Women and free market

[herzmeister]

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.

[muyuu]

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.

[Brunic]

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".

+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.

[AntiCap]

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.

[herzmeister]

@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?

[nevafuse]

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.

[RodeoX]

You guys know different women than I do. Needing more security and having kids? That is sooo 20th. century.

[Hunterbunter]

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:

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?

[Hunterbunter]

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?

[muyuu]

@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".

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.

[myrkul]

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?

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.

[bb113]

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".

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.

[Hunterbunter]

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?

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.

snip.

[Matthew N. Wright]

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

[JoelKatz]

Yes, I also believe not every woman weighs everything in a way as rational as you do.

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'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.

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.

[myrkul]

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?

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.

snip.

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

[Domrada]

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

[Hunterbunter]

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?

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.

snip.

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

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.

[myrkul]

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.

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.

[Hunterbunter]

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.

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 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.