I acknowledge Feminist BS exists.

The Feminist BS is not the invention part but rather the false concept of patriarchy pitted against statements like "the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world" comment by the Facebook page.

Edit: Someone on my Facebook page said this about the picture:

"What some physicists working in propulsion technology want to achieve is propulsion based on the Casimir effect...what the [facebook] image says is false, the effect has been known since 1948 and its application in propulsion technology has been theorised several years ago; there has not yet been any working propulsion design that uses this technology. There is also no mention of her in any reputable source."

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/17189/did-a-19-year-old-egyptian-student-invent-a-new-space-propulsion-system

[–]moonphoenix10 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]16 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]moonphoenix5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Muffinizer11 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xkcd_transcriber2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley19 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-11 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley19 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-10 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-10 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGDBatman3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blueoak92 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jonathan_Taylor7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Living wage isn't real. It's an arbitrary concept. It meant something different back then than it does now. A living wage for me is very little. I don't eat expensive foods, I only use a moderate amount of electricity, and my hobbies are cheap. I do fine right above the poverty line.

A single mother of two? A family of five? Should I receive a wage that can support a family of five working a menial job? Most businesses would collapse, but most of all small businesses run by the average person.

The whole concept of a living wage is nothing more than feel good rhetoric. It's just a political buzzword you can bring up to make it sound like you're sitting on some moral high-horse far away from all those evil capitalists. Now, I'm not saying that's you, but that's the way I keep seeing it be used.

[–]woolyreasoning5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]woolyreasoning2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]woolyreasoning2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

no market is free from distortion and deregulation is not how you make markets more competitive.

A free market is free from distortion, and extremely competitive. Much, much more competitive than what we have now. This results in better quality for less money, and higher real wages.

Fair is the equitable division of the rewards of your effort.

This is a tautology. I agree that you should be payed the market prices of your effort though, but only if your effort is up to the standard.

a quarterback doesn't earn 200x more then anyone else on the team.

Okay. And? We're not a "team".

and a 'fair wage' as opposed to a living wage is the distinction between a company acting charitably and company acting ethically and that wording would have more of an emotional impact

A company is a means to an end. Those ends are profit and production. Both generate wealth. That company needs employees. That company needs to pay more than it's competitors to get that labor. This is just supply and demand. If we deregulate the market, if we remove the bars of entry, if we let it run free, we will do a huge service to the poor people.

They will be able to undercut the rich, they will be able to provide and get jobs, and it will benefit us all.

[–]woolyreasoning3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay. And? We're not a "team"

no, society is a team and it functions best when we co operate, it is the text book definition of a civil society ...

and business are definitely teams, groups of individuals working towards a common goal, that is exactly what they are.

Fair is the equitable division of the rewards of your effort

This is a tautology

no, that's a dictionary definition of a fair share

A company is a means to an end. Those ends are profit and production. Both generate wealth.

and again if you helped generate the wealth, don't you deserve a share of it. if you exchanged your labour capital and your employer exchanged monetary capital, why is your labour capital your investment taxed at twice the rate of his investment.

That company needs employees. That company needs to pay more than it's competitors to get that labour. This is just supply and demand.

exactly, supply and demand, labour is currently in surplus thus driving down the cost, companies are using this fact to hold down wages this triggers a negative cycle of lowing production to meet lower demand.

prudent governance would have us invest in labour intensive projects that we could have done at a fraction of the cost compared to booms years

this would in turn stabilise the market and stable markets are more efficient because investors can make long term decisions

If we deregulate the market, if we remove the bars of entry,

typical referred to as barriers to entry

if we let it run free, we will do a huge service to the poor people.

to the poor people seems like odd phrasing surely it should be for poor people

They will be able to undercut the rich, they will be able to provide and get jobs, and it will benefit us all.

yeah that doesn't happen been quite thoroughly proven that when we have strong governance and fair taxation we get good growth, higher standards of living and a lower deficit

good governance is the business of good businesses, which classical republicanism actually delivered

put down the Ayn Rand and see that what Eisenhower feared has come to pass the military industrial complex has swallowed the right wing and socialised the risk of capitalism, business have lobbied to create barriers of entry through legislation and disenfranchised their own customers and workers ...

the titans of industry are eating their young

[–]I_am_Norwegian1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

no, that's a dictionary definition of a fair share

Again, this is arbitrary. There is no fair share. Your fair share depends on your human capital, and what job you have, and what you are producing in terms of profit and product/quality of service.

and again if you helped generate the wealth, don't you deserve a share of it. if you exchanged your labour capital and your employer exchanged monetary capital, why is your labour capital your investment taxed at twice the rate of his investment.

But you are getting a share of the profits. That's why you decided to take that job. I don't think any tax is moral, so that is a non-issue for me. But you are right, our system is fucked up in a way that benefits some to the detriment of everyone else.

exactly, supply and demand, labour is currently in surplus thus driving down the cost, companies are using this fact to hold down wages this triggers a negative cycle of lowing production to meet lower demand. prudent governance would have us invest in labour intensive projects that we could have done at a fraction of the cost compared to booms years this would in turn stabilise the market and stable markets are more efficient because investors can make long term decisions

Yes, and if you just leave it alone it will stabilize. This doesn't trigger a negative cycle though. People take jobs for less, things are being produced cheaper, and thus demand increases again. Labor intensive projects are not a solution at all:

Everything we get, outside of the free gifts of nature, must in some way be paid for. The world is full of so-called economists who in turn are full of schemes for getting something for nothing. They tell us that the government can spend and spend without taxing at all; that is can continue to pile up debt without ever paying it off because “we owe it to ourselves.” Such pleasant dreams in the past have always been shattered by national insolvency or a runaway inflation. Here we shall have to say simply that all government expenditures must eventually be paid out of the proceeds of taxation; that inflation itself is merely a form, and a particularly vicious form, of taxation.

Every dollar of government spending must be raised through a dollar of taxation. Once we look at the matter in this way, the supposed miracles of government spending will appear in another light.

I am here concerned with public works considered as a means of “providing employment” or of adding wealth to the community that it would not otherwise have had.

A bridge is built. If it is built to meet an insistent public demand, if it solves a traffic problem or a transportation problem otherwise insoluble, if, in short, it is even more necessary to the taxpayers collectively than the things for which they would have individually spent their money had it had not been taxed away from them, there can be no objection. But a bridge built primarily “to provide employment” is a different kind of bridge. When providing employment becomes the end, need becomes a subordinate consideration. “Projects” have to be invented. Instead of thinking only of where bridges must be built the government spenders begin to ask themselves where bridges can be built. Can they think of plausible reasons why an additional bridge should connect Easton and Weston? It soon becomes absolutely essential. Those who doubt the necessity are dismissed as obstructionists and reactionaries.

Two arguments are put forward for the bridge, one of which is mainly heard before it is built, the other of which is mainly heard after it has been completed. The first argument is that it will provide employment. It will provide, say, 500 jobs for a year. The implication is that these are jobs that would not otherwise have come into existence.

This is what is immediately seen. But if we have trained ourselves to look beyond immediate to secondary consequences, and beyond those who are directly benefited by a government project to others who are indirectly affected, a different picture presents itself. It is true that a particular group of bridgeworkers may receive more employment than otherwise. But the bridge has to be paid for out of taxes. For every dollar that is spent on the bridge a dollar will be taken away from taxpayers. If the bridge costs kr61.84 ($10) million the taxpayers will lose kr61.84 ($10) million. They will have that much taken away from them which they would otherwise have spent on the things they needed most.

Therefore, for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else. We can see the men employed on the bridge. We can watch them at work. The employment argument of the government spenders becomes vivid, and probably for most people convincing. But there are other things that we do not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come into existence. They are the jobs destroyed by the kr61.84 ($10) million taken from the taxpayers. All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the project. More bridge builders; fewer automobile workers, television technicians, clothing workers, farmers.

But then we come to the second argument. The bridge exists. It is, let us suppose, a beautiful and not an ugly bridge. It has come into being through the magic of government spending. Where would it have been if the obstructionists and the reactionaries had had their way? There would have been no bridge. The country would have been just that much poorer. Here again the government spenders have the better of the argument with all those who cannot see beyond the immediate range of their physical eyes. They can see the bridge. But if they have taught themselves to look for indirect as well as direct consequences they can once more see in the eye of imagination the possibilities that have never been allowed to come into existence. They can see the unbuilt homes, the unmade cars and washing machines, the unmade dresses and coats, perhaps the ungrown and unsold foodstuffs. To see these uncreated things requires a kind of imagination that not many people have. We can think of these nonexistent objects once, perhaps, but we cannot keep them before our minds as we can the bridge that we pass every working day. What has happened is merely that one thing has been created instead of others.

typical referred to as barriers to entry

to the poor people seems like odd phrasing surely it should be for poor people

Sorry about that. I'm Norwegian, not retarded.

yeah that doesn't happen been quite thoroughly proven that when we have strong governance and fair taxation we get good growth, higher standards of living and a lower deficit

Look at the economic history of Sweden, especially from the 30's to the 70's. Look at what is happening in China and India right now. Look at the economic history of the US. Look at Hong Kong. The freer the market, the quicker poor people rise into the middle class.

put down the Ayn Rand and see that what Eisenhower feared has come to pass the military industrial complex has swallowed the right wing and socialised the risk of capitalism, business have lobbied to create barriers of entry through legislation and disenfranchised their own customers and workers ... the titans of industry are eating their young

Haha, I've never actually read anything by Rand. These are all problems created by the government. What do you think is the solution? To regulate the regulation?

[–]woolyreasoning1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, and if you just leave it alone it will stabilize. This doesn't trigger a negative cycle though

just me and every other economist then..

People take jobs for less, things are being produced cheaper, and thus demand increases again.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, again simple keynesianism here its been observed multiple times

but more importantly if who leaves it alone, if all the stakeholders in a market leave there ceases to be market to stabilise. the state is an actor just like a firm or a worker the difference is in market where there is an oversupply of labour and no alternative, the market becomes ripe for abuse. especially given the total lack of an alternative to starvation and dying.

to the poor people seems like odd phrasing surely it should be for poor people

sounded quite orwellian to be honest

Sorry about that. I'm Norwegian, not retarded.

lets not repeat the same fallacy again.. but in all honesty its a bit rich to complain about american wanting a living wage and better working conditions.

[–]I_am_Norwegian1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

just me and every other economist then..

Every other Keynesian maybe.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, again simple keynesianism here its been observed multiple times

Haha, yep, Keynesian.

the state is an actor just like a firm or a worker the difference is in market where there is an oversupply of labour and no alternative, the market becomes ripe for abuse. especially given the total lack of an alternative to starvation and dying.

No, the state has no money. All the money it has it either prints or steals. You conveniently didn't state a rebuttal to anything I said other than "every economist agrees, also Keynes"

sounded quite orwellian to be honest

Lol, yeah, the free market is so Orwellian. Imagine the terror of free and voluntary trade, decentralized and diffused power. The horror.

but in all honesty its a bit rich to complain about american wanting a living wage and better working conditions.

We've been over the living wage thing. Believe it or not, I want the best for everyone, including, and especially the poor. And I think the best way to do that is to get out of their way and to give them a fair chance, along with the higher real wages a freer economy brings.

Just look at your rebuttals here:

"You're wrong, and everyone agrees that you're wrong"

This isn't an argument. Furthermore, far from every economist follows Keynes.

"Fallacy, also, Keynes"

"Orwell"

"But living wage, man"

The only thing resembling an argument here is the paragraph stating that the market will dissapear, and that the state is like a firm or worker. Neither of which are true, which I've outlined why. Before we focus on these things though, I'd like to see a rebuttal of my previous post, especially my arguments relating to public works.

[–]giegerwasright2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]giegerwasright1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Except it isn't arbitrary. At all. It's relative to the regional market. And the basic necessities of survival have already been defined for quite some time now. IE it isn't simple but it isn't arbitrary either. It isn't undefinable either. You just don't want it defined because you're afraid that some day someone might tell you that you have to pay a person at least this much and it might be more than you'd like to. Even though you'd never take that pay yourself.

Let's say two people apply for a job as a burger flipper. One applicant is 18, lives with his parents and therefore doesn't need much money in terms of living wages. Another applicant is a single mother of triplets.

Now. Should they be payed different wages for the same work? If yes, who do you think will get the job? Come on.

I take it you've never been 22, homeless, unable to afford to put yourself through college and inelligible for financial aid and trying to live off of two retail jobs. So, who pays your bills?

I grew up in relative poverty. I know how it is to not have money. My dad suffered financially and educationally trough his life too. If we had "living wages" in Norway, a 21 year old kid would have taken his job at a lower wage. If you're talking about just a raised minimum wage, it's doubtful that the business he is employed at would even employ as many people.

[–]againstagainstagains1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Deansdale1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MadeByMonkeys1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StanleyDerpalton0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ebyoung7475 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StanleyDerpalton2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Oldini2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ebyoung7471 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRB20120 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]masterrod0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]qemist0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	I acknowledge Feminist BS exists.
Author	Jonathan_Taylor
Upvotes	140
Comments	78
Date	January 12, 2014 2:01 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1v12sx/i-acknowledge-feminist-bs-exists/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/i-acknowledge-feminist-bs-exists.1613734 https://theredarchive.com/post/1613734

Comments