Why We Must Discriminate

HavingTrouble892016 · 2016-08-16T22:01:16+00:00

I'm new here, and I've mostly been on the other sub (still confused about the split). I'm a bit surprised to find myself agreeing so readily with this. I'd been having trouble because I'm new to the red pill, but I think that she makes her points really well. It makes sense that companies should get to consider things like maternity leave and such when hiring. It's fair. I also agree that divorce needs to change. It definitely encourages women to jump ship. I also like the idea of single income households. I think that's important, and that we're undermining ourselves by breaking up and breaking the nuclear family or focusing on careers. This is a bit tough for me because I'm just starting college and before taking the pill my plan was to become a lawyer, but now I'm not sure what to do. I definitely want to prioritize marriage and children though, and I think that a society with customary discrimination would be better for that.

CoochQuarantine · 2016-08-16T19:45:42+00:00

Divorced women would still receive the support of their husbands. However, parallel changes in divorce law are necessary to make for less incentive for women to divorce. Women should generally face the loss of child custody and a serious decline in income if they initiate divorce, except in the event of proven malfeasance on the part of the husband. Single women will still be able to find jobs and receive help from fathers and extended family. Most of them will not be rich.

I agree with this. What it doesn't address is division of assets. Women would still be getting half of whatever was acquired during the marriage if divorce were to happen. I think the alimony system is fucked as it is right now. It is just another system to be taken advantage of. It incentivizes women to not try to take care of themselves. Not only do you get half of the assets but also money on top of that to continue to live. It is just so weird.

Littleknownfacts · 2016-08-16T21:37:52+00:00

I don't understand something. She says that if we reinstate customary discrimination then "Most women will be able to find what they cannot find now: a man who can support them and their children in reasonable comfort for many years."

I don't see how that's true. I can see how discrimination would ensure that most, if not all men find jobs...but wages are so low, for so many jobs, that many families can't get by on just one salary. I don't see anything in here about convincing corporations to raise the wage rate.

In traditional societies, like Japan, when a woman gets pregnant she's expected to quit working, and her husband gets a raise so he can take care of the family. It's an interesting idea, although I know a lot of Japanese women who are sad about never ever being able to re-enter the work force.

Camille11325 · 2016-08-16T19:19:44+00:00

Please read the entire post before responding, especially if you are going to disagree! She presents her argument thoroughly and answers a lot of objections. Let's discuss her ideas as well as anything relevant that springs to mind. Feel free to ask clarifying questions and provide alternate perspectives :)

BellaScarletta · 2016-08-16T19:38:16+00:00

I don't feel comfortable agreeing or disagreeing at this point, as either would be done out of ignorance (don't worry, read the whole thing (; ).

I feel like a topic with as hefty implications as this one has -- not just controversially, but even from a strictly numbers/economical point of view -- requires much more marination than a knee-jerk. Additionally I don't consider myself the most informed person on these topics in general, economics most specifically.

That all being said, I really liked it. Even if I later found myself coming to a 100% disagree position (not likely), I can really appreciate the concision of her writing, particularly in approach to such a vast subject. I feel like her argument is exceptionally cogent and does a great job pacing without compromising and exposing giant holes in her argument; really well done.

I guess as far as one part I like, and one part I dislike (since I'm not offering up anything as to where I conclude on the topic):

I have to dislike the idea of limiting anyone's opportunity, I think one of the most valuable parts of RPW is we all chose it -- when someone isn't free to choose, I worry we open ourselves up for Feminisn 2.4.1 or whatever it would be. Also, I feel obligated to acknowledge she did not explicitly say (even perhaps the opposite) anyone would have to be limited; I don't want to sound like I'm putting words in her mouth. I just feel society's best chance at returning to traditional morals and values is if it's a collective choice. Granted, I have no solutions to offer on how to do that. This is a very unsophisticated thought I'm offering here, consider me thinking out loud here.

As for what I do like (well, a lot, but let me pick just one to focus on) is the idea of ending affirmative action as it relates to gender in the work place. As an example, this much-praised historic hooblah. What does 2015 have to do with finding an equal number of women for the cabinet?? I would have been much more impressed with "because I found the most qualified candidates and 50% happened to be women" (unlikely, even just statistically). Returning to a dynamic where people feel legally comfortable hiring the best candidates regardless of gender is something I can't (nor would want to) disagree with. This current balancing for the sake of balancing does industry nor society any favours. I feel like the professional sphere should be like the military: don't lower the standards of performance for women as that can only serve to harm, but if they can keep up then more power to them. But again, the author even says:

There will still be women doctors, lawyers and professors, just far fewer of them. Ambitious women will not find it as easy to make their way as they do today.

Which feeds right into my point.

Overall, like I said, I feel too ignorant when it comes to basic economic/etc principles and too uninitiated to the concept as a whole to have a real opinion...but I can very much appreciate what it's bringing to the table and the due attention it gave to defending its position.

Sunhappy_DC · 2016-08-18T17:53:09+00:00

good blog post. i couldnt' find anything i disagreed with.

Though businesses profit from a larger labor pool, they also suffer costs due to more women working. Women, over the course of their careers, have higher absentee rates; are more easily distracted because of family duties and greater sociability; require expensive services such as day care; and file costly discrimination and harassment suits.

100% true. Research and policy backs this. It also explains the nature of the wage and productivity gap (when you account for coed work environments. I think this evens out when looking at majority or exclusively single-sex work environments).

Women even remain a majority in certain fields, such as education, low-level office work, psychology and nursing. These fields are suited to the interruptions of family life, to the years before marriage, and to the natural skills of women. Business and institutions would be as free to favor women as they were before, but would violate an unwritten code if they favored anything but exceptional women in lucrative fields.

Especially gifted and ambitious women, generally those who will not have families, will still be exceptions in all fields, as they were before the feminist era. There will still be women doctors, lawyers and professors, just far fewer of them. Ambitious women will not find it as easy to make their way as they do today.

I really love the inclusion of this point. For those who don't know or misinterpret RPW-thought and politics, it's not that women SHOULDN'T work, or are INCAPABLE of working. Most women were working pre-feminism, but not in the same industries or in the same way. Particularly in agricultural communities, everyone worked in some capacity.

Most women who aspire to the c-level positions of their industry usually have a significantly harder time with marriage/family because durr --- natural female obligations like childbirth/rearing. I've seen it with my own eyes and it's not pretty or inspiring at all. In fact, despite having a great career in policy, I deliberately changed careers to administration simply because I would have time to DATE, let alone build a strong marriage or have time for family.

Again, no one is saying women CAN'T do those things, but like everything, there are unintended consequences to everything we do. Women can do whatever they want, just be mindful (and accountable) to the outcomes of your decisions.

My primary beef with feminism is that those pushing the movement TODAY want to do whatever they want without the accountability:

You want to be accepted for your weight but refuse to accept that less men will find you attractive.
You want to get the 6 figure salary and awesome career but want to still start a family in your 40s when you finally want to slow down (this is biologically irresponsible btw)

There are other examples that I'm sure ladies can point to if they want. We have more than 30 years of data to back up that women entering originally male-centric industries and spheres of civil and societal influence did not have the results once predicted. There have been lots of unfortunate changes to the nuclear family, male/female dynamics, crime, poverty, etc. While I don't see a complete reversal or trajectory revision of this in my life time, I think the data will push those who can effect change to start asking the policy questions that will influence those changes soon.

That or war -- which always brings out our natural tendencies by force. Praying for the former haha

jade_cat · 2016-08-16T20:34:39+00:00

I agree with the vast majority of the article, and really enjoyed how it was written (the Q&A format).

Women now see that careers come with personal costs and that many jobs are not as thrilling as feminists claim. They are ready to embrace discrimination again.

Anti-discrimination laws have been in effect for a few decades now, and yet, feminists still complain that there are not enough women in "man fields" such as STEM, etc. So they do things such as "Women in STEM" days in colleges to try to push women in these fields. Why don't they understand that if, despite the anti-discrimination laws, so few women choose to go in male-dominated fields, it might be because they want to be in fields more related to their feminine nature?

Title	Why We Must Discriminate
Author	Camille11325
Upvotes	13
Comments	71
Date	August 16, 2016 7:17 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/RedPillWives
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/RedPillWives/comments/4y1aqf/why_we_must_discriminate/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/RedPillWives/why-we-must-discriminate.209684 https://theredarchive.com/post/209684

Comments