This is my take on the whole outsourcing of blue collar work and what it's doing to America.
OK, so you take a guy's job away, and ship it to China or something. This guy has a relatively low IQ, and can't or won't go to college and get a degree. What is he gonna do? I've applied for jobs with less than a college education myself, and it's not easy to get employed. And the stuff you can reasonably expect to get employed in is on the level of 7-11 or Arby's. Making $9 or $10 an hour, maybe $12 an hour, tops. If I was a blue-collar guy I'd say fuck this, and turn to a life of crime.
You have a situation where guys aimlessly drift through life, easily captivated by extremism (gangs, terrorism, etc.) and not really contributing to society. These guys wax and wane, going into prison, and then coming right back out and doing the same things they did before. So what you see is someone being a cost to society either as a menace, or a prisoner, instead of producing widgets or doing labor to support society and genuinely be a part of it.
The current solution to this problem seems to be the band-aid approach of giving these guys draconian prison sentences. That way they stay in prison, instead of being a menace. But these guys are still a net drain on society, instead of being productive.
Lots of people from the conservative side will say that these people are animals and really need to be locked up. Are they really sure about that? I'm sure a good percentage are animals that need to be behind bars no matter what, but every single last one of them? It sounds a little hyperbolic to me. And if you take this at face value, and assume that they're all animals, then why is society creating so many animals?
I believe that if gainful employment, not jack-in-the-box employment, is reasonably attainable to someone without a college degree, then a lot of the social problems you see in ghettoes and among the poor underclass will disappear. These people turn to crime because they see no way out, and they're often correct. What's a guy who's not smart enough for college to do? People have TV, they see what middle class lifestyle is about. They don't want to live in slummy conditions making $10 an hour for the rest of their life.
I think the people who are outsourcing the country need to be dropped into a ghetto by helicopter and forced to live there while we rebuild the industrial economy. Stop assuming everyone is college ready and give these people a genuine way out of their problems.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Back to Blogging and Thoughts on "All Sex is Rape"
Well, after a long hiatus, I'm back. I'll be posting more frequently. There were several reasons why I stopped, including school and a forum I'm posting on needing help. But I've got a lot of stuff to discuss, to get out of my head and flesh out in words, and it can't really be discussed elsewhere. So... be prepared for a big dumping of thoughts!
I've been posting on The Spearhead on and off. I am continuously amazed at the injustices that happen to men in the world, and how it indirectly causes women to lose respect as well, which is tragic. I don't harbor anger toward women in general, and am sad that this society is causing them to not really fulfill their potential. I feel bad for most women who seem to be swept up by society and all its ills, and then go on to inflict all their baggage on men who they could instead love. It's such a tragic waste and it's gotta affect them deep down. At the end of the day, they're unhappier than they were in the past, and the stats show it.
Speaking of happiness, I'm reminded of a Dworkin quote where she said that all heterosexual sex is rape. On the surface, it sounds just like the lunatic rantings of a person who hates sexuality, and that's what many people, especially conservatives, tend to classify it as. But that misses the bigger picture of what she was saying. Her claim was that since women couldn't work, or couldn't find an easy path to most jobs, they were forced to marry men, often men who they didn't really like or find attractive but had resources, and that this was really no different from being forced to have sex with a man at gunpoint.
This story sounds tragic, and a lot of people believed it, and that's what gave feminism its power. Now, a more careful analysis shows that this is likely not true, and more an issue of historical revisionism than anything else, but the fact that it seems like women were being oppressed by having a lifestyle imposed on them was enough to give feminism credibility.
So you fast-forward to today, and women can work. A woman who was a director for a government agency remarked in one of my classes how almost no women were there when she was in college, and now it's full of women. (I counted heads and the classroom was more than 60% women; my university is about 54% women overall.) Women can get into any career they want with little impediment, free of the supposed sexism and discrimination that prevented them from attaining such employment in the past.
OK, cool, let's run with that and take it at face value. I'm not sure about its extent because there were always lots of female nurses, and female MDs were not nonexistent either, as long ago as the 40s from an article I read. It probably stretched back much farther. The fact is that women working in an occupation was not uncommon in the past (think secretaries, typists, nurses, etc.), but let's just assume that all women were forced to stay home, married to a man they didn't like so they could support themselves.
Why, then, are they less happy now than they were in supposedly more oppressive times? If feminism's goal was to increase happiness by freeing women from the household, and that was the prime bottleneck on womens' happiness, then there should have been serious, significant gains in womens' happiness over the years. Has society gotten so much worse that women are less happy now despite gaining more claimed freedom? If that's the case we're in a serious bind. I don't think that's what's happening, though, because several other things happened during this time of supposed economic and social liberation that made things worse for men:
If things continue the way they do, it's going to be harder and harder for women to find decent men, as opposed to players who just want to jump in the sack with them. In fact, that's the reality of life for an increasing number of women. Marginalize men and this is what you get. If women want decent men, they should push to reverse this fuck-upedness, and refuse to participate in its propagation.
I've been posting on The Spearhead on and off. I am continuously amazed at the injustices that happen to men in the world, and how it indirectly causes women to lose respect as well, which is tragic. I don't harbor anger toward women in general, and am sad that this society is causing them to not really fulfill their potential. I feel bad for most women who seem to be swept up by society and all its ills, and then go on to inflict all their baggage on men who they could instead love. It's such a tragic waste and it's gotta affect them deep down. At the end of the day, they're unhappier than they were in the past, and the stats show it.
Speaking of happiness, I'm reminded of a Dworkin quote where she said that all heterosexual sex is rape. On the surface, it sounds just like the lunatic rantings of a person who hates sexuality, and that's what many people, especially conservatives, tend to classify it as. But that misses the bigger picture of what she was saying. Her claim was that since women couldn't work, or couldn't find an easy path to most jobs, they were forced to marry men, often men who they didn't really like or find attractive but had resources, and that this was really no different from being forced to have sex with a man at gunpoint.
This story sounds tragic, and a lot of people believed it, and that's what gave feminism its power. Now, a more careful analysis shows that this is likely not true, and more an issue of historical revisionism than anything else, but the fact that it seems like women were being oppressed by having a lifestyle imposed on them was enough to give feminism credibility.
So you fast-forward to today, and women can work. A woman who was a director for a government agency remarked in one of my classes how almost no women were there when she was in college, and now it's full of women. (I counted heads and the classroom was more than 60% women; my university is about 54% women overall.) Women can get into any career they want with little impediment, free of the supposed sexism and discrimination that prevented them from attaining such employment in the past.
OK, cool, let's run with that and take it at face value. I'm not sure about its extent because there were always lots of female nurses, and female MDs were not nonexistent either, as long ago as the 40s from an article I read. It probably stretched back much farther. The fact is that women working in an occupation was not uncommon in the past (think secretaries, typists, nurses, etc.), but let's just assume that all women were forced to stay home, married to a man they didn't like so they could support themselves.
Why, then, are they less happy now than they were in supposedly more oppressive times? If feminism's goal was to increase happiness by freeing women from the household, and that was the prime bottleneck on womens' happiness, then there should have been serious, significant gains in womens' happiness over the years. Has society gotten so much worse that women are less happy now despite gaining more claimed freedom? If that's the case we're in a serious bind. I don't think that's what's happening, though, because several other things happened during this time of supposed economic and social liberation that made things worse for men:
- Stagflation followed by a flatlining and net decrease of wages for men, while costs of goods continued to go up with inflation;
- The continual erosion of a savory academic environment, resulting in male children getting drugged for "ADHD" (criminal, in my opinion) because they're boys who can't adapt to this environment. This makes me wonder: Was ADHD such a huge problem in the past? Were hyperactive boys making classrooms so unworkable that it required drugging them with dopamine-stimulating compounds? Something is wrong with this picture. You never heard about this stuff going on in the past;
- The continual erosion of blue-collar jobs that allow lower-IQ males to be reasonably prosperous in society instead of turning to a criminal lifestyle;
- The blowing of problems like rape humongously out of proportion. Rape is a serious crime and needs to be treated as such, but in the current climate, all men are treated like rapists. Feminists have been caught red-handed fudging statistics, and several feminists have even been quoted as saying that all men are rapists. In fact, the Dworkin quote implies this. It's an insult to any man, really, but when taught to young boys, it makes them ashamed of their sexuality, and they grow up to be overly-considerate man children who women don't consider sexually attractive;
- Sexual harassment laws. I think no one has the right to unwanted sexual advances, but this is used and abused badly in our current culture. Honestly, I think that if men were respected more, and thought less as automatically guilty pigs, then sexual harassment laws wouldn't be such a problem, and people would get punished rightly for genuine sexual harassment. But in the current climate, conniving or hysterical women can take advantage of the laws (and corporate policies) to kick out or get revenge at men they don't like. If a man so much as looks at a woman the wrong way he can get in serious trouble. This is not right, and it makes men very fearful of and unattractive to women;
- Sexual liberalization which results in a "game" culture. In a future post I'm going to argue how not everyone is college bound and society shouldn't just assume it, and that there should be ways for these people to be contributors to society. Likewise, "game" culture and casually picking up women just isn't in it for a lot of men. They don't like it, and they want a girl to commit to them, and they want a decent pool of available women for this purpose. Excluding men just because they don't have "game" or aren't super fashionable or are maybe a little awkward is a dead end. It's going to cause the same sorts of problems that excluding blue collar workers from anything above Arby's will cause;
- Making marriage one false accusation away from total financial and psychological ruination for a man, taking the kids away and everything. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't feel comfortable with a woman having that level of power over me. Men have killed themselves over this. And you better believe men are eschewing marriage because of it. The response of governments around the world seems to be to make co-habitation similar to marriage, but all that's going to do is scare men away from cohabiting, and turn them into complete fuck-and-chuckers. It's just going to accelerate the decline into a total game culture, suffering from severe population under-replacement.
If things continue the way they do, it's going to be harder and harder for women to find decent men, as opposed to players who just want to jump in the sack with them. In fact, that's the reality of life for an increasing number of women. Marginalize men and this is what you get. If women want decent men, they should push to reverse this fuck-upedness, and refuse to participate in its propagation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)