Women and free market

[herzmeister]

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".

[1715656283]

1715656283

[1715656283]

1715656283

[Matthew N. Wright]

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".

Sounds logical.

[myrkul]

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".

You make a good point, I don't think any system really handles maternity very well innately. But inside almost any system, a way to handle maternity leave and pregnancy in a humane and fairly can be set up.

[Matthew N. Wright]

GAIZ..I HAVE A THEORY.


We're born and raised under a communist dictatorship, we're shoved out into the free market, then we become libertarians, finally dying as defeatists.

The reason why there is no perfect system probably is because more than one system is required.

[muyuu]

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".

There is no contradiction between free markets and negotiated benefit conditions. The same goes for pensions. It's a matter of saving up and negotiating with your employer where it may apply. A female who would only commit in company endeavours short term because she will retire to have children, cannot expect the same treatment as one who wouldn't, because they don't have the same market value and forcing it will only devalue the net sum of them all. This can be securitised (maternity insurance).

But they'd rather have the rest of the society pay for it. Also, the raising of children is not an expense for females. It's an expense for the whole family and it has been so for centuries.

[herzmeister]

@Matthew Yup: Thesis · Antithesis · Synthesis. Funnily, many leftists claim their idea of "socialism" is already a synthesis, and I struggle to explain them it isn't. Some kind of multi-faceted society where we'd form voluntary collectives maybe is, but I'm not sure if and how this would work out in the long-term.

@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.

[JoelKatz]

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.

[vampire]

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.

[nedbert9]

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.

Yeah, only the socially advantaged should have kids.  So, in a few generations we can weed out the dead weight.

  kidding

Honestly, I think there should be some objective standards for allowing reproduction.  I'm not so sure about freedom of reproduction if it results in suffering.

sry for the hijack.

[speeder]

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".

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.

[Hunterbunter]

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.

[muyuu]

@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.

[caveden]

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.

[Hunterbunter]

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.

[muyuu]

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.

[myrkul]

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?

[Hunterbunter]

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.

[JoelKatz]

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".

[myrkul]

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.

[muyuu]

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.