You guys know different women than I do. Needing more security and having kids? That is sooo 20th. century.
Out of curiosity, how old are the women you know?
Topic: Women and free market - page 4. (Read 5534 times)
Out of curiosity, how old are the women you know?
Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.
Well, women may be disadvantaged over men because they can't control their urges, but at least they can "shut the whole thing down" in cases of "legitimate rape".lol... I wondered how long it would take for that to be brought up.
Watch any 30-35 year old woman suddenly give a shit about settling down.
Oh yeah, guys never do that, and women always do. Please. Put the shovel down before you dig yourself into a hole.
lol what shovel?
I was responding to this:
Quote
A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
By saying that there are biological urges that compel women to have babies, as strongly as every man's urge to fuck anything that moves. That quote implies women have more control over their bodies than men do, which I think is untrue. Both have very weak control on their bodies. How many rape victims still abort their babies?
You guys know different women than I do. Needing more security and having kids? That is sooo 20th. century.
Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market.
Couldn't disagree with you more. Being pregnant is a choice. It could even be a revenue stream depending on the profitability of adoptions. If anything, I'd argue current governments create disadvantages for women. Women couldn't even vote until a 100 years ago causing mass under representation to start. Prostitution is a large, almost female only industry that is illegal in many countries. Militaries have only recently been removing restrictions for women. Abortions lack taxpayer funding given to other medical ventures. Birth control is prescription only which requires extra money to visit a doctor which lowers demand & raises prices.
@Brunic I'm for more equality of wealth as well, but still I'm looking for better solutions than a central state. Sweden is a nice and cozy country, but certain other nations do worse things with the centralization and power they're given.
@muyuu Yes "Individual risk needs to be managed by individuals", but still, what if risks are different naturally by gender? You won't win anyone new over with this kind of attitude.
Hence what I said that ancap would remain an "utopia".
The problem is maybe a tragedy of the commons. We *all* want children to be raised properly in order for the human race to continue, and under the premise that women should not face more risks than men, there is no mechanism in a free market that expresses this desire and in order to set things in motion properly by itself. Or would we willing to donate voluntarily into a "social jar" that mitigates women's risks, and will it be enough?
@muyuu Yes "Individual risk needs to be managed by individuals", but still, what if risks are different naturally by gender? You won't win anyone new over with this kind of attitude.
Hence what I said that ancap would remain an "utopia".The problem is maybe a tragedy of the commons. We *all* want children to be raised properly in order for the human race to continue, and under the premise that women should not face more risks than men, there is no mechanism in a free market that expresses this desire and in order to set things in motion properly by itself. Or would we willing to donate voluntarily into a "social jar" that mitigates women's risks, and will it be enough?
Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.
Well, women may be disadvantaged over men because they can't control their urges, but at least they can "shut the whole thing down" in cases of "legitimate rape".lol... I wondered how long it would take for that to be brought up.
Watch any 30-35 year old woman suddenly give a shit about settling down.
Oh yeah, guys never do that, and women always do. Please. Put the shovel down before you dig yourself into a hole.
Ha. I know there were things we agreed upon. Well put.
Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after, women need more security and support. They also feel more connected and responsible for the newborn than men (who seem to "run away" more often than women) and thus have to bear more risk. Hence they are more "social" and are thus drawn to models of society many here would call "socialist".
The insensitivity of many libertarians and ancaps for this set of problems is one aspect that scares many "normal" folks (and leftists) away. I don't like the "big state" solution either, but the "free market" fails to resolve this. Also, women might complain that raising children is hard work, and an undoubtedly necessary service for society, but it is unrewarded by a market because what they do is taken for granted and the market cannot really provide a way to compensate them.
So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".
The insensitivity of many libertarians and ancaps for this set of problems is one aspect that scares many "normal" folks (and leftists) away. I don't like the "big state" solution either, but the "free market" fails to resolve this. Also, women might complain that raising children is hard work, and an undoubtedly necessary service for society, but it is unrewarded by a market because what they do is taken for granted and the market cannot really provide a way to compensate them.
So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".
+1
That's why we need a neutral entity (in that case, the governement) to provides protections for that. Free market is completely inapt to take care of that situation since they only follow private profit. Children can only be a social profit and cannot generate individual profit until many years later.
Anyway, it's not really a problem anymore. Developed countries usually offer around 1 complete year of parental leave, with some time reserved for the mother, some time reserved for the father. The Scandinavian model is the reference with the best being the Swedish one, offering 16 months paid at 80% or something of the salary. It doesn't hinder their development, far from it, it's probably the best thing you can do. Give a chance to the parents, give complete free education up to the university and bingo! You produce wonderful and skillful citizens to compete on the free market.
That premise is completely false from the start. Women don't raise children alone and haven't done so for centuries. Family is the foundation of society. It doesn't cost her more than her partner, who's equally as liable for family expenses as her (usually more).
As I said in the OP, women feel more connected and responsible for their children, and it's more often the men who run away, so it's the woman who carries more risk. So you can either disagree with this observation, or you can blame women for their motherly feelings being in the way of their career.
I'm not against some benefits in exceptionally unlucky cases, for both single mothers or fathers (unlucky != reckless). However systematically subsidising half of the population is a different story.
Humans, if anything, have too much natural drive to procreate until they deplete their available resources. They don't need any incentives, quite to the contrary.
Still, more risk for women in this game.
Men face more risk in other situations. Individual risk needs to be managed by individuals. Compulsory insurance about absolutely any situation as a feature of the State is neither effective nor desirable.
All policies that directly or indirectly reward irresponsibility are to be avoided in principle.
A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
Yes, I also believe not every woman weighs everything in a way as rational as you do.
I'm seeing the side of the employer here. You can see unequal wages even today where these things are supposed to be more "regulated" in that concern.That premise is completely false from the start. Women don't raise children alone and haven't done so for centuries. Family is the foundation of society. It doesn't cost her more than her partner, who's equally as liable for family expenses as her (usually more).
As I said in the OP, women feel more connected and responsible for their children, and it's more often the men who run away, so it's the woman who carries more risk. So you can either disagree with this observation, or you can blame women for their motherly feelings being in the way of their career.
Taking care of the disadvantaged is a whole different story. We are talking about socialising child care here, or not, which is not an emergency/exceptional issue.
I didn't mean "disabled" with "disadvantaged" if you misunderstood here, and generally, I'm also looking for solutions here which are not "socialist", but will still convince even left-leaning folks. I'm playing their advocate here.
Humans, if anything, have too much natural drive to procreate until they deplete their available resources. They don't need any incentives, quite to the contrary.
Still, more risk for women in this game.
Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.
Well, women may be disadvantaged over men because they can't control their urges, but at least they can "shut the whole thing down" in cases of "legitimate rape".lol... I wondered how long it would take for that to be brought up.
Watch any 30-35 year old woman suddenly give a shit about settling down.
Oh yeah, guys never do that, and women always do. Please. Put the shovel down before you dig yourself into a hole.
I agree with you women are not that inferior that they need a massive net welfare operation coming from men's pockets. They can do just fine.
Also, they cannot be supposed to pay for children all by themselves. This has always been a shared expense in family and I believe it has to continue that way.
Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.
Well, women may be disadvantaged over men because they can't control their urges, but at least they can "shut the whole thing down" in cases of "legitimate rape".lol... I wondered how long it would take for that to be brought up.
Watch any 30-35 year old woman suddenly give a shit about settling down.
Oh yeah, guys never do that, and women always do. Please. Put the shovel down before you dig yourself into a hole.
Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.
Well, women may be disadvantaged over men because they can't control their urges, but at least they can "shut the whole thing down" in cases of "legitimate rape".Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after
Or, alternatively, they are inherently advantaged because they have the option to become pregnant and men have no such option. A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.
And do you have a vagina to back that up?
Why would I need one? It's obvious. Watch any 30-35 year old woman suddenly give a shit about settling down.
Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after
Or, alternatively, they are inherently advantaged because they have the option to become pregnant and men have no such option. A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.
And do you have a vagina to back that up?
Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after
Or, alternatively, they are inherently advantaged because they have the option to become pregnant and men have no such option. A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.
And both have to deal with the consequences instead of passing the bill to the taxpayer.
Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after
Or, alternatively, they are inherently advantaged because they have the option to become pregnant and men have no such option. A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.Women have about as much control over the urge to have babies as men do over the urge to simply have sex.
Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after
Or, alternatively, they are inherently advantaged because they have the option to become pregnant and men have no such option. A woman does not have to become pregnant unless she believes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.+1. They have a choice men don't have. I'd never call that a "disadvantage". By the way, in developed nations, there's no significant difference between men and childless women, in what concerns career, salaries etc.
Also, OP should read some of Wendy McElroy texts if he believes free markets are unfair to women.
@muyuu So you're essentially saying that because women have to negotiate more "off-time" than men, they'd either be incentivized to not have any children at all, which would result in the human species to become extinct, or they are disadvantaged, as I said in my OP. "And it has been so for centuries", this is the patriarchy that many "progressives" want to get away from.
That premise is completely false from the start. Women don't raise children alone and haven't done so for centuries. Family is the foundation of society. It doesn't cost her more than her partner, who's equally as liable for family expenses as her (usually more).
Taking care of the disadvantaged is a whole different story. We are talking about socialising child care here, or not, which is not an emergency/exceptional issue.
Humans, if anything, have too much natural drive to procreate until they deplete their available resources. They don't need any incentives, quite to the contrary.
So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".
Don't have kids if you can't afford it.
Clearly the world has imbibed this rule to the revel of a thousand sons.
Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market. Because they need to take breaks during pregnancies and the time after, women need more security and support. They also feel more connected and responsible for the newborn than men (who seem to "run away" more often than women) and thus have to bear more risk. Hence they are more "social" and are thus drawn to models of society many here would call "socialist".
The insensitivity of many libertarians and ancaps for this set of problems is one aspect that scares many "normal" folks (and leftists) away. I don't like the "big state" solution either, but the "free market" fails to resolve this. Also, women might complain that raising children is hard work, and an undoubtedly necessary service for society, but it is unrewarded by a market because what they do is taken for granted and the market cannot really provide a way to compensate them.
So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".
The insensitivity of many libertarians and ancaps for this set of problems is one aspect that scares many "normal" folks (and leftists) away. I don't like the "big state" solution either, but the "free market" fails to resolve this. Also, women might complain that raising children is hard work, and an undoubtedly necessary service for society, but it is unrewarded by a market because what they do is taken for granted and the market cannot really provide a way to compensate them.
So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".
And I like it this way.
If you take a look, women always worked when they had to, and always do not worked when they don't had to.
Today is the exception, and it is resulting mostly in negative things instead of positive...
Also, I know a bunch of very old company owners, they all claim that they hired women without problems 50 years ago or so, because there was no benefits for them different from men except for 6 month paid leave for pregnancy. Now they invent all sorts of excuses to get rid of women on the HR because of all the "rights" women won, making them too dangerous to hire (ie: fire a woman, get sued for discrimination... and this is only to start...).
While before women could do whatever they wanted if they were qualified, they are now being forced in positions that already have lots of women (middle managment, HR, school work, hospital work). The women that LIKE those positions claim that they have a great victory (And indeed, in some parts for them it is, middle managment already have 70% of it female and research in the US show that women aged from 20 to 30 get 110% the wages of the male counterparts), but what about women that for example wanted to work as forklift operador? (I know one! she is very funny and nice)
Remember, some things will not change about humans, doing laws regarding those things tend to have the effects opposite... There are even a scientific paper (later I will see if I find it) from a feminist that is wondering why the pay gap is getting WIDER in nordic countries, and she concluded that the state intervention to give more rights to women is making women there more dependant on the state and that companies are fighting the state and paying women less and hiring less.
Jump to: