Did men speak out when porn was legalized and mainstreamed?
Was the distribution of legalized porn an example of a gender-specific award to men, that women couldn't access, and which directly caused a male situation to be better 'dollar for dollar' than women's simultaneously?
Did old people speak out against SS and medicare?
This is also different. The benefits discussed in my comment and the OP are time-sensitive in a way that SS is not. SS is frontloaded by the taxes of the young and working, for the sake of the old and with the explicit promise that when the young grow old, their contributions will be repaid and then some. A person who earns $60k per year under the current system for 37 years, retiring at full retirement age, will probably generate around $200k for the fund, and will collect (if they live until 90, say) three times that amount.
There are problems with the system obviously. In principle, I consider it the best of the socialized entitlements that exist; we run into problems with any centralized form of financial care. I digress.
Your second paragraph deals with economic concerns and bureaucracies subsidizing the underperformance of groups with whom they have special relationships. I agree it is a problem, but I don't think it is particularly relevant to the situation we were discussing.
An HR executive, who is female, is not an elected official; nor does she form special economic relations with the female employees of the company she works for. I mean, are we really imagining that women in the workplace are systematically lobbying the female HR exec to get these 'menstrual privileges'? Sliding her money under the door? No, we're talking about ideological wokeness that the liberal executive uses for her own personal gain, for the moral virtue that a particular kind of culture seeks to elevate into positions of power, and where she is confined by her own ideology to actively pushing these kinds of changes in ANY institution for the sake of the god of Equity.
This is why such an ideology can be weaponized regardless of gender or race. There is no special relationship the women in that workplace require with the woke HR executive. The HR executive will, for her own interests, attempt to convince the female worker population about their victimhood, selling them on an illusory problem and galvanizing their revolutionary spirit. Now, I'll grant that if she is successful, then she will establish a privileged relationship between herself and the victim group so as to form a kind of dependence that garners her independent power within the company (since she is now the quasi-union leader of the victim class she created). This is how the revolution works to disrupt the hierarchy.
I can name hundreds of instances in which men accept an opportunity in which they benefit at another persons expense dishonestly.
I see that you included the 'dishonestly' qualifier at the end, but let's ignore it for a moment. Are we talking about individuals or classes of people? Do you know of instances where men as a class, as in every male employee in a company, accepted some new provision that advantaged them significantly and without exception over every member of the class women in the same company? I mean in objective, straightforward ways, i.e. paid time off from the job that women couldn't possibly access?
Unequal outcomes are not the problem. There are cases where a person accepts opportunities not available to others, and this is totally justified. The individual merited it in other words. Nobody can be faulted for accepting a promotion, for example. A properly functioning hierarchy necessarily rewards some and not others, with more and more privilege the higher you go.
I think you are confusing the vertical direction here with the horizontal one. A policy of 'radical truth with respect to economic productivity' is just what a proper hierarchy should be, elevating the reward for the highest value members. But nothing in the OP described the situation as one where the female privilege was also identical to being somewhere in the hierarchy of reward. It was universal. It applied horizontally.
Take whatever level of the hierarchy you like, productive or less productive levels. Within that level that features people on a relative par with one another in terms of workload and compensation, the policy described in the OP is granting horizontally-distributed privilege to the women as a class, and not to men.
This is not based on merit. It's based on sex.
The difference between men and women in the horizontal direction is what creates the opportunity for the kind of revolutionizing I discussed above, the ability for the snakes to do the dividing. It's almost like man and woman separated their activities categorically in the past because that separation made their organization in male-female pairs less vulnerable and more efficient. Men and women are equipped in the evolutionary sense for one-to-one competition, which is to say competition between one male and one female in the sexual (and marital) relationship. Observe the dynamic between husband and wife in any home, and this becomes clear.
Men and women are not equipped by evolution for class-level competition between males and females as exclusive social groups. This instability of these mixed-gender egalitarian workspaces is an engine for producing societal breakdown because it places women in a class-level competition with men for the majority of their weeks, and pushes out (or onto the backburner) her main productive one-to-one competition with the husband. This latter competition becomes merely an adjunct, an annoyance heaped on top of her existing corporate pile of stress, weakening the marriage which is already a sufficient amount of stress for even healthy couples.
You are already aware I disagree with your view of morality; I don't think Darwinism is capable of explaining goodness, which is the object of moral behaviors. If you want to take a strict evolutionary approach, I'd be interested for you to defend an argument for women in the workplace (women's lib generally) from that perspective. I think you'll have a very difficult time convincing someone why in strict materialistic/genetic terms, men should not keep women out of the work place and isolate them to the full extent it's possible.
Can women be productive in some jobs? Sure. My arm could also block a bullet from entering my abdomen. Does that possible benefit indicate it is the primary purpose of an arm? Of course not. Can women possibly do good work in some jobs? Sure. I consider that obvious. This is NOT an attack on female intelligence per se. If you are approaching this with the idea in mind 'women can do it too', then we are on different pages. One requires a notion of final cause (ends, purpose) to discriminate between the proper order for men and women in life; like an arm can catch a bullet, but is truly ordered to grasp things rather than catch bullets, women are capable of doing corporate work, but are they more naturally ordered for something else in the world? I think so, and we should identify the legal and economic factors that disrupt that order, financially forcing couples to both be 'career people' because neither one alone can support the family any longer.
CHIRO 0 points 2 years ago
Was the distribution of legalized porn an example of a gender-specific award to men, that women couldn't access, and which directly caused a male situation to be better 'dollar for dollar' than women's simultaneously?
This is also different. The benefits discussed in my comment and the OP are time-sensitive in a way that SS is not. SS is frontloaded by the taxes of the young and working, for the sake of the old and with the explicit promise that when the young grow old, their contributions will be repaid and then some. A person who earns $60k per year under the current system for 37 years, retiring at full retirement age, will probably generate around $200k for the fund, and will collect (if they live until 90, say) three times that amount.
There are problems with the system obviously. In principle, I consider it the best of the socialized entitlements that exist; we run into problems with any centralized form of financial care. I digress.
Your second paragraph deals with economic concerns and bureaucracies subsidizing the underperformance of groups with whom they have special relationships. I agree it is a problem, but I don't think it is particularly relevant to the situation we were discussing.
An HR executive, who is female, is not an elected official; nor does she form special economic relations with the female employees of the company she works for. I mean, are we really imagining that women in the workplace are systematically lobbying the female HR exec to get these 'menstrual privileges'? Sliding her money under the door? No, we're talking about ideological wokeness that the liberal executive uses for her own personal gain, for the moral virtue that a particular kind of culture seeks to elevate into positions of power, and where she is confined by her own ideology to actively pushing these kinds of changes in ANY institution for the sake of the god of Equity.
This is why such an ideology can be weaponized regardless of gender or race. There is no special relationship the women in that workplace require with the woke HR executive. The HR executive will, for her own interests, attempt to convince the female worker population about their victimhood, selling them on an illusory problem and galvanizing their revolutionary spirit. Now, I'll grant that if she is successful, then she will establish a privileged relationship between herself and the victim group so as to form a kind of dependence that garners her independent power within the company (since she is now the quasi-union leader of the victim class she created). This is how the revolution works to disrupt the hierarchy.
I see that you included the 'dishonestly' qualifier at the end, but let's ignore it for a moment. Are we talking about individuals or classes of people? Do you know of instances where men as a class, as in every male employee in a company, accepted some new provision that advantaged them significantly and without exception over every member of the class women in the same company? I mean in objective, straightforward ways, i.e. paid time off from the job that women couldn't possibly access?
Unequal outcomes are not the problem. There are cases where a person accepts opportunities not available to others, and this is totally justified. The individual merited it in other words. Nobody can be faulted for accepting a promotion, for example. A properly functioning hierarchy necessarily rewards some and not others, with more and more privilege the higher you go.
I think you are confusing the vertical direction here with the horizontal one. A policy of 'radical truth with respect to economic productivity' is just what a proper hierarchy should be, elevating the reward for the highest value members. But nothing in the OP described the situation as one where the female privilege was also identical to being somewhere in the hierarchy of reward. It was universal. It applied horizontally.
Take whatever level of the hierarchy you like, productive or less productive levels. Within that level that features people on a relative par with one another in terms of workload and compensation, the policy described in the OP is granting horizontally-distributed privilege to the women as a class, and not to men.
This is not based on merit. It's based on sex.
The difference between men and women in the horizontal direction is what creates the opportunity for the kind of revolutionizing I discussed above, the ability for the snakes to do the dividing. It's almost like man and woman separated their activities categorically in the past because that separation made their organization in male-female pairs less vulnerable and more efficient. Men and women are equipped in the evolutionary sense for one-to-one competition, which is to say competition between one male and one female in the sexual (and marital) relationship. Observe the dynamic between husband and wife in any home, and this becomes clear.
Men and women are not equipped by evolution for class-level competition between males and females as exclusive social groups. This instability of these mixed-gender egalitarian workspaces is an engine for producing societal breakdown because it places women in a class-level competition with men for the majority of their weeks, and pushes out (or onto the backburner) her main productive one-to-one competition with the husband. This latter competition becomes merely an adjunct, an annoyance heaped on top of her existing corporate pile of stress, weakening the marriage which is already a sufficient amount of stress for even healthy couples.
You are already aware I disagree with your view of morality; I don't think Darwinism is capable of explaining goodness, which is the object of moral behaviors. If you want to take a strict evolutionary approach, I'd be interested for you to defend an argument for women in the workplace (women's lib generally) from that perspective. I think you'll have a very difficult time convincing someone why in strict materialistic/genetic terms, men should not keep women out of the work place and isolate them to the full extent it's possible.
Can women be productive in some jobs? Sure. My arm could also block a bullet from entering my abdomen. Does that possible benefit indicate it is the primary purpose of an arm? Of course not. Can women possibly do good work in some jobs? Sure. I consider that obvious. This is NOT an attack on female intelligence per se. If you are approaching this with the idea in mind 'women can do it too', then we are on different pages. One requires a notion of final cause (ends, purpose) to discriminate between the proper order for men and women in life; like an arm can catch a bullet, but is truly ordered to grasp things rather than catch bullets, women are capable of doing corporate work, but are they more naturally ordered for something else in the world? I think so, and we should identify the legal and economic factors that disrupt that order, financially forcing couples to both be 'career people' because neither one alone can support the family any longer.