God Created Twitter to Train the Faithful.

No. 13: On The Economics of Modern Feminism

  • Kantbot

  • January 31, 2014

Women are all skilful in exaggerating their weaknesses, indeed they are inventive in weaknesses, so as to seem quite fragile ornaments to which even a grain of dust does harm ; their existence is meant to bring home to man’s mind his coarseness, and to appeal to his conscience. They thus defend themselves against the strong and the “law of the jungle”.

There is no better summation of Feminism than this quote. Women have never occupied the position Feminists so often attempt to place them in, they have never been the socially inferior class. They thrive on appearing to be so however, because it allows them to accrue benefits of every variety imaginable to themselves, and their appetite for such benefits can only be described as truly insatiable.

Feminism represents a massive macro-economic burden on society beyond all calculation. Take the case of banning pornographic magazines from being sold in UK shops. It seems a simple enough concession, but ultimately everything in the economy is connected to everything else, there are millions of prices and mathematically they are all mutually determining. Banning these magazines from being sold affects prices and industries far removed from retail.

The magazines themselves will suffer perhaps most obviously, from the editorial staff to the photographers and models. The photographers will buy fewer cameras and accessories and will rent less studio space, while the models will perhaps terminate their gym memberships or spend less time at the salon or tanning parlour.

And the companies that print the magazines will see their revenues decline, and the companies that provide the paper stock and raw materials that those printers use. The distributors used to ship the actual finished magazines to the stores as well experience a drop in sales, and the companies that manufacture and service the trucks those companies use will be impacted too.

The measure of banning sale of these magazines is meant as this puritanical “defence” of womens’ “decency”, but those women who are the ones we’re supposedly trying to protect, ie the ones employed in the shops who are made to sell the magazines, they’re the ones who will be negatively affected in the long term, as the businesses they work for will ultimately adjust by decreasing their demand for labor in the market.

And it’s important to think abstractly about this systemic nature of consequences, not linearly, meaning this translates, in the long term, into the retailers simply being less competitive when it comes to their purchasing of labor, which may manifest in a whole number of ways, from fewer opportunities for women to advance at a managerial or corporate level, to a decline in the amount of benefits offered to potential employees to entice them to work for the company, benefits like, let’s say, maternity leave.

These things add up over time, when you impose such harsh regulations and institute so severe a control on economic activity in pursuit of moral ends, you end up with a gradually suffocating the economy in this insidious, incremental way.

Women in medicine has been another prime example of this, as we’ve misallocated a perverse amount of resources to accomplish “equality” for no other reason than it feeling morally good to do so.

Becoming a doctor, or a member of any profession for that matter, must be thought of, economically, as something to be bought, though we rarely consider it in such a light. One misconception I occasionally see circulating among individuals untrained in real economics (who are often of a pseudo-Marxist or at least anti-Capitalist disposition) is that modern economic thought gives little consideration to intangible or non-financial components to decision making. I was fortunate enough to find myself in the company of some friendly young socialists only a few months ago for example who seemed to relish cracking jokes about just this sort of thing. There’s just little awareness or understanding among these types of price theory or game theory or really any of the other core areas of contemporary economic thought.

Anyway, I mention this only to emphasise what I have in mind when I say that becoming a doctor is something a person buys. The cost is not a lump sum measurable in dollars, at least not entirely. Certainly the schooling required does come at an immediate financial price, in terms of the tuition and books and what have you. But the true cost includes much more than that, such as the pure number of hours that must be invested to complete every stage of the process which actually leads to becoming totality established in the profession. Those hours are a cost that must be paid in full to buy a medical career.

You have to take absolutely everything into account, including even social costs such a demanding career makes, or the loss of sleep experienced over a lifetime as a doctor on call at a busy hospital. What is the value of one hour of sleep? Hypothetically speaking, let’s say becoming a doctor means 100 fewer hours of sleep a month from a baseline of 224, and that over a 40 year career in medicine you’re looking at a lifetime loss of sleep on the order of 48,000 hours. When you decide to enter into medicine, you are in a sense, taking on this debt that you’ll be paying for the rest of your life, when perhaps other, less demanding professions would be less pricey in terms of the amount of sleep that you’ll be required to “pay”.

I’m sure you get the picture of the sort of cost we’re speaking of here. The individual most weigh this cost when it comes to deciding what field to enter against the benefits, the lifetime earnings he can expect to experience, the prestige that comes with success in such a reputable profession, the increased desirability he’ll have in the eyes of potential romantic partners due to his higher standing. He takes all the costs and puts them alongside all the benefits, and works out whether he’s actually getting a good bargain overall.

The reason there may be fewer women is simply because the cost is too high for it to be worth doing. And this may be the fault of women themselves, who maybe value their own physical appearance more dearly than men to name one possible example, which means the forfeiture of that much sleep represents a higher price to a woman than it does to a man in terms of the negative effects that forfeiture will have on her beauty. You could also wonder if the trade off is simply less appealing to women because it is much easier for them to marry a doctor, and to enjoy many of the financial and social rewards of his profession without having to invest nearly as much as he does to earn them.

Economically, deciding to invest time and money into getting a doctor to marry you, rather than becoming a doctor yourself, that’s a totally rational decision to make no matter how politically incorrect it may sound. And to lure women away from that much more rational choice to a career in medicine, the costs have to be lowered to a point where it becomes economically justifiable for them. This is done by subsidizing women, primarily by means of lowering the costs of their schooling and often times also by lowering the standards used to judge female applicants to medical school, which lessens the cost in a sense from what male applicants are used to paying in terms of the “expense” the level of previous academic achievement expected of them represents.

What this all leads to is women being misallocated, as a resource, leading to widespread problems. We find that because we pay part of the cost for them, they commit themselves less. They work fewer hours, they gravitate to certain, perhaps less demanding career paths within medicine, and worst of all, after the universities and taxpayers paid part of the way for them, they find it much easier, much more rationally justifiable a decision to make, to leave medicine altogether at some later date in order to get married or raise children. At the end of the day then, it’s the community that suffers, as a result of this Feminist sort of policy, people became doctors who shouldn’t have and as a result, there are shortages and distortions in the field that affect our overall ability to provide medical care to members of our societies.

The icing on the cake for me, is how Feminists would actually have us compensate women financially for those women not doing their share of the work. I believe I saw that Australia recently was either considering, or had actually passed legislation of some kind granting women a higher rate of return on retirement investments than men! As in their money is worth more because they’re women, borrowers should pay a higher rate of interest for a woman’s money than for a man to compensate her for having less money to lend! This is all done on basis of a wage “gap”, this aberration of proper econometic rigour, which says women experience lower lifetime earnings on average due to sexist discrimination. Not only, as it’s been pointed out on numerous occasions, the fact that the disparity is one created by women choosing to work less than men, but it’s an even grosser misrepresentation still, as those women are working less in order to marry and have children, which entitles them to the incomes of their husbands. Isn’t it the case that women control a majority of household spending, that in divorce they’re entitled to half, or even more than half of the income the husband brings in, and that in cultures like Japan, wives actually go so far as to give their husband’s allowances from the family purse as if they were children?

It’s absolutely disastrous when you really think about it, it carries a cost to “encourage” women to enter into a career she otherwise wouldn’t have had reason to, it carries a cost when she neglects her professional obligations and doesn’t do the same raw amount of work over the course of a lifetime as a man who paid the full cost to become a member of her profession would have, and it carries a cost to make sure that she’s able to do less work than the husband she quits her job to marry does and still be paid the same overall amount as him, even though she is already receiving full compensation for her forfeit, potential wages through a guarantee to 50% of the income of her spouse. And despite really being nothing but a drag on the whole economy, she’s protected by anti-discrimation laws that force other economic agents to do business with her rather than a man even though it’s more costly for them to do so.

I can’t be the only one to see it like this, Feminism has cost likely an astronomical amount, it’s sapped resources and productivity from every corner of the western economy in this truly devious, and parasitic manner. We pay this unbelievably massive tribute to women, we love women, we bend over backwards to give them everything their hearts desire at every turn imaginable, and even though this has an overwhelmingly negative affect on our society, Feminists still have the nerve to demand additional considerations. It’s not about equality, it’s about power, and women of all strips, from the girl behind the counter at the convenience store, whose delicate moral constitution we safeguarded by banning porn, to the girl who used to pose for those very magazines who now works as a waitress instead to support the child she had out of wedlock, none of these women are being really helped by any of this in any degree whatsoever. Feminism is an industry, and the women who work in that industry, the bloggers at Jezebel, the professors manning the gender studies departments, the politicians et al. they’re the ones who reap the true rewards. The economically devastate the world, for the sake of supposedly moral ends, but really, it’s only to create the appearance of their own necessity that they manufacture and “solve” these crises, because even though what they’re doing isn’t doing any good, and in fact hurting a significant number of people in fact, they personally receive money to perpetrate their little scheme, and they accept that money and those personal benefits, not only as individuals, but because they’re generally of the most narcissistic and histrionic variety, as representatives of woman-kind.

The whole thing is just so completely bizarre. And we wonder why there’s a financial crisis…

Leave a Reply

God Created Twitter to Train the Faithful.