Topic: Women and free market - page 3. (Read 5534 times)

I responded something to this effect earlier and was labelled patriarchal and a right winger. Family as a contract is perfectly ancap in my view, and proven to work for thousands of years.

+1000 to you sir

The solution to this problem was invented thousands of years ago at the dawn of human civilization: marriage.  The real 'till death do us part' kind, not the current completely unenforced version.  Marriage is simply a voluntarily entered contract that solves exactly this problem.  And a libertarian/ancap 'utopia' would have no problem enforcing any custom marriage contract.

What happened is that the left decided that instead of a private solution to this they would destroy marriage to force a public solution, hence the big government nanny state.

When you're responding to a one-sided view, "X, not Y", you show how the same facts allow you to argue "Y, not X". Of course, you don't actually believe "Y, not X". The whole point of showing someone how the arguments can be made just as strongly one-sided the other way is to show them that the truth is not one-sided.

I'd appreciate more the post if you guys didn't stoop into categorical generalisations. I'm a male, I'd like to have kids too, and I'm definitely as animalistic as you guys portrait males. Should I ask for benefits?

Individual responsibility, chaps.

I see women and free, same sentence

lets talk business.

At least I got one thing right; you're still an idiot.


I'm actually arguing this. I'm pointing out that both genders have equal biological cravings that trivialize the decision process so much that we have to focus on their consequences, and not the mental processes behind a decision. The fact that women have more ways to not have a baby is a bystander to the fact that their decision to have one has little to do with the level of contraception available. It started here:


I have two problems with what you've said:

1) Men don't have an option to become pregnant. While they don't themselves, they can get a willing partner pregnant easily enough, and this can easily become a reason to become less productive at work - or at least, less able and willing to put in overtime. Were you saying women were lucky they got pregnant so they didn't have to work? Are you married with kids by any chance?

2) That women are any different to men when it comes to decision making. Your statement is unnecessarily sexist. "A man does not have to impregnate his wife unless he believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages" works perfectly well also.

Even if this was true, no civilized society should base policy on this. We've made the decision not to act on people's "tendencies" based on biological groups they belong to but instead to consider them as individuals.

Say we found a group of people we could identify by DNA who were physiologically driven to steal, but individuals were quite capable of not stealing despite this gene. We wouldn't exclude such people from positions of trust just based on their having this gene. In fact, we wouldn't treat such people differently at all. So long as it's ultimately an action with an individual's conscious control, we care what they choose to do as individuals, not what their biology "pressures" them to do.

A civilized society focuses on individual's chosen actions, not the biologic forces driving those actions. Many women choose not to have children and have no children. They shouldn't be treated differently because they had to make that choice.

Protip: When insulting someone's intelligence, spelling and grammar are important, lest you appear to be speaking to a mirror. The correct pluralization of vagina is "vaginae," or the more common "vaginas." An apostrophe before the s makes it possessive.

Now that you've successfully dug yourself into a pit, you may wish to produce that scientific study to back up your claim, so as to try and dig yourself out. In the mean time, here's the lid on your hole:

Contraceptive choices:

Women:

Permanent:
Hysterectomy;
Tubal ligation (may be reversible);

Non-permanent:
IUD;
Hormonal implant;
Spermicidal sponge;
Diaphragm;
"The pill";

Emergency:
Abortion;
Plan B;


Men:

Permanent:
Testicular removal (also kills sex drive);
Vasectomy (may be reversible);

Non-permanent:
Condom;

Emergency:
Run!

Men can be satisfied by their party of five.

I'm surrounded by enough vaginas to back that statement up.

As for me being a misogynist, you're an idiot.

It's a binary decision. Either a person wants kids and does everything in their power to have them, or a person does not want kids and does everything in their power to not have them. Gender is irrelevant.

First off, if you can be satisfied by a condom alone, I feel sorry for your dates. Secondly, if you don't have the vagina or the scientific studies to back that statement up, I call misogynistic asshole.

The question was whether or not women had more choice in the matter of parenthood, and the fact that they do, simply by virtue of their reproductive system being the easiest to manipulate, cannot be disputed.

Men can still be physiologically satisfied by said rubber sheath, because all they're really physiologically driven to is to orgasm. Women are physiologically driven to want babies, which nothing can satisfy except having or adopting one. I suppose they could adopt a man and they'd essentially have one too.

+1

Women have that same option. They also have numerous less permanent options. What are the boy's less permanent options? Flimsy rubber sheath.

That's fine. There's no requirement that you weigh things rationally. I just don't want to give people incentives to weigh things irrationally. I'm not suggesting that if people have children they can't afford to feed, we should arrange things so that the children starve. I am saying that if people have children, that requires certain sacrifices. Many people have children for bad reasons, and then they wind up making sacrifices they possibly shouldn't have made -- men and women both.

I don't really have any problem with that, at least in the case of non-government employees. If employers can pay women less for the same work, they'll prefer to hire women over men. Men will have to reduce their wages to stay competitive. My grandfather was a labor leader in a tool and die union in the South. He was instrumental in getting the union to allow blacks to join at a time when that was almost unheard of. His basic argument to other white labor leaders was this -- if the company can pay a black man less than you for the same work, who's he going to hire when he needs more workers and who's he going to fire when he has too many?

Being willing to work for less money is a huge advantage when it comes to trying to get a job. Government does people no favors when it takes their competitive advantages away. "Equal pay for equal work" is basically just a way to restrict competition over wages.

I came back to this thread because I thought it said "Women are free market". Sadly, only dudes here.

snip.

Free market solves this problem elegantly by discouraging women from having children just as you have described. It is not wise to try to remove the various negative feedbacks nature has placed on population growth and economic activity.

Women can take medication which prevents conception entirely. If they do not desire children, then they do not have to have them. Men, on the other hand, have only a fragile rubber sheath. Seriously, put down the shovel.

Can't see why should it matter. Each person has his or her own set or advantages and limitations. Gender-based affirmative action is an atrocity.