D
Deleted member 48784
Iron
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2023
- Posts
- 82
- Reputation
- 73
Allowing women to join the workforce en masse(especially with parified hours) as their counterparts was the pivotal mistake, destibilized intrasex reletionships(made way harder for a healthy degree of F to M subordination the sexes tend to naturally, the ony complementary solution is genetic subordination) and artificially inflated competition towards the mean.
This didn't benefit almost anyone as there isn't a common goal to be reached by enhancing productivity that would compensate in terms of social welfare loss(even if in the short term the loss doesn't seem to be present, there is never a free lunch), and you can argue that in terms of scientific progress share their contribution was minimal, those outliers who contributed probably would have found their way anyway as the field was moslty not politicized, especially it doesn't make sense in a highly competitive enviroment to exclude any marginal gain given just on the basis of the sex of the giver, those who say the contrary don't understand how extreme competition for technological leverage works, that type of privilege doesn't exist in that enviroment.
Obviously the last part was on the assumption that scientific progress is the goal, which is very arguable, as most of the time and for most people science is used as a vector to demonstrate innate genetic prowess, rather than the "moral" approach of contributing.
Lastly, I conclude that since the technological leverage reached would've been probably the same without "general" contribution of the other sex, we could've probably arrived at a similar level of productivity, seen as human labour doesn't scale linearly to productivity and most importantly technlogy allows for a way greater contribution given by a unit(hour) of labour, that is that even with a lucrative(productive) goal in mind allowing women to the workforce didn't make sense long term, and was just enabled by miopic temporary greed.
Even,If i make devil's advocate and argue that allowing them granted freedom and indipendence, the argument doesn't hold as we simply changed the subject of the subordination(the "boss") and not the nature of the relationship, that is doubly detrimental since even if we presume small scale subordination shouldn't exist(always exists,even for men), now the woman is still "not free"(hyperbole) AND working towards a goal that it's not self directed to natural fulfilment, that's a recipe for disaster in terms of well being. That's without going in on why true indipendence(pure freedom) doesn't exist(can't be arsed) and in life you must always choose who/what you subordinate to(which set of rules use)(at the most basic level Nature).
This didn't benefit almost anyone as there isn't a common goal to be reached by enhancing productivity that would compensate in terms of social welfare loss(even if in the short term the loss doesn't seem to be present, there is never a free lunch), and you can argue that in terms of scientific progress share their contribution was minimal, those outliers who contributed probably would have found their way anyway as the field was moslty not politicized, especially it doesn't make sense in a highly competitive enviroment to exclude any marginal gain given just on the basis of the sex of the giver, those who say the contrary don't understand how extreme competition for technological leverage works, that type of privilege doesn't exist in that enviroment.
Obviously the last part was on the assumption that scientific progress is the goal, which is very arguable, as most of the time and for most people science is used as a vector to demonstrate innate genetic prowess, rather than the "moral" approach of contributing.
Lastly, I conclude that since the technological leverage reached would've been probably the same without "general" contribution of the other sex, we could've probably arrived at a similar level of productivity, seen as human labour doesn't scale linearly to productivity and most importantly technlogy allows for a way greater contribution given by a unit(hour) of labour, that is that even with a lucrative(productive) goal in mind allowing women to the workforce didn't make sense long term, and was just enabled by miopic temporary greed.
Even,If i make devil's advocate and argue that allowing them granted freedom and indipendence, the argument doesn't hold as we simply changed the subject of the subordination(the "boss") and not the nature of the relationship, that is doubly detrimental since even if we presume small scale subordination shouldn't exist(always exists,even for men), now the woman is still "not free"(hyperbole) AND working towards a goal that it's not self directed to natural fulfilment, that's a recipe for disaster in terms of well being. That's without going in on why true indipendence(pure freedom) doesn't exist(can't be arsed) and in life you must always choose who/what you subordinate to(which set of rules use)(at the most basic level Nature).
