~ archived since 2018 ~

A 25% pay cut for equality?

melb22

November 5, 2009

37 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2009/11/would-you-accept-this-offer.html

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	A 25% pay cut for equality?
Author	melb22
Upvotes	37
Comments	44
Date	November 5, 2009 11:40 AM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/a17ty/a_25_pay_cut_for_equality/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-25-pay-cut-for-equality.1052180 https://theredarchive.com/post/1052180

Comments

[–]jabb0 11 points12 points13 points 16 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]RobotBuddha 5 points6 points7 points 16 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]jabb0 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry-- I don't understand your response to my comment. jabb0 said only men cover their coworker's maternity leave, I disagreed. jabb0 complained that men don't get a raise for the increased workload, I tried to put all work leave in perspective. Comments in this thread imply men can't take leave for new children, which is just plain false when they are just as legally protected by FMLA as women. Do you mean that other female coworkers spend weeks cooing over their coworker's new baby? If you did, do you mean to imply that women are the only ones to take short breaks at work? The men at your job don't take coffee, smoke, or lunch breaks? In my experience that was the only time that was spent cooing over a new baby or pictures of the baby, which, by the way, the men in our office did too. Same thing happens when someone brings in pictures of the recent vacation they went on our their new pet. Additionally, "decreased work level" happens "long after" some people come off of disability, too, and tends to preclude vacation time in my experience. Still want to try and differentiate maternity leave from other leave?

[–]jabb0 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fokov 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rmbarnes 8 points9 points10 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rugbysuperstar 7 points8 points9 points 16 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

This is awfully disturbing. People need to wake up, and realize the feminist movement isn't about equality anymore. I'm sure many of these men had families to support, and now they have to deal with a 25% pay cut, as well as inflation and rising commodities prices.

They never stopped for one moment to think, ponder why men are paid more than women. Historically men have been the "breadwinners" of the home, and were responsible for the family's income. (Maybe this is behind the times, but i'm sure alot of families still live like this.)

I remember reading some bullshit article on here about needing to pay 10,000 to reproduce (something like that). Well, i'm sorry to report, but it's happening. As male wages decrease, and we get more of this marxist "equality", you will indeed have to be quite wealthy to be able to afford children. You may think this extreme, but 25% pay cuts are only the beginning.

edit: actually, I remember it now as the person being paid 10,000 not to reproduce, but you get the point.

[–]Simon_the_Cannibal 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zakrah 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Neuroomg 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 7 points8 points9 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kru5h 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 16 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]pahncrd 3 points4 points5 points 16 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Simon_the_Cannibal 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I appreciate your reply, but (1) equalizing wages is not the goal of Marxism* (though it can be used as a means to the end) and there are plenty of ideologies that push for pay-by-mandate which are not Marxist in origin and (2) Marxist Feminism, which radical feminism has rejected, is a form of feminism this socialist and MRA can get behind because it works toward the end of oppression for all people, not just a specific subset there-of.

Finally, even if we assume that these feminists are also Marxists, a problem arises: namely, Marxism defines itself as a struggle against oppression - if feminists become (or wish to become) the oppressors, they can no longer be Marxists (though they will probably continue to use Marxist rhetoric in the same way China is a "People's Republic").

*Sidenote: Marx himself advocated for a pay-scale based on productivity.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Simon_the_Cannibal 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Okay, I think I get what you're driving at. Let me say that equality of results is inherently unequal and that, at best, it is a bastardization of one fragment of Marxist theory. Also, property rights, the freedom of contract, and rule of law are all social constructs which can be (and have been) changed.

This article talks about a group of women using the government to create an oppressive and unfair/unequal environment. Corporations do this every day, but are rarely called Marxist or collectivist. Just because one group uses Marxist rhetoric and the another uses Free-Market rhetoric does not make them followers of either group - both are doing their best to gain the most power and deny others of the benefits of the system which they espouse. This makes them hypocrites at best.

I guess my point is that you shouldn't label these groups by their rhetoric or you'll end up conflating the hypocrites who want "equality" (that they deny others) with the people actually striving for equality. If you do that, a perfectly good ideology might get discarded and you'll be SOL if you need to use it.

Thank you for your civil replies - you may have the last word if you'd like it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Simon_the_Cannibal 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm only replying because you asked a question - I promise I'm not doing the "you can have the last word" and then not let you have it!

As to your question: corporations continually reshape the playing field in their favor. Like the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act - promoted as freeing up the market - really only gave more power to a few banks. It's no secret that they spend millions of dollars on lobbyists for laws in the corporation's favor (and often to everyone else's detriment). They often couch their requests in 'free-market' terms, but every once in a while they'll use 'equality' as rhetoric as well (like: we need subsidies to compete with another country's industry).

That being said, I need to make one point-

To great tragedy in every significant case.

Would you say the creation of limited liability corporations was a tragedy? Would you say the abolition of slavery was a tragedy? Would you say the use of democratic principles in the American republic was a tragedy? You may, of course, answer yes to any and all of these questions. However, they are all examples of freedom of contract and rule of law being changed (and the first two are examples of property rights changing as well).

Okay, again, you can have the last word if you'd like it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha :) I like you. I don't care about the last word, really.

Ok, of course corporations will manipulate government power when they can. The only way to solve that is to not allow government power to tempt them with, as they will always find a way if it exists. I think the Glass-Steagall Act and its effects are debatable, personally.

I'm not well versed on LLCs and their ethical origins. I am aware slavery was asserting ownership over another person's life, I'd argue that this was a violation of the proper state, not that the proper state was before it was abolished.

I'd say that the democracy aspects to America were very complicit in its downfall as a country, that the republic part was the mitigation of the flaws of democracy, and that Abraham Lincoln destroyed that with his war.

I was thinking more along the lines of abolishing private property, forcing people to make certain terms in the contracts, nullifying contracts at will, not having equality under the application of the law, etc.

[–]pahncrd 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]pahncrd 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Right, but the law is whatever we make it. It is all relatively arbitrary.

The problem we run into is that having a huge gap between the bosses and the wage slaves makes for a miserable country. It has been the case for much of history that the rich have extreme leverage over the poorer working classes. It is natural for business to extract as much money as possible at all times by any means. The problem with that is that it tends to pull the wealth to the top in an accelerated fashion removing the leverage that the middle and poor working classes once had.

It is completely reasonable and certainly possible to have a capitalism within certain limitations as it makes for a happier society overall when the working class has a surplus of time and income and when children aren't forced into wage slavery and men and women aren't forced to work obscene hours just for a livable wage.

We have been living in a time when big business (not the small businesses which are the true life-blood) have been able to exploit extremely cheap labor and pocket the difference. Those wages which used to be a part of our countries flow of money are now merely in someones coffers rotting away and likely evading tax. If trickle down actually worked, then it might be okay. I think it is perfectly reasonable for the working class to try and create leverage for itself in any way possible.

That said, this sort of activity as described in this article is just silly and does nothing to increase the surplus of happiness for the working class as a whole.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It's arbitrary in many ways today, but it wasn't always so. The law should be very logical, such as do not murder, assault, steal, etc. In fact if the law only said not to transgress on other people and their property, and to maintain what you voluntarily agreed to, the world would be a vastly better place.

It is certainly true that for many places for most of human history the rich have had an unfair advantage, but I would say that this is because of violations against the principles of capitalism, rather than otherwise. For example, when the rule of law is not equal for all men the powerful can gain privileges and advantages over the unpowerful, when the government creates and protects institutions like the Federal Reserve, when the government implements and income tax it prevents the poor from becoming capitalists because they can't save their money sufficiently, etc.

You need to take it back to first principles and logically deduce what the result will be. Define what is fair. Is it fair that we are all forced to be equal? Or is it fair that the rules of the game are the same for us all, and our strengths and weaknesses are exploited in pursuit of cooperation and specialisation?

My observation is that the biggest problem with socialist leaning people is that they've recognised the superficial manifestations of problems, but they haven't properly diagnosed those problems or given deep enough thought to the underlying principles.

[–]pahncrd 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pahncrd1 point 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Those things are only criminal if we make them so... which puts constraints on capitalism. Naked capitalism has no such constraints applied which is what I do not agree with since it is, by its very nature, exploitative. Like I said capitalism with social constraints makes the most sense from a societal standpoint. You can talk about private property all day long and how the super rich morally deserve what they have as compared to the people born into poverty that only ever deserve poverty, but when the system is skewed to the point that it is now, it is completely reasonable to create opportunity for the working class to find enough leverage to experience a happy and satisfying life. I seriously doubt there are many socialist people that want actual equality in a communist sense. Just meet a few basic needs and have a very meager standard of living for the least of us. That still leaves more than plenty of room for the super rich to make their billions.

This is the future, and we have quite enough productivity to have a reasonable standard of living. I still think we need capitalism as a motivator for success, but we are certainly to the point where the haves have very much exploited the have nots simply because they have almost all of the leverage.

When the haves try to take 99% of all productivity then it is time to take some time to really look at the situation and see if it isn't within our realm morally to take action to increase our leverage in the working classes to be able to improve our standard of living.

[–][deleted]1 point 16 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Simon_the_Cannibal 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zahlman 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DutchUncle 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DutchUncle 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zahlman 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link