|
|
 Originally Posted by Renton
Like what?
Sweatshops, pre-union meat-packing, slavery. A more apropos point, however, is that our country persistently confuses business with economics. Doing so convinces everybody that economics is what's good for business, but history has shown that what's good for economics is often not good for business, but that still hasn't stopped most people from still thinking business = economics.
Women taking maternity leave do so because they want to. They aren't being punished for playing the role. The only people punished are the women who choose not to have children. But that doesn't change the fact that they are in a risky demographic, just like the single young male driver example.
This is a very important bit to focus on because we can examine what the discriminatory practices really mean.
First, women are being punished for playing the maternal role when that detracts from their capacity to engage in other roles. If you wanted to relegate the female sex into the kitchen and out of the workplace, one of the best ways to do it is create a larger gap between responsibility for childcare. This isn't just important due to the logic of it but merely the history, and this is one of the main reasons for the existence of feminism. How the female sex/gender is treated on issues like maternity have been demonstrably very negative for them and makes them less capable in important ways relative to men.
Second, the male car insurance thing is an issue, but it is not that relevant here. It's a very small deal and doesn't play much of any role with misandry. Which, when contrasted with the maternal issues, is nothing. The maternal issues have a history rife with oppressing women and that's why they're more important than the car insurance analogy.
Finally, you referred to women as being "in a risky demographic" based on a sex issue that is known to oppress that sex. This really is no different than other discriminatory ideas/practices that oppress other demographics. At this point, many men like to claim oppression based on things like the car insurance analogy, but the facts are that even though that is a discriminatory practice, its effects are not misandrous, thus it isn't a fully relevant comparison.
Affirmative action, for example, increases unemployment among Blacks because firms are reluctant to hire uncertain black applicants whom they cannot easily fire. Instead they are more prone to speculate on white applicants, and hire the bare minimum of Blacks.
This is a pretty specious argument. I'm not sure of the facts in every state, but for many, this doesn't even apply because blacks can be fired just as easily as whites. Furthermore, if you have more blacks than you "need", you can probably get away with firing some without any affirmative action problems. But most importantly, studies have shown that racism is far more effective at not hiring blacks than any abstract idea like you've made. I recall one where using a black hand to hold a phone you're selling on ebay drastically reduces the amount of people who bid on the phone.
|
Reply With Quote
