Women and free market

[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.

Men can be satisfied by their party of five.

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

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

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!

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.

[JoelKatz]

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.

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.

[Hunterbunter]

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.

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

[RB26DETT]

I see women and free, same sentence

lets talk business.

[muyuu]

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.

[JoelKatz]

I have two problems with what you've said:

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.

[Strider Hiryu]

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 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.

[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".

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.

+1000 to you sir

[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".

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.

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.

[bb113]

So what about child abuse (or even just spanking), etc? Where does a child's rights begin? Do neighbors/community ever have a right to interfere?

[dree12]

I think the views discussed in this thread are far too prohibitive, freedom-destroying, and contractual. Why should family be a contract? Families work well in all parts of the world, regardless of government, without contracts today. If anything, a contract destroys the natural evolutionary bonds that hold families together.

[JoelKatz]

So what about child abuse (or even just spanking), etc? Where does a child's rights begin? Do neighbors/community ever have a right to interfere?

IMO, there's a right to interfere once there's an individualized showing of abuse or neglect. I think it's also reasonable to require that for some extreme cases, a showing that something is not abuse or neglect be required in advance.

However, in general, I see children as the property of their parents, to raise as they see fit. I don't believe the community is likely to be able to do a better job, no matter how well-intentioned its interference is.

I'm a bit torn about parental obligations towards children. The last time I really thought about it, my position was that parents should be free to abandon their children at any time they please and others are free to adopt those children if they please. There might be an obligation to give others a fair chance to support your children if they please. It's not so much that I like this result, it's that I can't see a justification for imposing obligations. (And I would hope that this would be rare, others would step in when it happened, and social and business ostracism and blacklisting would punish those who take advantage of it.)

Fortunately, I'm not ruler of the world. So I don't have to get this right.

[dree12]

So what about child abuse (or even just spanking), etc? Where does a child's rights begin? Do neighbors/community ever have a right to interfere?

IMO, there's a right to interfere once there's an individualized showing of abuse or neglect. I think it's also reasonable to require that for some extreme cases, a showing that something is not abuse or neglect be required in advance.

However, in general, I see children as the property of their parents, to raise as they see fit. I don't believe the community is likely to be able to do a better job, no matter how well-intentioned its interference is.

I'm a bit torn about parental obligations towards children. The last time I really thought about it, my position was that parents should be free to abandon their children at any time they please and others are free to adopt those children if they please. There might be an obligation to give others a fair chance to support your children if they please. It's not so much that I like this result, it's that I can't see a justification for imposing obligations. (And I would hope that this would be rare, others would step in when it happened, and social and business ostracism and blacklisting would punish those who take advantage of it.)

Fortunately, I'm not ruler of the world. So I don't have to get this right.

Cavemen got family right, without such thing as obligations. Why our society fails at this baffles me.

[myrkul]

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.

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

ad hominem, the surest sign of a lost argument. I warned you not to dig that hole. You didn't listen.

[herzmeister]

Saw this study today, seems relevant to this thread:

Also to this thread. 

[caveden]

Saw this study today, seems relevant to this thread:

Such image shows quite well how "mainstream economics" is everything but scientific.

[muyuu]

It's hard to find reasonable women. No big news here 

[Richy_T]

So until there is a satisfying solution for this, I predict we won't have libertarian/ancap "utopia".

You will never have a libertarian Utopia because libertarians are not Utopianists, that's just some Statist projection going on.

[VogueBlackheart]

Women are inherently disadvantaged on a free market.

Am I too late to this thread to join in rejecting the premise?

[Atlas]

The OP's premise is inherently misogynistic. It's really hilarious.

Women are apparently so weak, they need men to help them to become more equal in society.