The Misandry Bubble - Part 6!

Welp, I've gotten this far. In for a penny, hung for a sheep, or something like that.

Hence, there will be no real Men's Rights Movement in the near future. The misandry bubble will instead be punctured through the sum of millions of individual market forces.
And now he gets into pseudoeconomics, which is almost like pseudoscience, except instead of saying "cavemen passed on their genes by only fucking swimsuit models" you say "it's economically rational for a man to only fuck swimsuit models." God damn that Freakonomics book, by the way--it's interesting in itself, but it taught a million armchair economists that you can prove anything "economically" by carefully selecting which incentives you consider and which you completely fucking ignore. It's economically rational for me to cut off my feet because then I won't have to buy socks!

Misandrists shriek about a supposed 'glass ceiling' of pervasive sexism that explains why 50% of the CEOs of major corporations are not women. What is never mentioned is the equally valid 'glass floor', where we see that 90% of imprisonments, suicides, and crippling occupational injuries are of men.
Here we see the logical Fallacy Of Buh?, in which the premise and conclusion are from different planets.

Also, out of the Fortune 1000 companies, 13 have female CEOs. There's your fucking 50%.

One of the most dishonest myths of all is the claim that 'women earn just 75% of men for the same job'.
That's a misphrasing. Women earn 75% of men for the same hours. It's true, female surgeons and stockbrokers earn about the same as male surgeons and stockbrokers (actually often they don't, but anyway), and male housekeepers and nannies earn the same as female housekeepers and nannies. But if you look at the numbers of men and women in various professions this doesn't work out nearly even, and claiming women voluntarily choose low-paid careers for some mysterious lady reason makes pretty poor argument-spackle.

It is true that women, on average, earn less per year than men do. It is also true that 22-year-olds earn less, on average, than 40-year-olds. Why is the latter not an example of age discrimination, while the former is seized upon as an example of gender discrimination?
Because in 18 years I still won't be a man.

If women truly did earn less for doing exactly the same job as a man, any non-sexist CEO could thrash his competition by hiring only women, thus saving 25% on employee salaries relative to his competitors. Are we to believe that every major CEO and Board of Directors is so sexist as to sacrifice billions of dollars of profit?
This hypothetical (and male!) CEO can't just hire the cheapest possible labor for executive and management positions, he has to hire experienced and qualified people even if they cost more. Whoops, they all turned out to have penises, what a crazy random happenstance.

Furthermore, women entrepreneurs could hire other women and out-compete any male-dominated business if such a pay gap existed, but we do not see this happening in any country in the world.
It actually is, slowly, but:
A) Since feminism isn't actually the mirror-image of misogyny, most female businesspeople don't hire 97% female management.
B) Most entrepreneurs don't start in a garage and work their way up with no help from anyone on sheer merit and spunk. Business experience and contacts are invaluable, and they're disproportionately available to good ol' boys.

I am willing to pass laws to ensure that 50% of all Fortune 500 CEOs are women (despite the accelerated turnover this would create in the ranks of the Fortune 500), if we also legally mandate that 50% of all imprisonments are of women, and 50% of the jobs that involve working with heavy machinery, being outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals are also occupied by women. Fair is fair. Any takers?
Um... yeah. I would take that deal. Except for the imprisonments because that's the Fallacy of Buh?, but the rest of it, that sounds just fine. (I've already worked in inclement weather and I still work with dangerous criminals; for some reason the typical female job of lying on a couch eating bon-bons didn't have any openings when I applied.)

In the recent recession and ongoing jobless recovery, the male unemployment rate continues to be much higher than the female unemployment rate.
Yeah, that's because all the good jobs went away first.

Traditionally female jobs tend to be low-paid and low-status, but necessary: childcare, healthcare. The demand for manufacturing and construction is dependent on the economy, but kids and sick people are always around. These sectors don't have big failures but they also don't have big successes--there'll never be a "Childcare Boom." So there's no childcare recession, but that doesn't mean that babysitters rule the economy now.

The 'mancession' continues as the US transitions to a 'sheconomy', and among the millions of unemployed men, some owe prohibitive levels of 'child support' despite not being the ones wanting to deprive their children of a two-parent household, landing in prison for lack of funds. Furthermore, I emphasize again that having 10-30% of the US male workforce living under an effective 70% marginal tax rate will kill their incentives for inventing new technologies or starting new companies. It is petty to debate whether the top federal income tax bracket should be 35% or 39.6%, when a slice of the workforce is under a 70% tax on marginal income.
Mancession? Sheconomy? This guy could write for Cosmo.

And you do realize that if your children lived with you, you'd still have to clothe and feed them? Ideally.

The next time you hear someone say that 'the US has the largest prison population in the world', be sure to mention that many of these men merely lost their jobs, and were divorced against their will. The women, in the meantime, are having a blast.
So apparently when you get divorced you go to prison. This is, uh, new.

I know he's really just bitching about his child support payments again, but in every state I could Google, you don't get imprisoned for Nonsupport Of A Child if you simply didn't have the income. You can be made to pay a portion of unemployment benefits, which I admit sketches me out a little (although less so when I consider that the kids still have to eat, and if the dad is broke but still ordered to pay, the mom's probably dead broke), but you can't go to prison for failing to produce blood from a stone.

Anyway what goddamn proportion of the prison population is there for Nonsupport Of A Child, seriously. I couldn't find statistics but I seriously doubt this is the root of America's entire crime problem.

It goes further. The vast majority of social security taxes are paid by men, but are collected by women (due to women living 7 years longer than men on average). [...] Remember again that the earnings of men pays 70%-80% of all taxes.
"Men don't earn more than women! And since men earn more, we have to pay more taxes! No fair!"

There's a long segment about why feminists are responsible for high taxes (they just are) that makes less than no sense and it's very boring, so I'm going to skim over that bit if you don't mind.

A single man does not require much in order to survive. Most single men could eke out a comfortable existence by working for two months out of the year.
Well, not in the beloved Past, not unless you can find me a crop that ripens in two months and is nutritionally balanced and perfectly storeable. But in more modern times, the median individual income of a man--not counting zero incomes--in the US is about $30,513. (And of a woman--still not counting zero, remember, so it's not all housewives--is $17,629. But anyway.) Two months of that is $5,086. $424 a month. That's not a "comfortable existence," that's a van down by the river.

The reason that a man might work hard to earn much more than he needs for himself is to attract a wife amidst a competitive field, finance a home and a couple of children, and ultimately achieve status as a pillar of the community. [...] 80-90% of a man's output went to people other than himself, but he got a family and high status in return, so he was happy with the arrangement.
If women would only marry rich pillar-y men, doesn't that mean that like 80% of women had no one to marry? Clearly someone was settling (or, ohmigosh, failing to gold-dig in the first place), or there'd be no such thing as a poor family.

It's also kind of harsh to describe your income as going to "people other than himself," and grudgingly consider the value received in return, when it's your own wife and kids. Life must be sad when you live on The Planet Without Love.

Hey kids, it's GLORIFYING MASS MURDER TIME!
(This is quoted from a different essay, but the Misandry Bubble guy gives his explicit agreement to these specific quotes.)
A man like George Sodini, who listened to his cultural elites and followed their dictates to the letter only to get swindled, had no reason to love America. In fact, he had every reason to lash out at the society that screwed him over and make its denizens feel some of the pain that they had inflicted on him.
You could stop this madness tomorrow by refusing to follow your vaginas straight into the arms of scumbags, and actually live up to your claims of wanting nice guys – but I doubt you will. You’ve made your bed, ladies – now sleep in it.
WHAT THE FUCK IS FUCKING WRONG WITH YOU WHAT THE FUCK I CAN'T EVEN BE FUNNY HERE FUCK. All this cute little talk about divorce laws and tax rates and TV characters means fucking nothing if you're going to justify murder. Holy shit. You don't want to be called a misogynist because it's a mean word that hurts your little feelings and you don't see a problem with killing women?

You know, there's a word for fucking a guy just so he doesn't kill you. I believe we were talking about it earlier? Starts with an R.


There's more but I'm done for now, I'm just fucking done.