.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Ether Mind

2010 - Welcome to the Future!
............Site Feed............ ............Main............ ..........Blogroll Me..........

Thursday, January 04, 2007


I thought I was at talkingpointsmemo and I was like, "Why is Josh Marshall lying so blatantly that his illogic and deceit is obvious from his own statements?" Then I realized I had the Dailykos window open. rofl.

Still reading archives

Continuing my commentary, I've noticed that this chick named Amanda is some kinda solipsist. Her reasoning is sound and her writing is moderately interesting, but when she quotes some article or responds to something, she almost invariably misunderstands what the other party said. To a disastrous extent. Comically sometimes.

Wonder why I'm using so many sentence fragments lately.


Ya know, I often post by the name "Effeminem." I agree with theories of gender equality and such. I don't really interact with women (or men) that often, so the issues are mostly academic.

But, by and large, feminism has two problems. First, most of its active participants are not ideologues; they are women gathered together to bitch about things. They engage in the complicated muddled logic that comes from irate laymen. Sorta like the Angry Left and Rush Limbaugh listeners. Whereas capitalism and the other isms all have their incompetently frothing adherents, feminism seems to have a much higher ratio of them.

Now, they stereotype quite frequently, much like I'm doing in this sentence. If you don't believe me, you're welcome to visit feminist blogs. That's not really a problem if the stereotypes fit at least 70% of the population, but I've noticed that often, feminists use stereotypes that refer to no one. Here's an example:

"I love the fact that the people who complain about things like bar owners giving free/cheap drinks to women because they are the most desired customers are the same ones who say that single-payer health care could never work because the real world needs market incentives to work."

No, I don't think any capitalists are complaining about Ladies' Night. I think the poster is a retard who hasn't attempted to understand anyone else's beliefs.

Moving on, the practical positions of most feminists are also... retarded. I wish there were a better term, but retarded seems to fit. They want to replace the patriarchy, which was largely defanged by the Bill of Rights and subsequent legislation, with a matriarchy. The difference would be that oppression would be more evenly distributed. Way to go.

Ah, they argue now. They want a society in which both genders and LGBTs are respected and treated equally! Umm, neither a patriarchy nor matriarchy... Anarchy? Like me and all the other capitalists? I guarantee that under anarcho-capitalism...

or a small, libertarian government in a technologically advanced society...

men and women would be treated equally. The problems that the feminists seem to have with capitalism are that (1) it's about individual rights, and (2) women make 76% of what men make!

(1) Well, if you're a communist, so be it. I'll kill you with my own hands when the day of Armageddon arrives. I haven't actually read any feminist who understands how capitalism works. Presumably, if such a a feminist exists, she (he?) doesn't have an explicitly feminist rejection of capitalism. It is gender-neutral in and of itself. Women are wired with slightly different survival mechanisms, so perhaps they are less likely to be emotionally comfortable with the idea of one woman against the world.

(2) Well, we only recently reached a technological stage where
*physical strength is irrelevant to most jobs
*housework is somewhat automated
*childbirth is controlled by conscious choice
Along with a few other minor and corollary factors, these made gender equality more realisable. It wasn't impossible before, but most people don't have the philosophical knowledge to achieve anything that isn't obvious.
What does this have to do with the wage discrepancy? It is the first reason why this discrepancy exists- women still haven't been fully integrated into the workplace, bla bla bla. Presumably the gap will continue to close, until it stabilizes at some point. If it doesn't vanish, that means other factors are at work. Of course, there are.
The second factor is the way workplaces are structured. Until recently, they did not take into account the needs of childrearing. That is changing rather quickly, so I won't concern myself with it unless a problem still exists in 25 years.
Third factor- the studies showing the 76% figure are obviously biased and flawed, but I don't know how much and it doesn't really matter. The wage gap exists.
Fourth factor- let me explain it with a thought experiment, in another paragraph.

According to Hypothetical Feminazi Sterotype A- that's long and annoying.

Let's call her Betty. According to Betty, a woman doing the same job as a man gets paid less. Assume they have the same age, they're both single, they work the same hours, same marital status and so on. Therefore, the boss is biased against women.

Okay, so he's paying the man more out of the goodness of his heart? Why THE [DELETED] would he pay the man more? Wouldn't he fire the man and hire another cheap woman, or force the man to take a pay cut? A capitalist would. That's why capitalism is the best solution to the world's problems, including gender inequality. A blue dog democrat would continue inequal treatment. Hell, a female boss, a feminist, would probably continue the unequal treatment. She would hate herself for it, but she wouldn't be willing to fire someone who's doing a good job and making reasonable pay. Can she give the woman a pay raise? Well, if the woman is willing to work happily for 18$ an hour, it would be stealing from the company to give her a raise. She might take her under her wing and encourage her to demand more money from HR or to have more confidence or something. Of course, that would be sexist, since the man doesn't get any mentoring. Hypothetically. (In reality everyone is corrupt, including the robber baron business owners and the self-interested "feminists" who seek to impose their will on others and get something for nothing. So I suppose this entire post is pointless)

Here the thought experiment kinda depends on the type of job. The higher the skill level, the more proactive the boss would be with rewards. Anyway. The point is that generally, if all other things are equal, women make less because they are less willing to switch companies for a pay raise, demand more money from HR, and blow smoke ... toot their own horns.

Of course, the assumptions I started with are rarely true either, but if the man has more seniority or works longer hours, most feminists would probably not have a problem with him being paid more. Some would bring up the issue of pay reductions due to pregnancy and time missed and so forth. Ideally that should be a few months lost wages and then a few months' delay in the next raise.

Well, take it up with God. But since women live longer, they should be able to retire at a later age and make up the lost time. Also, I would be thrilled to have a baby, but I have testicles so that opportunity is not available to me. :_ ( I rather enjoy the testicles.

What was the point of this post? Oh yeah. Feminists want equality, but they don't embrace the theory that provides a level playing field.

Capitalism! Where everyone is a genderless cog in the machine!

Where sexists pay men more, become slightly less productive, lose their investors, and become homeless guys eating from the dumpster!

Where rape is punishable by trial and summary execution, and most women can protect themselves with unlicensed automatic weapons anyway! Where whorehouses are easily accessable to drunken frat boys and sorority girls! Where we have so little privacy that crime is impossible!

First, last, and always, Profit!