Pages

Thursday, November 15, 2012

WapitiMail: Men First For Jobs

Commenter Ray proposes that preference should be given to men for remunerated employment:
[M]en have been jettisoned from education and employment for forty years, nobody...is allowed to be a dad anymore, because women gobble up the jobs and all the other resources
No female should have a job while a man goes unemployed, period . . . the rest is sheer solipsistic madness, that can only bring disaster
While Ray is correct to associate the decline in fatherhood with the jobs dearth, I think what he proposes above is folly, for a number of reasons.

First, a people who wish to remain free should be vary wary of government force being used to discriminate for one party against another.  Indeed, part of the treatment that Ray complains about is directly due to market-distorting government discrimination on behalf of women in the public and private sectors, distortions that mask the costs of employing women and result in equal pay for less work.  Were the market free to compensate male and female labor according to the strengths and preferences of each individual, regardless of their sex, the employment picture would be very different and likely less lopsided in favor of women. Moreover, a government that can discriminate for Party A over Party B can easily be made to discriminate against Party A once B comes to power.  Payback is a dish that is best served cold, and it is best to avoid that path entirely.

Second, as a matter of principle, women should work to support themselves and their families. It was a historical anomaly that our culture once proscribed women from working, born partly because industrialization pulled men from the home and accentuated what was already a distinct division of labor within the home. During other less luxurious times, women labored alongside their men, something that no less source than the Bible encourages and approves.

Third, as a matter of wisdom, women should work to support themselves and their families.  What was second wave feminism, if not a culture-wide temper tantrum borne of bored housewife ennui? With middle class women limited by social convention to consumption, and little productive labor, small wonder then that all those idle hands did the devil's bidding.

Fourth, the monied interests would never permit the "working woman" genie being put back in the bottle. There is far too much profit to be made on twice the laborers and double the consumption. Moreover, with fewer women working to support themselves, economic necessity would drive more women to marry. With more marriages comes fewer choice mother family units. Think of what would happen to a housing market suffering from terminal overhang should all that female-headed-household demand suddenly disappear? Ditto with durable goods...no need for double the washer/dryers, refrigerators, cars, et cetera. For that matter, the child care business would collapse.  And with there being more concrete reasons to get and stay married (sacred vows and morality having been demonstrated to be poor motivators in a post-Christian culture), divorce would plummet. Think of all the judges and lawyers put out of work by that simple step, and all those children suddenly un-fatherless. Wait, on second thought....oh, never mind.

Going back to Ray's point, he is correct that men are in trouble (although I do think he is speeding with the "nobody is allowed to be a dad" bit).  Somewhere along the line, we as a culture decided that we need no longer to invest in and / or protect the socially more vulnerable sex.  From in utero to cradle to schooling to work to family to welfare to health and to old age and death, the priority has shifted to investing in, propping up, supporting the female. As a result, greater and greater numbers of men are on the outside of society in proportions approaching that which characterize matriarchal societies; something that does not bode well for the prognosis for our culture.  A difficult and multi-faceted problem to be sure, yet I don't think putting women back into the back of the queue is the answer.

6 comments:

thewomanandthedragon said...

During other less luxurious times, women labored alongside their men, something that no less source than the Bible encourages and approves.

I think the important thing is that women worked alongside their men. They didn't spend 10+ hours a day separated from their husbands and children, working side by side with non-related males. No doubt Mr. Broadwell now understands how dangerous that scenario can be.

-sunshinemary

Stuki said...

Honestly, anyone who proposes to solve any problem of our age by clamoring for MORE government intervention, is part of the problem.

If all those out there with different pet grievances stemming from government overreach, cold just wake the heck up and realize that the root problem is government, we would be so much closer to a solution to pretty much every problem of contemporary society.

So, when you identify a problem; which laws, regulations, agencies and such would you have to remove to be able to solve the problem yourself, without being harassed? That's the only question to ask.

So, as you pointed out; why can't people pay anyone whatever they darned feel like paying anyone, which would result in a relative preference being given to men on average? Because of, tah-dah, government, that's why.

And why are men not allowed to be dads? Take away government, and what will some broad do about you taking your child with you after she is revealed to be nothing more than an expendable whore? Scream? Bitch? What? Look at Afghanistan, where they don't suffer under much of a government, for an idea about how far she'd get.

So please, people, instead of getting all tied in a knot over little pet concerns, just focus on getting rid of as much of the government as possible. It's not like they're some sort of useful entity.

Elusive Wapiti said...

" They didn't spend 10+ hours a day separated from their husbands and children, working side by side with non-related males."

Complementarians would say, in defense of keeping women entirely out of the paid labor force (or at least out of mixed-sex settings), that it is quite unwise to place women in the position of submitting to men other than her husband, as the workplace naturally does.

Whatever one thinks of the Complementarian's position, it is certain that mixed-sex workplaces drastically increase the risk of infidelity.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"Honestly, anyone who proposes to solve any problem of our age by clamoring for MORE government intervention, is part of the problem."

To be fair, I don't think Ray was asserting this in so many words. Yet I fail to conceive how one would enforce his proposal, if not for some sort of state intervention.

But yes, wholeheartedly agree that more government will not solve the problem and, due to "institutional capture" is actually more likely to make it worse.

ray said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Elusive Wapiti said...

Last comment deleted for ad hominem.