work? First you blame lower
wages on working women, now you are blaming working women
on the low wages.
> But if you think life in the ratrace is much
> better than life as a housewife, then I think you live on
> some other planet.
>
> Ever been a housewife?
Silly question.
Not really. Suppose you don't _want_ to be a housewife.
Is there some reason women ought to be homemakers and men
ought to work instead of men being homemakers and women
working? (with appropriate exeptions for the brief
period during which the woman gives birth - a tiny
portion of the time it takes to raise a child).
Vincent Patrick
Vincent Patrick
Catherine, I welcome your posting - but (oh dear) I disagree.
Perhaps I am just too soft-hearted: I do believe that anyone born in my
country deserves the opportunity to work, even if nature has not endowed
them with the talents that we (on the net) take for granted. You may
consider your job an earned reward of your hard work, but others who are
less fortunate - by economic/social background, luck, or abilities - may
not view it as such.
Try using some empathy with less fortunate men (and women). Feminism is
hollow and bigotted without that.
Regards
Vincent Patrick
vpat...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
catherine bousquet
Ah...but I did NOT say they did not deserve the opportunity to work.
They do, as do we all. ( women too ??) What I said was that if one
does not have the ability or talent to perform a "knowledge worker"
position....One is not "entitled" to have the job. Either one is
qualified ( intellectually) or one is not. Sorry, but that is a fact
of life and no "bleeding heart" liberalism can change that.
Yes..educate to the best of someone's abilities..BUT we are not equally
talented or endowed .... physically or mentally.
>
>Try using some empathy with less fortunate men (and women). Feminism
is
>hollow and bigotted without that.
>
And you, Vincent, should not assume that a person who has succeeded is
"fortunate" ( read "had it made" ala vincent). Neither of my parents
ever went to college---or held high paying Union jobs. Talent, drive,
and ambition cause me to move up an economic level above my immediate
family. My arguement was that no one was "entitled" to have a
job---based on No Effort on their part. Don't finish school...drop
out...lousy work ethic ? An employer does not have to hire / deal with
that---no one is OWED a job. All people are due the opportunity to
compete for jobs fairly--- read : no discrimination---may the best
qualified win. And, yes...the "less fortunate" ( your words, not mine)
deserve educational extras--- to level the playing field.
catherine bousquet
<pmu...@nccdcfsg.telecom.com.au> writes:
>cat...@ix.netcom.com (catherine bousquet) wrote:
>>And you, Vincent, should not assume that a person who has succeeded
is
>>"fortunate" ( read "had it made" ala vincent). Neither of my parents
>>ever went to college---or held high paying Union jobs. Talent,
drive,
>>and ambition cause me to move up an economic level above my immediate
>>family. My arguement was that no one was "entitled" to have a
>>job---based on No Effort on their part. Don't finish school...drop
>>out...lousy work ethic ? An employer does not have to hire / deal
with
>>that---no one is OWED a job. All people are due the opportunity to
>>compete for jobs fairly--- read : no discrimination---may the best
>>qualified win. And, yes...the "less fortunate" ( your words, not
mine)
>>deserve educational extras--- to level the playing field.
>>
>
>exercised against the poor. Ie, that people are poor because no one
will
>pay them, and that no one will pay them not because they have nothing
to
>pay them _for_, but because they are poor - ie out of spite. Did that
>make sense?
>
>--
Well...It only makes sense if you are extremely pessimistic regarding
the majority of the human race. Intentional discrimination against the
"poor" ? In isolated cases, anything is possible....but sorry....I see
absolutely no evidence of widespread discrimination etc... But rather
many opportunities offered for training etc...
Patrick Dery
> You seem to be suggesting that housewives should contribute their work for
> free for the good of the family and ultimately the State because by doing
> so they will open up more higher paying jobs for men and single women
> and allow them to enjoy the real benefits of capitalism.
> Using communism to make capitalism work is kind of hypocritical, don't you
> think?
I agree with you, but be carefull! Because the person who works at home is
not paid "as a real worker is" doesn't mean this person does it for
FREE! After all, there is money coming in the house, and the "home
worker" is remunerated by "free house, food, dress, leisures ...". It
depends of the dynamics established inside the couple, then.
Certainly, it is to the disadvantage to the home worker if the couple
breaks away, but as far as it works fine, maybe both persons find what
they need. And our society is based on a strong family unit, it is not
for nothing! The explosion of this way to live and the expansion of
individualism is what's making all these troubles we are now faced to.
Bye!
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- Patrick Dery (PD...@ECN.ULAVAL.CA), Etudiant Gradue -
= CREFA, Departement d'Economique, Universite Laval =
- " Ha!C'estfinca!Ma'SPACEBAR'nemarcheplus!!! " -
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
tfis...@networx.com
In article <3qveeu$6...@redstone.interpath.net>,
<ari...@intune.pdial.interpath.net> writes:
>
> Perhaps if housework were paid work as it should be, then feminists would
> not be encouraging women to find work outside the home. It's a form of
> family socialism isn't it, to expect women to contribute for the good
> of the family without any right to claim a salary for their work. This
> leaves the woman at the mercy of the man in the family who owns and
> controls the monetary wealth. It is the exact paralell of communism where
> the state controls and distributes the wealth and the citizens work for the
> good of the state.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Arinna~~~~~~~
There must be some percentage of mothers today who have a choice to either be
housewives or seek a career. Of those that choose to be housewives, I think
that most realize that no monetary reward is involved. The sacrifice of giving
up a career to become a housewife is done because they can feel comfortable
knowing their children are being raised with the parents values, seeing them
grow daily, etc. Usually it is the mother who becomes the housewife because
the father, in most cases, makes more money than the mother. This scenario
seems to be a choice, made with full knowledge of the consequences and rewards.
The rewards outweigh the personal consequences for the mother/family in this
case.
I'm sure there are other cases where the mother is told by the husband, "You
must stay home and raise the kids, career my ass." - thus no choice. If the
woman knew that she wanted to have a career, then why did she marry the sort of
man who has these values? Anyway, so now the mother is 'forced' to stay at
home for the good of the family - her career halted, and all that money she
would be making isn't coming in. But, she is still working hard everyday. I
have gotten the impression that the Feminists point of view is that raising
children, and contributing to the good of the family is not rewarding.
I always thought that if you had a family, you would do what is best for your
family and children, regardless of what it is - men and women alike. Many
people get this idea in there head that all cases are the man going off to the
whitecollar corporate job having a great time while the woman slaves at home.
I don't think that paints the norm. I think there's more guys digging ditches
all day, and the reason they do it is because they have to do what's best for
the family.
I don't have children. So maybe someone could tell me, don't people realize
before they have children, that there are sacrifices involved? But you have
the children because the rewards of a family are what you want out of life.
Why is it important to feminists that women get paid for housework?
I'm rambling. Please forgive me. I'm confused.
Tom
Marguerite Petersen
>
>In article <3qveeu$6...@redstone.interpath.net>,
><ari...@intune.pdial.interpath.net> writes:
>
>>
>> Perhaps if housework were paid work as it should be, then feminists would
>> not be encouraging women to find work outside the home. It's a form of
>> family socialism isn't it, to expect women to contribute for the good
>> of the family without any right to claim a salary for their work. This
>> leaves the woman at the mercy of the man in the family who owns and
>> controls the monetary wealth. It is the exact paralell of communism where
>> the state controls and distributes the wealth and the citizens work for the
>> good of the state.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Arinna~~~~~~~
>
>There must be some percentage of mothers today who have a choice to either be
>housewives or seek a career. Of those that choose to be housewives, I think
>that most realize that no monetary reward is involved. The sacrifice of giving
>up a career to become a housewife is done because they can feel comfortable
>knowing their children are being raised with the parents values, seeing them
>grow daily, etc. Usually it is the mother who becomes the housewife because
>the father, in most cases, makes more money than the mother. This scenario
>seems to be a choice, made with full knowledge of the consequences and rewards.
> The rewards outweigh the personal consequences for the mother/family in this
>case.
I agree, to a point. And that point is that *many* women who give up or
interrupt their careers to be stay-at-home mothers, usually have no
intention of doing so for the "rest of their lives." After all, along
with longer lifespans and fewer children, comes the very real situation
of still having a reasonably long span of time sans children. For
the *fortunate* few who do return to the workforce and find a job, this
is fine. However, in our current economic climate, this is becoming
less and less true. (ie. in my own case). For those women, the rewards
of taking the time off to care for their own children are definitely not
sufficient to make up for a lifetime of not bringing in any income.
>I'm sure there are other cases where the mother is told by the husband, "You
>must stay home and raise the kids, career my ass." - thus no choice. If the
>woman knew that she wanted to have a career, then why did she marry the sort of
>man who has these values? Anyway, so now the mother is 'forced' to stay at
>home for the good of the family - her career halted, and all that money she
>would be making isn't coming in. But, she is still working hard everyday. I
>have gotten the impression that the Feminists point of view is that raising
>children, and contributing to the good of the family is not rewarding.
I don't believe that was *ever* the Feminist view. It may have been the
view of *some*, but I certainly don't believe it was an overriding view.
Although, to give them their due, they may indeed have had a point. If
as part of being a feminist and espousing feminist views is the idea that
all people should be able to pursue education and employment opportunities
equally, *and* that all people should be financially independent, then being
a stay-at-home mother *is* definitely counter to that view.
>I always thought that if you had a family, you would do what is best for your
>family and children, regardless of what it is - men and women alike. Many
>people get this idea in there head that all cases are the man going off to the
>whitecollar corporate job having a great time while the woman slaves at home.
>I don't think that paints the norm. I think there's more guys digging ditches
>all day, and the reason they do it is because they have to do what's best for
>the family.
Doing what's *best* for the family is different for almost everyone. And
doing what is best for the individual is also a factor. Having hordes of
women staying at home to raise their children and then winding up totally
financially dependent on another as well as having literally *years* of
not much to do, doesn't seem a particularly *pretty* picture to me.
>I don't have children. So maybe someone could tell me, don't people realize
>before they have children, that there are sacrifices involved? But you have
>the children because the rewards of a family are what you want out of life.
I have had and raised 3 children, along with my husband. I worked before
the children arrived, I worked part-time after the children arrived. After
they were in school, I worked full-time until the company I worked for went
out of business. Yes, I knew that I was making sacrifices and I was willing
to accept them, "for a time", not for my entire life. Had I known that I
would at a relatively young age (IMO), be without a job *because* of taking
those years to raise my children, would I have NOT had children? I'm not
sure. This is one of the questions that haunts me daily. I fully expected
that I would return to the workforce once my children were *launched*.
Discovering that this was impossible is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Certainly, many women with whom I have conversed who are between 10 and
15 years older than I, had no trouble following the scenario I envisioned.
I had no reason to think otherwise. However, the current economic climate
(as well as perhaps age discrimination in the workplace), *has* made this
scenario not only difficult, but perhaps even impossible.
Call me shortsighted, if you will, but I can't really be faulted for not
realizing that things would change as much as they have.
>Why is it important to feminists that women get paid for housework?
Because it is *work* and it deserves to be paid? Certainly, if as a
society, we are going to continue heralding stay-at-home motherhood
as something of a benefit to women. If not, then *I* would certainly
advise women to NOT stay at home with their children and to hold onto
their jobs as hard as they possibly can.
>I'm rambling. Please forgive me. I'm confused.
>Tom
You're forgiven. If it's confusing to me, I can well understand that
it is confusing to others.
Marg
>
>
>
>
--
"At ease, Ensign, before you sprain something." - Captain Janeway in Caretaker.
Member PSEB Official Sonneteer/Keeper of the Captain's Log JLP SoL
Member Kate Mulgrew Fan Club Poet/Author pet...@peak.org
Paul Murray
>And you, Vincent, should not assume that a person who has succeeded is
>"fortunate" ( read "had it made" ala vincent). Neither of my parents
>ever went to college---or held high paying Union jobs. Talent, drive,
>and ambition cause me to move up an economic level above my immediate
>family. My arguement was that no one was "entitled" to have a
>job---based on No Effort on their part. Don't finish school...drop
>out...lousy work ethic ? An employer does not have to hire / deal with
>that---no one is OWED a job. All people are due the opportunity to
>compete for jobs fairly--- read : no discrimination---may the best
>qualified win. And, yes...the "less fortunate" ( your words, not mine)
>deserve educational extras--- to level the playing field.
>
Someone said that sometimes it sounds as if poverty was a predjudice
exercised against the poor. Ie, that people are poor because no one will
pay them, and that no one will pay them not because they have nothing to
pay them _for_, but because they are poor - ie out of spite. Did that
make sense?
--
Kym Horsell
Vincent Patrick <vpat...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>Thanks for the analysis, but I think that economists would require far
>more variables to be taken into account if using that sort of data to
>experimentally show an effect of feminism.
I thought you were just looking for a prima facie rebuttal to the
original claim "feminism lowers wages". But sure, if you are looking
for a complete disproof of the claim -- and other similar ones
(e.g. that wage demands lower real median/average/lower-quintile
wages) then a cross-sectional study in one or 2 places would be in
order. I wouldn't be surprised if many extant things would already
suit that (but I haven't read anything I can remember applicable).
But if science is involved it's supposed to be those making the
wildest claim provide the evidence.
>The original discussion was based more on a model of supply and demand,
> where the increased available labour due to a large influx of workers
>(who were already resident and consumers in the population) would tend to
>reduce wages. At one level it is a theoretical construct, at another it
>may even have happened, or be happening in Australia. Who knows?
According to the "trickle-down" theorists any advantage for one group
will flow through to everyone. If you believe that then the claim is
immediately suspect. If you are not a rabid trickle-down person then
you might consider yourself with the general observation that
economies grow and labour markets are not generally zero-sum games. If
one persons gets a job, they don't "take it away from" me. Unless, of
course, there are built-in factors which guarantee one or other that
position other than, e.g., qualifications and/or relevant experience.
The situation in question will be very muddied by other factors such
as galloping materialism. During the "rise of feminism" there has also
been a co-incident rise in median wealth and, of course, a growing
disparity between rich and poor. It seems this is more due to the less
affluent staying where they were in inflation-adjusted and/or
buying-power terms (say) whereas the better well off (including a
burgeoning middle class many places) took off. The introduction of new
technology (it has been argued) in any case saw a growing need for
managers and administrators (but not necessarily executives) to
control the increasingly complex production and distribution systems
that are evolving.
Disentangling all these factors can be done, but generally is not
impressive to anyone other than academics. To _prove_ things generally
requires something immediately understood by the listener, and that
probably can't be done with this issue.
But as a single data point in the argument I've run a rank correlation
between victimisation reports amongst women in a number of OECD
countries reported in "Experiences in Crime Around the World: key
findings of the '89 Int'l Crime Survey" (JJM van Dijk et al 1991)
against GDP/head (not a good indicator of wages or wage parity,
granted) and find a very slight negative correlation. At -.059 it's
not statistically significant hence it appears at least one "feminist
issue" is independent of the "national wage".
Obviously this is only a token gesture. ;-)
(The reported incidence of victimisation, BTW, varied from Australia
-- far and away at first place at 7.3% of women report a "sexual
incident in the past 5 y in 1988 -- to Finland where only about 0.7%
of women report any incident has happened to them. It is argued in the
study that feminism or other issues can "indicate higher sensitivity
to such acts" rather than increased incidence).
Peter Zohrab
Usenet yet.
But Jenny asks if I want to use the lowering of pay rates to argue
against women being in the workforce. The answer is that I don't know
yet, and that should not be relevant.
That is an important question, though, because I'm sure Feminists are
worried about that. I must say that I am against outlawing
certain kinds of issues/questions on the grounds of what *use* the
answers/results may be put to. Another example is the question of race
and IQ, which some people would like to ban as a research topic.
That is near-Fascism. Politics in a free society has to be based on
freedom of information. Some research results indicate that the average
Japanese has a higher IQ than the average Caucasian. I am Caucasian, but
I don't feel threatened by that. Japanese people are welcome to their
higher average IQ's ! Good on them ! This is about averages, not about
individuals. Similarly, other racial groups should not feel threatened
about the possibility that their average IQ might be lower still. (And
there is also the question of whether IQ tests actually measure
culture-independent intelligence, anyway).
Similarly, we can't try to stop a discussion about wage-rates because
Feminists are worried that this argument might be used to make women stay
at home. Feminists use the argument that a bigger labour pool gives
employers a better chance of getting quality employees -- in fact that
argument has been used already in this thread, in relation to computer
programming. I'm not going to say that I don't like the consequences of
that argument, or that noone has the right to mention it !
The analogy with slavery is fallacious. Men and women are (typically) in
a mutual dependency relationship at the family level, and future
generations of children are dependent on this mutual dependency working
out well. Feminism has been churning out one-sided propaganda for two
centuries now, and it is high time that the other side of the story was told.
It's not just women who have rights. Men also have rights, children have
rights, fetuses have rights.
Peter Zohrab
Peter Zohrab
On Thu, 8 Jun 1995 ach...@naig.com wrote:
> theoretically, the larger the pool of available labor, then the less an
> employer must pay for that labor. i would agree on that point of economic
> theory.
Thank you.
>
> but i fail to see the signifcance of this point as a a legitimate argument
> for or against feminism. remove any group from the labor pool, and you reduce
> the size of the labor pool, thereby raising wages.
>
Sure. It is not meant as a stand-alone argument against Feminism. It
has to be considered in the context of other arguments for and against
housewives (especially if they have children) joining the workforce.
For example, some Feminists have long been saying that increasing the size of
the workforce (by including more women) increases the chances of getting
quality people into particular jobs. That can't be a stand-alone
argument, either, otherwise you could say that everyone from the age of
10 on should be in the workforce and retirement should be prohibited.
All these arguments have to be taken in the context of other arguments.
Peter Zohrab
Carol Ann Hemingway
Our country was founded by individuals who shunned the ordinary to find
a better way of life. Are you saying that individualism is bad/wrong?
Families are only a group of individuals who choose to live together.
They each have their own ideas, talents, and politics. Once your
children are cognizant of other ideas, theirs grow and change, and are
not your ideas. My "family" is a group of individuals who will vote in
a different way than I will vote.
LeftyLu
Patrick Dery
> Why is it important to feminists that women get paid for housework?
To me the question is not "why", but "by who"? Government? No way! We
can't afford that. By her husbands? Isn't already the case,
implicitly? By some special funds collected via teleton or funds raising
campaign? Why not, if it's based on liberty to give what you want to
this cause...
If everyone should be paid for every little task he does, where will we
stop? And my wife and I we share house tasks about 50-50, so who could
ask to be paid in this case?
Remunerate housework is not a solution, it is another problem.
Patrick Dery
> women staying at home to raise their children and then winding up totally
> financially dependent on another as well as having literally *years* of
> not much to do, doesn't seem a particularly *pretty* picture to me.
For low paid husband it is sure a problem... But we don't hear
housewifes of big money guys who spend time buying stuff and shouting at
the babysitter complain that they are dependant to their husbands' wealth.
My point is that everyone want to be better than the average, which is a
nonsense in itself. Poverty is a sad thing. Being dependent monetary is
a sad thing too. But if earning money is what you want beyond everything
else, then you will make the righ choices to reach that goal. And that
choice is certainly not to raise a family at home with a low paid jerk of
husband... Maybe I am rough in my words, but that is how I see what's
happening. "Gimme more, even if I don't really worth it compared to
others who make bigger efforts than I, or even if you can't afford it.
GIVE ME MORE!!!" That's all what lobbyists, feminists, poors, hockey
players (!), *EVERYONE* say in our days... Time to put clock back on
time I guess...
> >Why is it important to feminists that women get paid for housework?
>
> Because it is *work* and it deserves to be paid? Certainly, if as a
> society, we are going to continue heralding stay-at-home motherhood
> as something of a benefit to women. If not, then *I* would certainly
> advise women to NOT stay at home with their children and to hold onto
> their jobs as hard as they possibly can.
... if it is what they want to do, yes, I agree totally. And if a
family is important to you, but don't want to stop your carrer because of
pregnancy, you can still adopt a child. There ARE choices to make, and
there ARE solutions to everyone's needs. You just have to be consequent
with yourself.
David Meyers
Sure. It is not meant as a stand-alone argument against Feminism. It
has to be considered in the context of other arguments for and against
housewives (especially if they have children) joining the workforce.
You have yet to make any point as to why you think it ought
to be women staying home instead of men.
Patrick Dery
> Our country was founded by individuals who shunned the ordinary to find
> a better way of life. Are you saying that individualism is bad/wrong?
No at all! I mean that when things were "man earns money woman raises
children", everything was simple and the society had a lot of cohesion.
Now, we have 2 "mentality" facing each other: "family rules!" against
"individuals rule!". I think this is why we have so much confrontations
in our times.
Tomorrow, maybe the life will be "individuals earns money and day
nursery raises children", so everything will be simple again and the
society will find back its cohesion.
There is a lot of tugging and wrangling because as a society, today, we are
not on the same wavelenght.
My point is that, as we are negociating today the way we'll live tomorrow,
we should never let anyone claiming rights for his/her particular group
of interests force his/her views in the minds and lifes of others if
there's valuable reasons for these "others" to be opposed to those
claimings.
This include women groups, which are in my opinion trying to make us, 1990's
men, pay for unfairness happened in the 5000 last years, instead of just
trying to put things back in place and restart from scratch, thing that I
would agree with at 100%!
Young guys (24 y.o.) feel a bit overrunned by these claimings since, in
our heads and hearts, women are equal and complementary, to men, so any
claiming is useless! To ask for that is like trying to knock down an
already opened door.
Still this happens everyday, at least here in Quebec where we have "positive
discrimation" making women employed in government jobs before (more
competent?) men just because they are women, or other womens claiming a
2$ raise of the minimum pay rates to the government instead of trying by
themselves to be better qualified or to find better jobs.
I disagree with that all the way.
Bye!
Patrick Dery
> You have yet to make any point as to why you think it ought
> to be women staying home instead of men.
"A priori", since it's by nature women who give birth to babies, they are
forced to stop working at least a couple of months for that. It's what
brings them to stay home instead of men, in my opinion. And A PRIORI I
said, because after the birth, woman can go back to work if she wants or can.
For example, if my wife earns bigger than I someday, and if we have a
baby, OF COURSE I'd stay home and let her work if we want to raise our
family this way.
But understand it's not a matter of discrimination or cultural pression
saying "women stay home!", it's mainly nature's fault!
It doesn't impede men to stay home if, in the financial interest of the
family, it would be better like that!
Paul Walker
zohrab_p@atlantis says...
>On Thu, 8 Jun 1995 ach...@naig.com wrote:
>> theoretically, the larger the pool of available labor, then the less an
>> employer must pay for that labor. i would agree on that point of economic
>> theory.
>Thank you.
Good to see you two agreeing on something that in general is not true! Try
thinking about a situation with more than one type of labour ( I have given a
very simple example of what can happen with two types of labour in an earlier
posting), try thinking about a case where trade unions or professional groups
exit, try thinking about a situation where you have minimum wage laws etc
etc. All these things can result in your "agreed point of economic theory"
not being true.
Vincent Patrick
>This include women groups, which are in my opinion trying to make us, 1990's
>men, pay for unfairness happened in the 5000 last years, instead of just
>trying to put things back in place and restart from scratch, thing that I
>would agree with at 100%!
>
>Young guys (24 y.o.) feel a bit overrunned by these claimings since, in
>our heads and hearts, women are equal and complementary ....
>
>Still this happens everyday, at least here in Quebec where we have "positive
>discrimation" making women employed in government jobs before (more
>competent?) men just because they are women....
>
>I disagree with that all the way.
Yes, Patrick! It is not just the 24 year old men who have lived a lifetime
of fairness only to be discriminated against by affirmative action. Most
of my generation (and I'm 41 years old) would be in the same boat. I agree
with your sentiments.
I find, in fact, that affirmative action has influenced me to consider
instituting my own "reverse affirmative action" policies wherever I find the
opportunity in my life. I bet I am not alone.
For the benefit of USA readers, I am not talking about racial AA, but AA
which discriminates in favour of women.
Regards
Vincent Patrick
vpat...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
Vincent Patrick
>Oh come on! Higher income is the major factor in predicting higher
>consumption at both the micro and macroeconomic levels.
>
It still depends on the type of consumption. In Australia, high income
is a good predictor for land ownership and higher than normal savings
levels. Neither of these helps to employ people (significantly).
What you perhaps should be arguing when denying that feminism reduces
wages, is that the large concomitant increase in divorce creates a large
demand for labour. This is in the form of increased demand for lawyers
(yippee for lawyers!) and housing related goods when two households are
formed from one.
Regards
Vincent Patrick
vpat...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
Elaine S. Betza
personnel and replaced them with non-union help thereby saving on
hourly wages/benefits. Two or three months later Citibank posted its
largest quarterly profit ever. When discussing the general lowering of
wage rates why isn't this story mentioned first. Women went to work
not to fulfill themselves (and let us remember that despite media
propaganda many women worked back in the fifties and sixties before
feminism) but because familes could no longer survive on just one
income. We now have many families just scraping by on 2 1/2 incomes.
Question. If we don't start paying employees a living wage who is
going to buy all these goods and services? The Chinese will only pick
up the slack for a lttle while.
Mark Witte
Vincent Patrick <vpat...@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>mwi...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mark Witte) wrote:
>
>>Oh come on! Higher income is the major factor in predicting higher
>>consumption at both the micro and macroeconomic levels.
>>
>It still depends on the type of consumption. In Australia, high income
>is a good predictor for land ownership and higher than normal savings
>levels. Neither of these helps to employ people (significantly).
Higher income predicts greater purchases of all "normal" goods (normal being
an economic definition which contrasts with the economic definition of
inferior goods). This would include land, sure. Also, wealthier people tend
to have a higher saving to income ratio.
If you don't like these facts, you don't like people being wealthy. It's got
nothing to do with feminism.
Spowart David
>Subject: Re: Feminism lowers pay rates ?
>Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 08:58:17 GMT
>First of all, that is the opposite of what Feminism does. Feminism has
>introduced affirmative action in all sorts of areas, so that it is *not*,
>NOT, any more, the most qualified person who gets the job.
Affirmative action I believe was introduced as a transition phase mechanism to
get women into the workforce. This was because employers were sometimes
reluctant to hire women purely on the basis of old sexist stereotyping they
had absorbed as children. It is a useful temporary mechanism I believe to
break a vicious cycle whereby women do not train in certain fields because
they are excluded, with this exclusion justified on the basis that women are
not sufficiently skilled. Sometimes temporary measures (or revolutions in a
broad sense) are required to break the inertia to change from those few who
benifited from the old system. That said, a recent Waikato University study of
its graduates found that students that were matched by degree and academic
record, found marketedly different pay scales in first jobs based upon their
gender (guess which gender won out); therefore in absence of affirmative
action, it can hardly be argued that the most qualified get the job.
>Secondly, you have been brainwashed by Feminism to concentrate on
>employment, to the exclusion of wider, more important issues. Jobs are
>not the only issue. There is also social cohesion, the right of children
>to live with non-divorced parents, the right of men to have some
>recompense for the fact that the female-majority electorate can vote in a
>government that declares war and consripts men to the frontline, and so on.
Well the stuff about female-majorities sending men to war is pretty bizarre.
In addition to acute paranoia, do you suffer from voices in your head and
flashbacks Peter? Feminism I believe does not concentrate only on employment.
My understanding is that it has critiqued society on a number of fronts,
including pornography, legal systems, rape laws, health systems etc. So I
think feminists all agree that jobs are not the only issue. The right of
children to live with divorced parents? Quite old conservative rants don't you
think. Besides wearily noting that there is no evidence that children
of divorced children suffer( once controlled for socio-economic group), does
social cohesion have to be defined in terms of patriachal nuclear families? A
system in meant to be stable when there is not desire for change from its
present state. As a pretty rough definition your idealised 1950's social
cohesion is neither stable or cohesive( if demonstrations to the contrary are
an indicator). Lastly what does any of the above necessarily have to do with
women entering the workforce? If your grievance is with feminism say so, don't
cloak it under some concern for the wages of the poor.
>Thirdly, women sharing the workplace with men causes all sorts of
>problems. There is research that shows that men in such environments get
>less job-satisfaction than they do in all-male work environments -- and
>no wonder, with people like you brainwashed into assuming that the
>woman's side of a dispute with a man is bound to be the right one. There
>is also research that shows that men at work suffer more stress than
>women do -- again, no wonder.
And therefore we should condemn half the population to domestic serfdom
because a few outmoded workers feel uncomfortable with society different than
their childhoods? Change is always difficult on those whose socialisation
taught them a set of beliefs now being challenged. Social change can't be
halted purely because the old feel uncomfortable. The old system of women in
the home is neither natural ( an post- industrial revolution concept) nor
equitable. If change from the inequitable to a more equitable society is
achieved at the cost of offending those who find comfort in their childhood
beliefs, then too bad. Also your research review is a bit limited; a
satistical result often repeated, is that once females pass 30% of the work
number in a given industry ,the stress on both males and females as co-workers
in a formerly male preserve , begins to dissapate. The lesson being a happy
one; people can adjust to and enjoy new social settings.
>The general point is that it is simplistic to look at just the individual
>-- you also have to look at the morale of the whole workforce on a given
>site, and you also have to look at the impact of Feminist dogma on the
>structure of Society as a whole.
> > > Society
>*has* to consider whether it is better to have Mr. and
>> Mrs. Smith both working, and Mr. Jones (with a wife and six kids, say)
>> unemployed -- or Mr. Smith working, Mrs. Smith at home giving her kids a
>> quality upbringing, and Mr. Jones in work (or some other combination, if you
>> like).
Did you ever consider that restricting a group of people from useful
employment solely on the basis of gender is a little unfair? This is apart
from wearily noting again that there is no reason to assume that Mrs. Smith
is best equipped to stay at home. Your reasoning is also too 'zero-sum'. If
society were to usefully employ women and men in their most productive uses,
then the total output of society is greater than if only men were employed(and
therefore some men and women not filling their most productive use). Therefore
women entering the workforce does not necessarily produce one-for-one male
unemployment nor lower wages. Your argument you see could be used to support a
switch in systems where those with blue eyes as a characteristic were excluded
from the workforce-arbitrary, unfair and finally inefficient.
>> "Society"? Do you mean _you_? Or the ever-loving paternalistic
>> State? You are assuming not only that someone is qualified to make
>> these decisions, but that someone ought to be given that POWER,
>> too. I don't trust the State to decide who ought to do what.
>> I trust you even less.
>You may be some extreme anarchist, for all I know. But, if not, then
>you're overlooking the obvious point that governments *do* make these
>sorts of decisions all the time, so it is futile to pretend that I want
>to do something that no one has ever done before.
>And what's more, they usually take these decisions under the one-sided
>influence of Feminist propaganda from Feminist pressure-groups, Feminist
>academics, and Feminist journalists.
Please, our governments as bastions of female power? Get real you dork. I
can't even bother to argue against such a sad, paranoid assertion. I will say
this, male philosophers argue that a theory is tested against real world
observations. If the logical implications of a theory aren't there in reality,
reject the theory. Try this male scientifc method on your theory of female
political dominance.
>>
>> 4. Having a job, for men, is not some sort of privilege. Being able to
>stay at home as a kept woman seems fairly privileged to me. Of course,
>some women
>>
>> It is no just "being _able_". You are talking about _forcing_
>> them to not work. What gives you that right?
>I never said anything about forcing housewives not to work. Some people
>may argue for that, others may argue for tax or othre incentives to
>encourage housewives to stay at home.
But you're all for a society were women don't work and all against moves to
remove barriers to women entering the workforce. Why women as the group that
stays at home? Why not blue-eyed groups? Why not pacific islanders? Which
group do you plan to persceute next?
>The point is that there are already incentives which drive housewives out
>into the workplace. One is the tax system, in some countries, which
>taxes spouses and partners individually, resulting in a single-income
>family earning, say, $40,000 being taxed more than a double-income family
>with the same totla income of $40,000.
But there are tax systems without this anomaly that still have women entering
the workforce. Can't you consider the possibility that the main incentive is
financial independence. Why should women be excluded from employment and
therefore have to rely on male partners for economic support. Could it be that
such a dependence seems very appealing to you?
>Another incentive is the low wage rates which result from so many housewives
>being in the workforce in the first place. To survive adequately, a
>family is forced to consider sending both partners out to work, to the
>detriment of the kids.
I wearily note that your sad-arsed reasoning is too simplistic. An increase in
supply does not necessarily mean lower wages, if the supply is heterogenous.
If heterogenous, the addition of supply can feasibly lift wages in some
sectors if they bring more skill and thus a higher marginal productivity. Low
wages in low skill sectors are the result of a pool of lowly skilled workers
having to compete with the worldwide labour pool.
>> But if you think life in the ratrace is much
>> better than life as a housewife, then I think you live on
>> some other planet.
>>
>> Ever been a housewife?
>>
>> --D
>Silly question.
Not really, you don't seem to have looked at the issue from a different
perspective of those you wish to persecute at all.
>Peter Zohrab>
David Spowart
Economics Group,
Victoria University of Wellington,
New Zealand
spow...@obelisk.fca.vuw.ac.nz
"I cheated on my metaphysics finals; I looked into the soul of the boy sitting
next to me."
Jason Robertson
> I believe that we do indeed identify winos, the poor, etc. as
> "losers" and shun them as "outsiders." Indeed, much of the
> vilification heaped on the poor on this very board is indicative
> of the same sentiment. As for myself, I am *aware* of it, but
> I'm not sure I'm *better* because of this awareness: I often
> hurry by the outstretched hand. It is precisely this hatred of the
> poor which puts any kind of politically organized program to help
> them on a precarious base. It should be observed, that in
> England in the 17th century it was made illegal to be poor, indigent,
> and unemployed, and that "being sent to the poorhouse" meant being
> sent somewhere to render compulsory labor at near-starvation wages
> on the assumption that "welfare recipients" were too lazy to work
> for a living....
Well, for one thing a poor person is several times more likely to put a knife
in you and steal your money than a well dressed businessman. I don't have
anything against homeless people who don't care enough to earn a good living
and lead a normal life. I'm not sure I care enough. But the ones who get
money from strangers and go buy booze with it are worthless trash. You can
usually tell what type you're dealing with. Around here there are a few bums
who ask for money. They even get pushy and try to lay a guilt trip on you. I
walked by one who asked me for money once, and I ignored him. He actually said
in a sarcastic tone "Thanks a lot, man." Fuck him. I should have pulled out a
shiney new penny and thrown it on the ground, saying "Have a blast, dude," but
I'm too nice I guess. I've deduced that most of these types of people (not all,
definitely not all) are worthless and not even worthy of pity.
You've also got to wonder if in giving him a few bucks you're helping him or
hurting him in the long run.
--
Mens movement, women's movement, religious movement, etc... sound like a bunch
of bowel movements to me. -Unknown
What are the best things in life? To crush the enemy, to see him driven before
you, and to hear the lamentations of the women. -Conan
gn842
>
>>Someone said that sometimes it sounds as if poverty was a predjudice
>>exercised against the poor. Ie, that people are poor because no one
>will
>>pay them, and that no one will pay them not because they have nothing
>to
>>pay them _for_, but because they are poor - ie out of spite. Did that
>>make sense?
>>
>>--
>
>the majority of the human race. Intentional discrimination against the
>"poor" ? In isolated cases, anything is possible....but sorry....I see
>absolutely no evidence of widespread discrimination etc... But rather
>many opportunities offered for training etc...
I witnessed a very interesting occurrence a few years ago. A well-dressed
man in a suit got out of a nice car and went to a phone booth. He turned
to another guy in a suit--a stranger--and said, "I haven't got a quarter
and need one to make a call. I'll give you a dollar for whatever change
you can spare." (i.e. it was worth dollar to him to buy a quarter at that
mopment.)
The other fellow said, "No, no no problem. Just atake a quarter and keep
it."
Now the intersting thing here is the ease with which two people of the
same class will share under this circumstance. Because you obviously
don't *need* the quarter, I am willing to give it to you. But let
a "scurvy bum wino" approach you in the street and ask for a quarter
or fifty cents, and off we scuttle, "in a hurry, too busy, etc." Even
the minority that occasionally gives by no means gives all the time.
And it is of course the beggar who is vilified as lazy and deserving
of his plight, why we all take pity on the man who gets out of a
BMW and in a hurry needs to make a phone call.
I suggest that class is in fact a real and distinguishing variable and
that we do "get along best with our own kind," and that there are abundant
signs to us as to just who "our kind" are. Another similar case is
a Harvard grad who descended into wino-world and was rescued by some
former frat brothers who raised the dough to put him through detox and
get him back on his feet. I don't know whether the story has a happy
ending or not, but it clearly was a case of "Harvard people don't
belong in the gutter."
Ronald Kunne
Paul Murray <pmu...@nccdcfsg.telecom.com.au> writes:
>bren...@richmond.infi.net wrote:
>>Women are not drafted because men don't want them to be. In my view,
>>nobody should be drafted - it's legalized slavery.
>
>Indeed. If free citizens are not willing to die for their country then
>the country is not worth dying for and ought to lose. That is the
>function that war serves.
Very outdated standpoint, in my opinion.
Consider:
- French draftees dying in Vietnam (1954) and Algeria (1962)
- American draftees dying in Vietnam (1964-1975)
- Russian draftees dying in Afghanistan (a few years ago) and Tchetcheny (now)
All these draftees were dying to defend their countries, would you say?
I think not.
In fact the whole concept of `country' has changed after WW II:
- a lot of colonies (i.e. part of their motherland!) became independent
- in Western Europe countries are growing together to form a union
- parts of countries strive for independence (former Soviet Union,
Yougoslavia)
- more and more people have the possibility to marry outside there
country and move elsewhere
As a Dutchmen, married to a Frenchwomen, having lived in Switzerland
and now living in France, which country am I supposed to be willing
to die for?
Rather than dying for a country, consider dying for a cause or for
humanity, will you? It seems to make a little bit more sense in our
present day world.
Greetings,
Ronald
Richard Harter
Jason Robertson <jrob...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>In article <3rhths$p...@rebecca.albany.edu> gn...@albany.edu writes:
>Well, for one thing a poor person is several times more likely to put a knife
>in you and steal your money than a well dressed businessman. I don't have
>anything against homeless people who don't care enough to earn a good living
>and lead a normal life. I'm not sure I care enough. But the ones who get
>money from strangers and go buy booze with it are worthless trash....
What's even worse is that most of them are Republicans that listen to
Rush Limbaugh on boom boxes.
--
There are features that should not be used. | Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
There are concepts that should not be exploited.| Phone: 508-369-7398
There are problems that should not be solved. | SMDS Inc. PO Box 555
There are programs that should not be written. | Concord MA 01742
Paul Murray
>Women are not drafted because men don't want them to be. In my view,
>nobody should be drafted - it's legalized slavery.
Indeed. If free citizens are not willing to die for their country then
the country is not worth dying for and ought to lose. That is the
function that war serves.
--
Peter Zohrab
Paul Murray <pmu...@nccdcfsg.telecom.com.au> wrote:
> bren...@richmond.infi.net wrote:
> >Women are not drafted because men don't want them to be. In my view,
> >nobody should be drafted - it's legalized slavery.
>
> Indeed. If free citizens are not willing to die for their country then
> the country is not worth dying for and ought to lose. That is the
> function that war serves.
Exactly. Whenever you say that the draft should be gender-neutral, the
Feminists dodge the question by saying that there shouldn't be a draft.
Feminists can't just wish wars out of existence !
Either women should be drafted into the frontline (according to laws passed
*now*, in peacetime) just like men, or men should have special rights and
privileges enshrined in legislation to compensate them for the risk they run
by just being male and between the ages of, say 10 and 70 when a war starts.>
> --
There's no point waiting till the war actually starts, because then the
Feminists will suddenly disappear into the woodwork (as they have in Bosnia),
and leave the men to get on with the business of dying.
Peter Zohrab
> Paul Murray - JT Software | ,~,_/\
> MS Access, Word/Excel | / \
> C/C++ windows | { }
> 015-268-960 | \_,~~\*/ <= Canberra, Australia
> http://www.telstra.com.au | v
>
>
--
ASK ME FOR MY FREE INTERNATIONAL MEN'S RESOURCE-LIST AND/OR NZMRA MANIFESTO
Peter Zohrab
Ronald Kunne <KU...@frcpn11.in2p3.fr> wrote:
> In article <3rj3rh$cfc@cdn_mail.telecom.com.au>
> Paul Murray <pmu...@nccdcfsg.telecom.com.au> writes:
>
> >>Women are not drafted because men don't want them to be. In my view,
> >>nobody should be drafted - it's legalized slavery.
> >
> >Indeed. If free citizens are not willing to die for their country then
> >the country is not worth dying for and ought to lose. That is the
> >function that war serves.
>
Not at all. Some things never change. This hasn't either.
>
> Consider:
> - French draftees dying in Vietnam (1954) and Algeria (1962)
> - American draftees dying in Vietnam (1964-1975)
> - Russian draftees dying in Afghanistan (a few years ago) and Tchetcheny (now)
>
> All these draftees were dying to defend their countries, would you say?
> I think not.
There always have been draftees dying in colonial wars (on both sides) -- and
please note that a colony is not just a country that some people with white
skins have sailed a long distance to conquer. That is the conventional, but
racist definition.
A colony is also a colony if it is right next door to the colonising country
(or used to be, before it was swallowed up), and whatever the skin colour of
the colonisers, and no matter if the colonisers are a big, medium-sized, or
small country themselves.
>
> In fact the whole concept of `country' has changed after WW II:
> - a lot of colonies (i.e. part of their motherland!) became independent
> - in Western Europe countries are growing together to form a union
> - parts of countries strive for independence (former Soviet Union,
> Yougoslavia)
None of that is new. Splits and mergers have been happening everywhere
throughout history.
> - more and more people have the possibility to marry outside there
> country and move elsewhere
Yes, but most people can't afford, and don't necessarily want to sell up and
move to another country at the first sign of unrest. Few countries are
totally without internal or external military threats.
> > As a Dutchmen, married to a Frenchwomen, having lived in Switzerland
> and now living in France, which country am I supposed to be willing
> to die for?
>
You don't necessarily have a choice. It depends on the laws of the country
where you live, your legal status there, and your ability and willingness to
find somewhere else to live. My back ground is just as international as
yours, but your (i.e. one's) friends, your wife and your children affect your loyalties and
freedom of action.
> Rather than dying for a country, consider dying for a cause or for
> humanity, will you? It seems to make a little bit more sense in our
> present day world.
These are not alternatives. If you are male you don't have a choice, always.
And dying for a country is often dressed up as dying for a cause (e.g. the war
against Nazism).
>
> Greetings,
> Ronald
Peter Zohrab
Dan Horowitz
>bren...@richmond.infi.net wrote:
>>Women are not drafted because men don't want them to be. In my view,
>>nobody should be drafted - it's legalized slavery.
Paul Murray <pmu...@nccdcfsg.telecom.com.au> wrote:
>Indeed. If free citizens are not willing to die for their country then
>the country is not worth dying for and ought to lose. That is the
>function that war serves.
>
I thought war enabled men with small penises to feel better about themselves. My mistake.
So said,
The Dan
two accounts...no waiting
da...@oo.com dan...@aol.com
--------------------------------
Hugs and Kisses
x <> * |
:-)>I&< \/ |
x >< |
--------------------------------
"Don't hate me because I'm on AOL,
hate me because I'm beautiful"
Patrick Dery
> Yes, Patrick! It is not just the 24 year old men who have lived a lifetime
> of fairness only to be discriminated against by affirmative action. Most
> of my generation (and I'm 41 years old) would be in the same boat. I agree
> with your sentiments.
Hi!
I don't understand peoples who say discrimination is a bad thing, but
affirmative action pro-women is a good thing. Since there's only 2
genders, to discriminate one or to favour the other is exactly the same
thing.
AA is another popular concept having no sense at all, IMHO. Here's why:
In fact, if a woman is really competent and finds a boss who doesn't want
to employ her because she's a woman, then this woman will certainly find
a job elsewhere (if she is really competent, I insist!), and come back to
compete the man's business via the other business she works in.
So, if the market works fine, employers who choose employees on sex
rather than competence will deprive his/her company of very good elements
to the profit of those who will engage them. And sooner or later, this
unefficient company will be smashed off the market!
Maybe for public institution where market doesn't apply very well, we
should try to emphasise the control over those who employ peoples to be
sure they choose by competence ONLY (too bad if it is 100% men or 100%
women!), but never we should encourage hiring only on a sex matter to
respect arbitrary ratios or quotas
Bye!
Patrick
--
___ _____ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
.'/,-Y" "~-. ( )
l.Y ^. O ( Hmmmm... Des peanuts.... )
/\ _\_ o ( )
i ___/" "\ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
| /" "\ o !
l ] o !__./
\ _ _ \.___./ "~\ => Patrick Dery (PD...@ECN.ULAVAL.CA)
X \/ \ ___./ => Etudiant Gradue, CREFA
( \ ___. _..--~~" ~`-. => Departement d'economique
` Z,-- / \ => Universite Laval, Quebec
\__. ( / ______)
\ l /-----~~" /
Y \ / " C'est correct en pratique, mais
| "x______.^ ca marchera jamais en theorie! "
| \
j Y
Patrick Dery
> Question. If we don't start paying employees a living wage who is
> going to buy all these goods and services? The Chinese will only pick
> up the slack for a lttle while.
This needs confirmation, but I am almost certain that to have the same
standard of living than in the beginning of our century, to an equal
family size, today we need to work at least 2 times more.
This means that 2 incomes today worth 1 income in these days.
My explication of that is once the 2nd income entered in a family, this
family had a great wealth effect. Over time, though, this increase of
consuming power has been eaten by inflation.
So today, two works for the price of one!
The poverty impression we kept of these early years is due to large
families (10 children and more!), or the '30 crisis..
Can someone confirm or infirm that, at least for north america? It's my
impressions, but I think they're founded...
Carol Ann Hemingway
I don't like the draft. It might be necessary, tho. If there were a
war, I wouldn't want my son to go, or my daughter. I would rather
fight in their place--perhaps the wars should be fought by those who
are in power to invoke them, and all of that generation. Now to
reality, if there is a war call my daughter, and my son. :[
LeftyLu
In <DA4HL...@actrix.gen.nz> zohr...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz (Peter
Zohrab) writes:
>
>In article <3rj3rh$cfc@cdn_mail.telecom.com.au>,
>Paul Murray <pmu...@nccdcfsg.telecom.com.au> wrote:
>> bren...@richmond.infi.net wrote:
>> >Women are not drafted because men don't want them to be. In my
view,
>> >nobody should be drafted - it's legalized slavery.
>>
>> Indeed. If free citizens are not willing to die for their country
then
>> the country is not worth dying for and ought to lose. That is the
>> function that war serves.
>
Marcia Flint
>>Subject: Re: Feminism lowers pay rates ?
>>Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 08:58:17 GMT
(really long post snipped)
>David Spowart
>Economics Group,
>Victoria University of Wellington,
>New Zealand
>spow...@obelisk.fca.vuw.ac.nz
The answer is simple. Affirmative Action is a backlash target because it's
working and the powers that be (in general, white males) feel threatened by
the competition from women and minorities. Abilities, my left ear -- quotas,
still mainly white males in the power department.
Anybody????
Jerry Fowler
n Hemingway) writes:
:>
:>
:>I don't like the draft. It might be necessary, tho. If there were a
:>war, I wouldn't want my son to go, or my daughter. I would rather
:>fight in their place--perhaps the wars should be fought by those who
:>are in power to invoke them, and all of that generation. Now to
:>reality, if there is a war call my daughter, and my son. :[
:>
:>LeftyLu
No, neither mine nor yours!! Enough has been paid already, no more.
Spowart David
>Subject: Re: Feminism lowers pay rates ?
>In fact, if a woman is really competent and finds a boss who doesn't want
>to employ her because she's a woman, then this woman will certainly find
>a job elsewhere (if she is really competent, I insist!), and come back to
>compete the man's business via the other business she works in.
>So, if the market works fine, employers who choose employees on sex
>rather than competence will deprive his/her company of very good elements
>to the profit of those who will engage them. And sooner or later, this
>unefficient company will be smashed off the market!
This would work in a perfectly competitive labour market. Hiring a
woman with high ability would give a firm an advantage over others. But this
assumes an infinite(or very large number) of firms, so that sooner or later
the profit opportunity from hiring the high-ability woman will be taken up.
The situation for very high skilled professions, requiring university
education, is that the market is usually a monopsony type-structure. The
number of firms buying labour is very small. Hence the sanctions against
sexist hiring behaviour by firms is diminished. So women going for
high-powered jobs in the private sector may require Affirmative Action type
measures as a temporary device to introduce women into jobs, hopefully
changing attitudes of their male employers toward voluntarily hiring women.
Such a theory should be quite easy to test empirically; the higher the number
of firms in a given industry, the higher the penetration of women into that
profession. Clearly there will are obvious reasons for AA in the public
sector; government leadership in employment practices(hence the requirement
for the state to be equal opportunity employers) and the absense of market
sanctions against sexist hiring practices.
David Spowart
Victoria University of Wellington,
New Zealand
spow...@obelisk.fca.vuw.ac.nz
"I cheated on my metaphysics finals; I looked into the soul of the boy sitting
next to me."
Carol Ann Hemingway
Thank you Mr. Fowler,
I hope you are more correct on this one, than I.
LeftyLu
In <3rlfvk$3...@opal.southwind.net> gfo...@southwind.net (Jerry Fowler)
writes:
Jerry Fowler
n Hemingway) writes:
:>
:>
:>Thank you Mr. Fowler,
:>
:>I hope you are more correct on this one, than I.
:>
:>LeftyLu
Unfortunately no, I am not correct. The past indicates that we still will
solve our problems with the stick. The best we can hope for is that using
the stick will be stalled until there is no other option. Unfortunately one
has to use the stick once in awhile, just so one doesn't have to use it more
often. The risk is that one can become a bully. How one instill a self
check on that one I don't know.
When it does come tho, neither men nor women will die more easily than the
other. There is not one gender that will feel less pain, suffer misery with
more tenacity, nor tremble less with fear when the world lights up. We will
all wish we could just pull the covers over our head and wait out the storm.
It's tough to pull a rice paddy or desert sand over your head tho.
Been there.....
GES HU
<pd...@ecn.ulaval.ca> writes:
>
>On 11 Jun 1995, Elaine S. Betza wrote:
>
>> Question. If we don't start paying employees a living wage who is
>> going to buy all these goods and services? The Chinese will only
pick
>> up the slack for a lttle while.
>
>This needs confirmation, but I am almost certain that to have the same
>standard of living than in the beginning of our century, to an equal
>family size, today we need to work at least 2 times more.
>This means that 2 incomes today worth 1 income in these days.
>
>My explication of that is once the 2nd income entered in a family,
this
>family had a great wealth effect. Over time, though, this increase of
>consuming power has been eaten by inflation.
>
>So today, two works for the price of one!
>
>The poverty impression we kept of these early years is due to large
>families (10 children and more!), or the '30 crisis..
>
>Can someone confirm or infirm that, at least for north america? It's
my
>impressions, but I think they're founded...
>
>
In some ways I do think we are poorer than in the past. Look how long
you have to work these days do own a single house on a relatively small
plot of ground.. 30 yrs!! And no doubt about it. Women entering work
force lowered man's effective pay. And he still has to ask her out..
ges hu
Patrick Dery
> The answer is simple. Affirmative Action is a backlash target because it's
> working and the powers that be (in general, white males) feel threatened by
> the competition from women and minorities. Abilities, my left ear -- quotas,
> still mainly white males in the power department.
>
> Anybody????
Not me. Affirmative Action or Positive Discrimination is as bad as
discrimination itself. Since there's only 2 genders, to encourage
employment of one is to restrict automatically the employment of the
other. As I said in another posting here, if a company ignores good
candidates because of their sex or race or whatsoever, that good
candidate will surely be able to place itself in another company. Over
time, if that biased company let go good candidates to its competitors,
it will sooner or later be forced to close, or to change its mind.
There's no reason to have absolutely 50% of women or 20% of black peoples
or anything like these. It must be 100% competent peoples, period.
What if men asked for 50% of male nurses in all the hospitals of the
country, would female nurses say "ha, yeah, you're right, come and take
my job, even if I do it better than you" ?
The solution is to be sure that the person who chooses who will be
employed does its choices only on competence, not on its preconceptions.
For the rest, let the market do its work.
Excuse my langage, but it would piss me off to see a woman less competent
or qualified than I have the job I want just because she's a woman and
there are ratios, quotas and other Affirmative Action.
Bye.
--
o , => Patrick Dery (PD...@ECN.ULAVAL.CA) <=
O .:/ o => Etudiant gradue, CREFA (Graduated student) <=
,,///;, ,;/ => Departement d'economique (Economics dept.) <=
o:::::::;;/// => Universite Laval (Laval University) <=
>::::::::;;\\\ => http://vm1.ulaval.ca/~3303pder/patrick.html <=
''\\\\\'" ';\ => " Une femme adultere fut condamnee a la ... <=
';\ => ... couverture electrique ! " <=
Patrick Dery
> In some ways I do think we are poorer than in the past. Look how long
> you have to work these days do own a single house on a relatively small
> plot of ground.. 30 yrs!! And no doubt about it.
Yeah that's what I think too...
> Women entering work
> force lowered man's effective pay. And he still has to ask her out..
> ges hu
Maybe not women lowered man's pay as much as buing power has been took
away over time. To me, once upon a time, working man and woman were
wealthy. Today, it's not as evident...
Well, it's my $0.02 !
David Meyers
wage rates why isn't this story mentioned first. Women went to work
not to fulfill themselves (and let us remember that despite media
propaganda many women worked back in the fifties and sixties before
feminism) but because familes could no longer survive on just one
income. We now have many families just scraping by on 2 1/2 incomes.
Yep. And the "norm" is a vastly different thing, economically,
than it was in the fifties and sixties. People buy different
things now, and some things which are now "necessities" were
differently prioritized and priced back then.
Question. If we don't start paying employees a living wage who is
going to buy all these goods and services?
If we don't pay these people a MARKET wage and start imposing
a mandated wage, and that mandated wage is higher than the market
will support, all those goods and services will cost more, which
undermines the entire point of raising the wage.
--D
--
dme...@panix.com
"In any case, C must have some merit, otherwise Perl
wouldn't have been written in it. :-)" - Peter Bruells
Patrick Dery
Sorry, I disagree totally!
> This would work in a perfectly competitive labour market. Hiring a
> woman with high ability would give a firm an advantage over others. But this
> assumes an infinite(or very large number) of firms, so that sooner or later
> the profit opportunity from hiring the high-ability woman will be taken up.
High-ability woman, as high-ability man, is a rare resource in a
perfectly competitive labour market. If, on the other side, the employee
agrees to move from a place where there's less opportunities to another
where there are a lot more, of course.
That is what we observe, when young peoples quit there native city to
study in a greater one and to eventually work in a bigger one. Usually,
highly qualified labourship is also highly mobile labourship.
It's mass labour force that is stuck with poverty problems and request AA
to obtain "gifts" they don't deserve. But if you give them what they want,
first you lower the competitivity of your local firms, second you block the
access of local high-ability labourship to local work, so they gotta move
to other areas. Resulting in a double effect of low quality labourforce
in your local area...
> The situation for very high skilled professions, requiring university
> education, is that the market is usually a monopsony type-structure. The
> number of firms buying labour is very small. Hence the sanctions against
> sexist hiring behaviour by firms is diminished. So women going for
> high-powered jobs in the private sector may require Affirmative Action type
> measures as a temporary device to introduce women into jobs, hopefully
> changing attitudes of their male employers toward voluntarily hiring women.
A brain is a brain. Specially in domains like research, computers, you
know, all these high-tech industries: NO ONE CAN LET A GENIUS WORK FOR ITS
COMPETITOR. Talk to IBM about what they think today of letting Bill Gates
start its own business...
And if Bill Gates was a woman instead, IBM's lost would not be smaller.
Leadership, resourcefullness and intelligence are wealths that make their
own path, be them possessed by a man OR a woman. So in no circomstance AA
is necessary to let these qualities raise to the top.
> Such a theory should be quite easy to test empirically; the higher the number
> of firms in a given industry, the higher the penetration of women into that
> profession. Clearly there will are obvious reasons for AA in the public
Yeah? I think it's more a matter of "The more women access to higher
education, the more women you'll find later in the industry". And today,
they are about 50% in university customers. Why women weren't in high
jobs before? Simply because they didn't have qualifications. Let the
time do its job, in 10 years at max you'll find women everywhere.
> sector; government leadership in employment practices(hence the requirement
> for the state to be equal opportunity employers) and the absense of market
> sanctions against sexist hiring practices.
Government is not subordinated to the market laws, so notions of
productivity, profitability, ..., aren't the sames than for private firms.
So before the costs of employing peoples by their "sex for our ratios"
instead of "by competence" appear, it'll be too late.
That's what you call "leadership in employment practices" ? Don't ask
why we have a debt in Canada of about $550 000 000 000. Now we have too
many civil servants for our capacity to pay them, and are stuck with our
"leadership in employment practices" making that we can not fire them.
CoOl uh?
The solution, as I already said, is to be sure that employers in public
institutions choose ONLY by competence, maybe with those sanctions you
noticed to be sure they do so. Not, I insist, AA. No way. Never. Niet.
Good Bye!
David Meyers
>> Peter Zohrab <zohrab_p@atlantis> writes:>From: Peter Zohrab
>>Subject: Re: Feminism lowers pay rates ?
The answer is simple. Affirmative Action is a backlash target because it's
working and the powers that be (in general, white males) feel threatened by
the competition from women and minorities. Abilities, my left ear -- quotas,
still mainly white males in the power department.
The original poster later used Affirmative Action as a demonstration
of the "problems" of women entering the workforce. The entire
discussion, though, grew in refutation of the alleged problems
themselves (ie. the unproven assertion that working women lower
the wage rates).
There is a world of difference between antidiscrimination and
affirmative action. Abilities _should_ be the criteria.
Affirmative action, however, _forces_ us to take
race/sex/minority-status into account, and legitimizes
the very problem it is purported to correct.
From yesterday's Times article about the recent Supreme Court
ruling: (in reference to an older ruling)
Chief Justice Rehnquist, then an Associate Justice, who
warned in his dissent that "the Court has sown the wind"
by endorsing a racial preference that he called "the very
evil that the law was intended to eradicate."
"Later courts will face the impossible task of reaping
the whirlwind," he added.
Which is exactly what is happening - affirmative action is
being challenged on several levels as discrimination in
itself, and in violation of the principles for which it
was instituted. The recent ruling, of course, was that
affirmative action -- racial preferences -- can only be
used under far more severe scrutiny than before, and
overturned the ruling from which Justice Rehnquist was
dissenting above.
gn842
>
>In article <3rj3rh$cfc@cdn_mail.telecom.com.au>
>Paul Murray <pmu...@nccdcfsg.telecom.com.au> writes:
>
>>>Women are not drafted because men don't want them to be. In my view,
>>>nobody should be drafted - it's legalized slavery.
>>
>>Indeed. If free citizens are not willing to die for their country then
>>the country is not worth dying for and ought to lose. That is the
>>function that war serves.
>
>
>- French draftees dying in Vietnam (1954) and Algeria (1962)
>- American draftees dying in Vietnam (1964-1975)
>- Russian draftees dying in Afghanistan (a few years ago) and Tchetcheny (now)
>
>All these draftees were dying to defend their countries, would you say?
>I think not.
>
>- a lot of colonies (i.e. part of their motherland!) became independent
>- in Western Europe countries are growing together to form a union
>- parts of countries strive for independence (former Soviet Union,
>Yougoslavia)
>country and move elsewhere
>
>and now living in France, which country am I supposed to be willing
>to die for?
>
>humanity, will you? It seems to make a little bit more sense in our
>present day world.
>
>Ronald
You forgot the Dutch who died fighting against the independence
of today's Indonesia.
bren...@richmond.infi.net
>If we don't pay these people a MARKET wage and start imposing
>a mandated wage, and that mandated wage is higher than the market
>will support, all those goods and services will cost more, which
>undermines the entire point of raising the wage.
What we have here is a catch-22.
Before minimum wage, factory workers were paid barely enough to live,
and to make ends meet men, women, AND children were forced to work.
This is at the turn of the 20th century, just when the indiustrial age was
starting to go full tilt. With the advent of the minimum wage, all the
market did was to raise its prices.
So: no minimum wage, high prices.
Minimum wage, high prices anyway.
The problem in this equation is that people think that it's the wage causing
poverty. It isn't. It's the people who try to leech all they can out of what
they manufacture. It's kind of a cliche to say, but peolpe need to understand
that the consumer is ALL POWERFUL when it comes to deciding what
company survives and prospers and what company whithers up and dies.
The same is true for working people. No working people, no product. The
"Boss Man," or whatever you want to call him/her/it, needs the worker to
produce goods.
But only under one condition. This condition is that the consumer must be
willing to THINK and CHOOSE CAREFULLY in the market. Unfortunately,
this is not the case today, and so the market walks all over us.
It's odd to think that in a free market system the socialist is completely
right. In my view, the worker would wind up running the whole show,
because the boss would depend on him/her/it to make a profit.
But then again, this has nothing to do with feminism lowering pay rates.
*-------------------------------------------------
* Bren...@richmond.infi.net
* "We are all born originals - why do so many die copies?"
* (Edward Young)
*-------------------------------------------------
Kate Orman
Peter Zohrab <zohr...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
[much snipped, but in short:]
>These are not alternatives. If you are male you don't have a choice, always.
>And dying for a country is often dressed up as dying for a cause (e.g. the war
>against Nazism).
Absolutely - that's why so many feminists are against the draft. The
Australian women's movement even grew out of anti-conscription protests
during the Viet Nam war. No-one should be forced into the army, male or
female.
[Follow-up]
--
___
Kate Orman
"Mulder, toads just fell from the sky!" - Scully
Roger M. Wilcox
>
>It's not just women who have rights. Men also have rights, children have
>rights, fetuses have rights.
^^^^^^^
<grooooan> Let's not get into THAT argument again....
Mark Stalzer
>Indeed. If free citizens are not willing to die for their country then
>the country is not worth dying for and ought to lose. That is the
>function that war serves.
I doubt the Allies would have been able to gather the manpower
necessary to win WWII without compulsory service. Do you really think a
world dominated by the Axis powers was preferable? I don't think
Australians would like to be ruled by Japan. The fact is, sometimes the
draft is necessary to protect the greater good. The people keep control
by normal democratic processes (voting, debating, protesting, etc.) as
happened with the Vietnam "conflict." (In this regards, the belief by
recent US Presidents that they can commit troops to extended conflicts
without the approval of the Senate would be troublesome if the draft
were reinstated.) Of course, if you're going to draft men, you must
draft women to maintain equality.
Mark Stalzer, m...@acm.org
Kate Orman
Peter Zohrab <zohr...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>Exactly. Whenever you say that the draft should be gender-neutral, the
>Feminists dodge the question by saying that there shouldn't be a draft.
On the other hand, when feminists say there shouldn't be a draft,
anti-feminists dodge the question by saying that women should be drafted
too.
>Feminists can't just wish wars out of existence !
No, but they can protest against conscription. As I've mentioned,
Australia's women's movement grew out of anti-war demonstrations during
Viet Nam, which included anti-conscription protests.
You'd think men might be more grateful for feminists' efforts on their
behalf in this matter. :-) After all, if the draft/conscription is
stopped, who benefits?
>Either women should be drafted into the frontline (according to laws passed
>*now*, in peacetime) just like men, or men should have special rights and
>privileges enshrined in legislation to compensate them for the risk they run
>by just being male and between the ages of, say 10 and 70 when a war starts.>
>> --
>There's no point waiting till the war actually starts, because then the
>Feminists will suddenly disappear into the woodwork (as they have in Bosnia),
>and leave the men to get on with the business of dying.
I think who and who isn't eligible for the draft tells us a great deal
about the way a society views men and women. A country which forces men
into the army, but refuses to allow women (and gay men, for that matter)
to choose to fight in the army, obviously believes in severely limited
roles for both genders. Feminism is all about challenging such limited
roles.
Feminists aren't "dodging" the draft, if you will: the problem of women
and the armed forces is constantly debated. (There's an interesting essay
in a Ms from a couple of years ago which outlined the "catch-22" for
feminists: wanting to make sure the army hiring practices aren't sexist,
and wanting to oppose militarism and massive military funding.)
David Meyers
>If we don't pay these people a MARKET wage and start imposing
>a mandated wage, and that mandated wage is higher than the market
>will support, all those goods and services will cost more, which
>undermines the entire point of raising the wage.
Before minimum wage, factory workers were paid barely enough to live,
and to make ends meet men, women, AND children were forced to work.
This is at the turn of the 20th century, just when the indiustrial age was
starting to go full tilt. With the advent of the minimum wage, all the
market did was to raise its prices.
So: no minimum wage, high prices.
Minimum wage, high prices anyway.
Ah - but that's the kicker - high prices relative to _what_?
The prices may be higher under a minimum wage scenario than
they'd be under a no-minimum wage scenario. Now - do they
raise enough to offset the greater nominal income that the
wage-earner makes? If they don't rise as much as the wage
does, the wage-earner can purchase more. If they rise _more_
than the wage does, then even though the worker makes a
higher nominal wage, he has less buying power.
The same is true for working people. No working people, no product. The
"Boss Man," or whatever you want to call him/her/it, needs the worker to
produce goods.
That is the basic power that Unions have - they can organize
and not work. However, government favors to unions which
give them additional protections - for example, not firing
strikers upset that balance. So to upset that upset,
regulations are piled on top of regulations, and the entire
relationship between workers and employers becomes twisted.
Between that and such unhealthy ties to employers like
health-insurance (which comes about due to tax incentives
to employer to provide it, instead of giving the incentives
to the individual) make for a bizarre situation where your
idealistic negotiations between workers and employers just
isn't the case.
It's odd to think that in a free market system the socialist is completely
right. In my view, the worker would wind up running the whole show,
because the boss would depend on him/her/it to make a profit.
This is an interesting point related to one I brought up
during the discussion of Social Security.
I was advocating individual, private retirement accounts which
hold mutual funds (or the equivalent thereof), like people have
in Chile. The beauty of this free-market approach to retirement
planning, and the irony, of course, is that since all the people
are saving for their retirement by building their private
portfolios, to the extent that the AFPs (the fund companies)
invest in private equity (as opposed, for example, government
securities), ownership of all the large private businesses
slowly becomes socialized - everyone owns the "means of production".
Of course, I'd prefer if the people had a bit more flexibility
in choosing which companies are owned by their retirement
funds, and if they got to vote their shares, but nevertheless,
the irony is still there.
But then again, this has nothing to do with feminism lowering pay rates.
Neither did this. Life is rough.
David Meyers
profession. Clearly there will are obvious reasons for AA in the public
sector; government leadership in employment practices(hence the requirement
for the state to be equal opportunity employers) and the absense of market
sanctions against sexist hiring practices.
This is self-contradicting. AA (in the forms of hiring preferences)
violates the principle of equal employment opportunity. It says that
some people (in the preferred, or "previously avoided") groups
are more equal than others.
If the State is going to be leader than it needs to hire in
a truly race/sex blind manner. Anything else is not leadership,
but reaction - and a dangerous precedent.
BTW, your comments about there not being a perfectly
competitive market are reasonable, but the solution is
_not_ preferential hiring, but instead non-discrimination.
Peter Zohrab
Marcia Flint <flin...@bud.indirect.com> wrote:
> >> Peter Zohrab <zohrab_p@atlantis> writes:>From: Peter Zohrab
> >>Subject: Re: Feminism lowers pay rates ?
> Wrote to:
>
> (really long post snipped)
>
> >David Spowart
> >Economics Group,
> working and the powers that be (in general, white males) feel threatened by
> the competition from women and minorities. Abilities, my left ear -- quotas,
> still mainly white males in the power department.
>
"feel threatened by competition", you write !
I suppose, as an Economist, you talk about fair competition, level playing
fields, non-distorted economies.
Affirmative Action is about unfair competition in the job market, sloping
playing fields, and distorted personnel structures.
It denies jobs to the best qualified, and allocates them to people on the
basis of political criteria.
Certainly white males feel threatened by this *unfair* competition -- if it
were fair competition, then we wouldn't feel threatened by it.
By the way, why isn't there Affirmative Action for the spectacle-wearing,
cross-bred Armenian-cum-Scots-cum-English-cum-Welsh minority (i.e. me) ?
Peter Zohrab
--
ASK ME FOR MY FREE INTERNATIONAL MEN'S RESOURCE-LIST AND/OR NZMRA MANIFESTO
Two Rights of Man: 1. The right to equality with Woman;
2. The right to an equal say in interpreting "equality"..
wh
>haha, i was about to say "well, then it would be a good lesson for
>white males to know what discrimination feels like and have the last
>slice of the pie for once"... but i'll refrain from such unwarranted
>comments.
>
>in any case, an argument about sheer competency vs. AA ignores the
>effects of discrimination in the school system, whereby teachers
>systematically yet subtly discourage brainy girls and encourage boys.
>this is a well-documented phenomenon. so i think merely making
>meritocratic the job market misses years of unfair preparation.
>
>unfortunately, it is rare to see someone who is against AA and for a
>competancy hiring to address such related yet crucial issues such as
>education. also, prejudice may bias the way that employers or others
>'rate' someone's performance, even given an 'objective' list of criteria
>-- this is also well-documented in psychological experiments.
>
>so, the real effect of attempting to install merely meritocratic job
>hiring will hardly put a dent in the underlying problem of unfair
>treatment of the sexes.
>
>--jennifer
Jennifer,
there was a documentary on TV recently which was done by the BBC .
It documented very clearly that there are a number of rather good schools
in the UK where girls outperform boys by a long shot. The research
showed that the school system was much better suited to girls than to
boys. It quoted numerous research articles. Also the heads of the
biggest british power company stating that according to their research
Women are better suited to management due to their relationship emphasis.
They expect that by 2005 most of their managers will be women.
etc.etc.
lslynn
>...in any case, an argument about sheer competency vs. AA ignores the
>effects of discrimination in the school system, whereby teachers
>systematically yet subtly discourage brainy girls and encourage boys.
>this is a well-documented phenomenon. so i think merely making
>>
>--jennifer
FYI, the majority of teachers accused of this "phenomenon" are female.
Jennifer Crystal Fang-Chien
> "feel threatened by competition", you write !
> I suppose, as an Economist, you talk about fair competition, level playing
> fields, non-distorted economies.
> Affirmative Action is about unfair competition in the job market, sloping
> playing fields, and distorted personnel structures.
> Certainly white males feel threatened by this *unfair* competition -- if it
> were fair competition, then we wouldn't feel threatened by it.
haha, i was about to say "well, then it would be a good lesson for
white males to know what discrimination feels like and have the last
slice of the pie for once"... but i'll refrain from such unwarranted
comments.
in any case, an argument about sheer competency vs. AA ignores the
effects of discrimination in the school system, whereby teachers
systematically yet subtly discourage brainy girls and encourage boys.
this is a well-documented phenomenon. so i think merely making
bren...@richmond.infi.net
>Judged on its merits, Affirmative Action has several pluses. It signals to
>women and young girls that investment in education and training will have a
>positive chance of being rewarded with employment. When women are employed it
>should also cause some attitude change in their male colleagues. Old
>stereotypes that women are not suited to particular jobs will actually be
>challenged by evidence. Now I stress that I acknowledge the weaknesses of
>AA. As an ultimate goal, it is simply not fair. It does have the potential to
>outlive its usefulness and be simply be abused. But I believe that the debate
>should focus not on AA per se, but whether it is the appropriate instrument to
>be used in a given situation. It is a temporary means to an end; not the end
>itself.
This is a good post. I find that I take an opposing position, though. While
I acknowledge that AA has some positive aspects, or rather that its INTENT
is to try and correct past problems and that its supporters are well-meaning
(for the most part, excluding career politicians) I don't think it even comes
close to doing what it set out to do: combat discrimination in the
workplace.
Affirmative Action is a remedy of a *symptom* and ONLY and symptom of
discrimination. It is rather like cold medicine: it will releive some of the
discomfort of discrimination, but the actual discrimination is still there - and
in some cases is exacerbated and made worse.
The average persons seems to feel that AA is the end all and be all of
equalizing the workforce, and the average WASP will feel no need to get
involved in equalizing the workforce so long as AA exists. Politicians
obviously feel no need to do anything else, they can point to their long
record of either supporting or opposing AA and claim they've struggled
against discrimination their entire carrer.
AA will not end discrimination.
Abolishing AA will not make hiring fair.
The best way to end economic discrimination is to compete economically
with institutions that practice discrimination. In other words, do business
with comapnies and groups that promote fair hiring practices. Get jobs there.
Start your own businesses. The Home Office marketplace is starting to take
off, and should become a powerful business force in the future. Most reports
I've seen so far make the Home Office marketplace look somewhat WASPish
at the moment, but it's still fairly new...
bren...@richmond.infi.net
>Affirmative Action is about unfair competition in the job market, sloping
>playing fields, and distorted personnel structures.
>
>It denies jobs to the best qualified, and allocates them to people on the
>basis of political criteria.
It doesn't necessarilly deny jobs to best qualified - surely there are some
minority recipients of AA who would have been best qualified for that job
anyway.
>Certainly white males feel threatened by this *unfair* competition -- if it
>were fair competition, then we wouldn't feel threatened by it.
Also not necessarilly true. Some people feel they are 'entitled' to preferential
treatment - this is fairly evenly distributed across all ethnic groups,
'minority' or otherwise. I'm sure in a world with completely fair
competition there would be plenty of people crying 'It's not fair!'
>By the way, why isn't there Affirmative Action for the spectacle-wearing,
>cross-bred Armenian-cum-Scots-cum-English-cum-Welsh minority (i.e. me) ?
>
>Peter Zohrab
Organize. If you want to be heard, you have to speak louder than the next guy.
And you've gotta have people to back you up. Which you seem to be trying
to do, by the way, so I can't really fault that.
Spowart David
>Subject: Re: Feminism lowers pay rates ?
>A brain is a brain. Specially in domains like research, computers, you
>know, all these high-tech industries: NO ONE CAN LET A GENIUS WORK FOR ITS
>COMPETITOR. Talk to IBM about what they think today of letting Bill Gates
>start its own business...
>And if Bill Gates was a woman instead, IBM's lost would not be smaller.
>Leadership, resourcefullness and intelligence are wealths that make their
>own path, be them possessed by a man OR a woman. So in no circomstance AA
>is necessary to let these qualities raise to the top.
This is so incredibly naive, that it borders on depressing. Take a
counter-example from the time of AA's creation. In the pharmaceutical and
cosmetics industries for example, there was widespread explicit job
discrimination whereby science researchers with Masters or PHd's were not
employed if they happened to be a woman. These areas I believe require
substantial 'brains' as you put it, so the human potential squandered by those
industries must have been substantial. Now with substantial sexist hiring
practises existing, AA is a transition instrument. It is hoped to act to
encourage investment by women in education and training towards fields that
were previously considered to be male preserves; and it should confront with
actual experience of working with women that their skills, performance and
commitment are not those described by old sexist stereotypes.
>Yeah? I think it's more a matter of "The more women access to higher
>education, the more women you'll find later in the industry". And today,
>they are about 50% in university customers. Why women weren't in high
>jobs before? Simply because they didn't have qualifications. Let the
>time do its job, in 10 years at max you'll find women everywhere.
Actually experience would say that you're dead wrong. As I said in a earlier
posting to Zohrab, research shows that educated women still face substantial
employment barriers. The Waikato UNiversity study took an entire years
graduates, and matched students by degree type and academic achievement. The
result was a substantial gap between male and female graduates in terms of job
seeking success and starting wages. So again, I think you're being a little
naive in the ability of certain groups to overcome discrimination because
"intelligence makes it's own path".
David Spowart
Spowart David
>in any case, an argument about sheer competency vs. AA ignores the
>effects of discrimination in the school system, whereby teachers
>systematically yet subtly discourage brainy girls and encourage boys.
>this is a well-documented phenomenon. so i think merely making
>meritocratic the job market misses years of unfair preparation.
>unfortunately, it is rare to see someone who is against AA and for a
>competancy hiring to address such related yet crucial issues such as
>education. also, prejudice may bias the way that employers or others
>'rate' someone's performance, even given an 'objective' list of criteria
>-- this is also well-documented in psychological experiments.
>so, the real effect of attempting to install merely meritocratic job
>hiring will hardly put a dent in the underlying problem of unfair
>treatment of the sexes.
>--jennifer
Hi jennifer,
I agree with you when you agrue that the barriers against minorities and women
run deeper than simple hiring practises. But in a way, we're restricted to
making piecemeal reforms to attack fundamental inequities. Nevertheless I
think it is important to define the terms of debate here. Zohrab and company
seem to attack AA as part of a general attack on attempts to get women out of
the home; hence "feminism lowers pay-rates". I hope that most reasonable
human beings have moved the debate beyond nostalgia for a time when
"men were men" , and agree that the ultimate goal is to have a system where
individuals are judged on their merits, and not their group characteristics.
But beyond agreement on this ultimate goal, I believe we have to think harder
on how we actually get there. Jennifer points out that work needs to be done
to the education area. But as I have argued elsewhere, educated women still
suffer from lower employment and pay-rates; so education reform must be
combined with changes to workplace practices. Several postings have attacked
AA as a paradoxical mechanism to achieve a meritocratic society. I do not wish
to appear to be enamoured of AA, and I do acknowledge the potential for abuse
of the preferential hiring scheme. But consider this; at the time of its
introduction, women were explicitly barred from private sector industries like
pharamaceutical and cosmestic reasearch. Preaching a doctrine of 'Equal
Employment Opportunities' to private sector employers would simply have been
ignored. AA was seen, I think correctly, as a temporary direct mechanism to
allow women into the workforce.
Judged on its merits, Affirmative Action has several pluses. It signals to
women and young girls that investment in education and training will have a
positive chance of being rewarded with employment. When women are employed it
should also cause some attitude change in their male colleagues. Old
stereotypes that women are not suited to particular jobs will actually be
challenged by evidence. Now I stress that I acknowledge the weaknesses of AA.
As an ultimate goal, it is simply not fair. It does have the potential to
outlive its usefulness and be simply be abused. But I believe that the debate
should focus not on AA per se, but whether it is the appropriate instrument to
be used in a given situation. It is a temporary means to an end; not the end
itself.
A bientot,
Patrick Dery
> Peter Zohrab (zohr...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz) wrote:
>
> > "feel threatened by competition", you write !
(cut)
> haha, i was about to say "well, then it would be a good lesson for
> white males to know what discrimination feels like and have the last
> slice of the pie for once"... but i'll refrain from such unwarranted
> comments.
You are the kind of feminist I'd like to kick the ass to for saying such
things. I'm 24 years old and I don't want to pay for your father not
able to make love correctly to your mother. Clear enough?
I'm not smarter than you because I have a penis. Maybe because I'm having
my master in economics, and that will open doors to me.. unless AA
closes them before I finish my paper.
> in any case, an argument about sheer competency vs. AA ignores the
> effects of discrimination in the school system, whereby teachers
> systematically yet subtly discourage brainy girls and encourage boys.
> this is a well-documented phenomenon. so i think merely making
> meritocratic the job market misses years of unfair preparation.
Are you paranoid or what? Well documented? In India maybe, in
developped countries certainly not. Instead of blasting our system, try
to obtain equality between men and women in those countries where women
REALLY ARE considered as nothing, submitted by religions to slavery, or
killed at born because they're females. Then you'll be usefull.
In Canada, specially in quebec, I dare you to find such cases of
organized complot against women.
Patrick Dery
> In article <windsongD...@netcom.com>, wind...@netcom.com says...
(cut)
> >in any case, an argument about sheer competency vs. AA ignores the
> >effects of discrimination in the school system, whereby teachers
> >systematically yet subtly discourage brainy girls and encourage boys.
> >this is a well-documented phenomenon. so i think merely making
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >meritocratic the job market misses years of unfair preparation.
(cut)
> Jennifer,
>
> there was a documentary on TV recently which was done by the BBC .
> It documented very clearly that there are a number of rather good schools
> in the UK where girls outperform boys by a long shot. The research
> showed that the school system was much better suited to girls than to
> boys. It quoted numerous research articles. Also the heads of the
> biggest british power company stating that according to their research
> Women are better suited to management due to their relationship emphasis.
> They expect that by 2005 most of their managers will be women.
> etc.etc.
Hahahahaha! What an answer, pal! You got an A+ !!! :-)
Patrick Dery
> The average persons seems to feel that AA is the end all and be all of
> equalizing the workforce, and the average WASP will feel no need to get
> involved in equalizing the workforce so long as AA exists. Politicians
> obviously feel no need to do anything else, they can point to their long
> record of either supporting or opposing AA and claim they've struggled
> against discrimination their entire carrer.
In theory, it may be great for "cold medicine" as you said, temporary as
you said, ... But in fact, do you think lobyists and claiming groups
will SOMEDAY say that they got what they wanted, so AA is useless
thereafter? Certainly not. There'll always be some isolated cases of
discrimation. So AA is like a temporary tax: it'll stay forever.
> AA will not end discrimination.
> Abolishing AA will not make hiring fair.
Exactly!
> The best way to end economic discrimination is to compete economically
> with institutions that practice discrimination. In other words, do business
> with comapnies and groups that promote fair hiring practices. Get jobs there.
> Start your own businesses. The Home Office marketplace is starting to take
> off, and should become a powerful business force in the future. Most reports
You just made my point! That's what I said in the group last week, this
is the only way to correct the situation. Government is there to correct
market failures, not to replace it with politic quotas in employment.
Bye!
Paul Walker
>In article <flintmmv.4...@bud.indirect.com>,
>Marcia Flint <flin...@bud.indirect.com> wrote:
>> >> Peter Zohrab <zohrab_p@atlantis> writes:>From: Peter Zohrab
>> >>Subject: Re: Feminism lowers pay rates ?
>> >>Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 08:58:17 GMT
>> Wrote to:
>> (really long post snipped)
>> >David Spowart
>> >Economics Group,
>> >Victoria University of Wellington,
>> >New Zealand
>> >spow...@obelisk.fca.vuw.ac.nz
>> The answer is simple. Affirmative Action is a backlash target because it's
>> working and the powers that be (in general, white males) feel threatened by
>> the competition from women and minorities. Abilities, my left ear -- quotas,
>> still mainly white males in the power department.
>> Anybody????
>"feel threatened by competition", you write !
>I suppose, as an Economist, you talk about fair competition, level playing
>fields, non-distorted economies.
Not in the economics literature I read petey.
>Affirmative Action is about unfair competition in the job market, sloping
>playing fields, and distorted personnel structures.
>It denies jobs to the best qualified, and allocates them to people on the
>basis of political criteria.
You should read the article on page 67 of the Economist dated June 17th - 23rd.
Its called "A strong prejudice" and points out that affirmative action may just
be plain old good business! Not perfect and not without dangers but none the
less it does have its advantages. The article notes that many companies in the
US are now pressing ahead with voluntary affirmative-action programmes. Nearly
3/4 of the 50 biggest firms in America have "directors of diversity" or
"diversity managers".
Paul
...........................................................
Paul Walker p.wa...@econ.canterbury.ac.nz
Department of Economics
University of Canterbury
Christchurch, New Zealand
Spowart David
> While I acknowledge that AA has some positive aspects, or rather that its
>INTENT is to try and correct past problems and that its supporters are
>well-meaning(for the most part, excluding career politicians) I don't think
>it even comesclose to doing what it set out to do: combat discrimination in
>the workplace.
>The best way to end economic discrimination is to compete economically
>with institutions that practice discrimination. In other words, do business
>with comapnies and groups that promote fair hiring practices. Get jobs there.
>Start your own businesses.
Hi there,
Well I think we'll have to agree to disagree about AA. I simply say that I
think it has its place. But coming up with the Home Office suggestion on how
to alleviate discrimination is at least pro-active. I think that if we view
each attempted solution in isolation, it is easy to find flaws that give an
excuse to wallow in apathy and settle for the status quo. The home office
approach in itself has problems. Entrenched firms have substantial market
advantages; access to bank finance may be discriminatory; and markets are
seldom in a state of perfect competition so that discriminating firms can be
punished sufficiently in the wallet. But together with education reforms as
Jennifer suggested, temporary AA programs, and other inventive solutions, an
integrated program of reforms may break the inertia of the status quo.
Getting to a state of equality of opportunity is hard work, and no one
solution will be flawless or the entire solution. Viewing solutions as an
integrated package, with an eye on the 'prize' of fairness is the only way to
move forward.
David Spowart
Victoria University of Wellington,
New Zealand
spow...@obelisk.fca.vuw.ac.nz
"I cheated on my metaphysics finals; I looked into the soul of the boy sitting
next to me."
Daniel Amneus
: >
: >...in any case, an argument about sheer competency vs. AA ignores the
: >effects of discrimination in the school system, whereby teachers
: >systematically yet subtly discourage brainy girls and encourage boys.
: >this is a well-documented phenomenon. so i think merely making
: >>
: >--jennifer
: FYI, the majority of teachers accused of this "phenomenon" are female.
Every shred of evidence posted here and in school records suggests that
it is boys, not girls, who are discriminated against. The fact that so
many teachers are "surprised" by the high performance of boys on national
tests, after years of giving them low grades, supports the fact that boys
are discriminated against.
What is the source of your idea that girls are discriminated against?
regards,
fathers