FemNazis are at it again!

[Pekka]

You already do, I mean you buy the pills and condoms, right?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by St Leo
I find the allusion to the Third Reich offensive on several counts.

I thought that term was created by our beloved Rush "the most dangerous man in America" Limbaugh

[Pekka]

sorry if someone finds it offensive.

disclaimer:
blaablaablaa

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Long term, we'll probably have to de facto pay women for getting kids.

And this is my only point. When women are raising kids anyway no one want's to compensate them. Sure their husband will take care of her unless she pisses him off. But when women aren't raising enough children then of course you have to pay them for it.

[Last Conformist]

But you can't realistically force employers to pay for it.

As Daniela Dahn (German feminist writer) noted, if you force companies to pay more for less productive workers, you squeeze that class of workers out of the system. Driving women out of the job market in the name of equality doesn't help anyone.

Her conclusion was that we must accept that women on average get lower wages because women on average do less work.

But simply letting the market forces reign won't work either, at least not in today's Europe; we can't bear the demographic cost. The only way out is that the state supports women to get children.

[Kidlicious]

I think some feminists don't have a good understanding of how markets work.

The only real value of feminism is to educate people about things. That's not easy. People are very resistant.

The thing about capitalism is that you are never going to have a lot of women in high positions in private corporations, and the women that are in high places aren't going to get much respect.

Some feminists want to have a capitalist system where there is an equal number of women in high places in private corporations making the same salary as men do now. I don't agree with that.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I think some feminists don't have a good understanding of how markets work.

While I disagree with Ms Dahn on various economic issues, I think her understanding of markets is far superior to yours.

The thing about capitalism is that you are never going to have a lot of women in high positions in private corporations, and the women that are in high places aren't going to get much respect.

I'd say the ones that reach such places do get a lot of respect. The fact they have succeeded in a male-dominated milieu tends to earn them an extra measure of respect over a man of comparable achievements.

(This till they mess up, at which point they are subjected to gleeful ridicule by factory-floor men and women alike, and the armchair MCPs chuckle and consider themselves vincdicated.)

It's probably true top management positions will always be male-dominated. I do not think there's anything necessarily wrong with that.

Some feminists want to have a capitalist system where there is an equal number of women in high places in private corporations making the same salary as men do now. I don't agree with that.

Well, last I heard, you didn't agree with capitalism in the first place, so I'm not overly surprised. You're still not saying what you'd want instead.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist


While I disagree with Ms Dahn on various economic issues, I think her understanding of markets is far superior to yours.

You understand barely the basics. Who are you to tell me how much I know about markets.

It's probably true top management positions will always be male-dominated. I do not think there's anything necessarily wrong with that.

Why not? Males are not necessarily better at management. In fact there are some reasons that women might be better. The only reason you want men to be in management is because it's cheaper for the company. There is a whole world to think of. Who cares about a corporation. Corporations aren't even people.

Well, last I heard, you didn't agree with capitalism in the first place, so I'm not overly surprised. You're still not saying what you'd want instead.

I want communism. This isn't about what I want. It's about how screwed up your system is.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kidicious

You understand barely the basics. Who are you to tell me how much I know about markets.

Considering that I've posted next to nothing on 'Poly on how markets work, your evaluation of my understanding means nothing.

Unfortunately, I suspect I'm close to the only person here who's read Dahn, so running a poll of 'Poly economists whether they think she or you has greater understanding would be pointless. I'll note, tho, that your reputation isn't too good.

Why not? Males are not necessarily better at management. In fact there are some reasons that women might be better. The only reason you want men to be in management is because it's cheaper for the company. There is a whole world to think of. Who cares about a corporation. Corporations aren't even people.

I want? Time to check the ol' reading comprehension again, Kid.

Who cares about a corporation? Employees (incl management), owners, and customers come to mind.

Until a such time that Kidatopia be 'stablished, corporations are and remain a big chunk of our economy. If corporations are inefficient, our economy is ineffcient. Not even a commie should want that.

And efficiency isn't hiring the best for the job, but the one preforming best compared to cost. If it's cheaper to hire a slightly less competent man, that's probably more efficient than hiring a slightly more competent woman.

I want communism. This isn't about what I want. It's about how screwed up your system is.

My system?

The system is screwed up because people are screwed up. Round holes for round pegs.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Considering that I've posted next to nothing on 'Poly on how markets work, your evaluation of my understanding means nothing.

Unfortunately, I suspect I'm close to the only person here who's read Dahn, so running a poll of 'Poly economists whether they think she or you has greater understanding would be pointless. I'll note, tho, that your reputation isn't too good.

So everything you know about markets you learned at Poly? Seriously. The knowledge about economics here is severly lacking in most regards. There are only a couple of people who know what they are talking about. Most people you can't beat the knowledge into. People who know about economics know that people can know about it and disagree. Anyone who doesn't know that doesn't know anything about it. If you go around telling people that they don't know anything because they disagree with you, you will never know anything.

I want? Time to check the ol' reading comprehension again, Kid.

Who cares about a corporation? Employees (incl management), owners, and customers come to mind.

Until a such time that Kidatopia be 'stablished, corporations are and remain a big chunk of our economy. If corporations are inefficient, our economy is ineffcient. Not even a commie should want that.

And efficiency isn't hiring the best for the job, but the one preforming best compared to cost. If it's cheaper to hire a slightly less competent man, that's probably more efficient than hiring a slightly more competent woman.

No. People care about how corporations serve us. Just doing things to help corporations is stupid. The only people you help are the people who own them, and in this case males.

Efficiency isn't just about how much something costs corporations. It's about how much it costs society. This is an example of what you don't know about markets.

My system?

The system is screwed up because people are screwed up. Round holes for round pegs.

Yes. The system is screwed up because people are screwed up. How is this a defense of it? Get rid of the system and stop letting screw ups rule the world.

edit: And most people are not screwed up. You have a system that assumes that people will only work if they are poor - that the poorer they are the more they will act in their own self-interest, and somehow everyone will be a millionaire that way. Don't blame people for that insanity. People want to work together and help each other, but they need to be able to do that.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kidicious

So everything you know about markets you learned at Poly?

Reading comprehension, Kid, reading comprehension.

I did not say that, nor anything a reader might reasonably misconstrue as that.

No. People care about how corporations serve us. Just doing things to help corporations is stupid. The only people you help are the people who own them, and in this case males.

So, only over half of the population.

Well, if you really think that the fortunes of a company do not affect employees and customers, you're a nutjob.

Efficiency isn't just about how much something costs corporations. It's about how much it costs society. This is an example of what you don't know about markets.

A loss of efficiency in corporations is a loss in total economic efficiency if it's not causally related to an increase in efficiency in some other sector. You have not offered any argument whatsoever to support that increasing the amount of women in management positions by quotas (which are the only realistic alternative to letting companies chose for themselves), and I can think of a couple reasons it might be expected to lower efficiency in other sectors (those women would have to be taken from somewhere, and replaced by people less eager to work there, since they'd otherwise should have been there already instead of the women sent to management).

Yes. The system is screwed up because people are screwed up. How is this a defense of it? Get rid of the system and stop letting screw ups rule the world.

AIs are not quite at the point where they can take over from humans.

[Kidlicious]

I can't talk to you about it anymore. You just believe very silly things, and you don't care what people say.

[Last Conformist]

Damn DanSer

Kidicious wrote:

edit: And most people are not screwed up.

I believe I claimed all people are messed up.

Messed up, that is, in the sense they don't act in the way you'd have them.

You have a system that assumes that people will only work if they are poor - that the poorer they are the more they will act in their own self-interest, and somehow everyone will be a millionaire that way.

Stop being a lying bag of camel faeces. I did never say that, you twit.

Don't blame people for that insanity. People want to work together and help each other, but they need to be able to do that.

Nobody is stopping them.


OK, I'm fed up by your lies, mischaracterizations, and steadfast refusal to addess what people actually say instead of the same old strawmen you bring up in every thread. Consider this discussion over.

[Kidlicious]

Let's summarize your theory. People act in their self-interest in a capitalist system that rewards them for doing so and punishes them for not doing so. Therefore all people are screwed up.

[Elok]

No, people are screwed up under communism too. They just continue taking advantage of each other and justifying it with party-dogma rationalizations. At least under capitalism we're honest about it, right?