ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
5hr ago
And the fact that nobody's actually able to hold a legislator to account for intentionally writing laws that fail any (or all) of those three conditions; a few laws are clearly designed the way they were to intentionally provoke adversarial readings for power reasons.
Which might not be the point the game's necessarily intending for you to notice, but it is something I feel is pretty apparent- I'd say someone who came up with a law like that while failing to even define terms is incompetent at best, and is the reason anti-social women (and men, but mostly women) feel as entitled as they do to call the cops on someone "driving" an R/C car in the park.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
17hr ago
What makes you say that? Men vote for the faction that seeks to trans their kids all the time.
A slave can't walk away
Sure they can. But they don't, partially because there's no better deal to be found elsewhere. (Related: why don't women leave abusive husbands in 1860?)
The thing about one's group being in deficit is that it increases the benefits to defectors. Usually this means "pays a [higher/lower] wage if one is a [buyer/seller]", but it can be other things too, in particular political power.
For the last 100ish years, men have been the defectors, paying women higher and higher socioeconomic wages. They couch this in moral terms, but fundamentally it's just business, just like anti-slavery efforts (and democracy more generally) were back in their day.
Make the economic situation dire enough and people will literally fight to make themselves slaves. Communist countries are a pretty good object lesson in how that works.
We can debate the point that men are completely unnecessary in modern society (which is, in fact, a reasonable question to ask- as automation mostly replaces men, including suicide drone swarms); if they are, this won't work for exactly the reasons you stated. But if they are vital, then my point holds; I'll point to Western gynocracies' obsession with mass male immigration as a suggestion that they are.
and I'd worry about all the usual failure modes of hewing the legs from under liberty as a societal principle (including economic stagnation, for starters).
Yes, I'm fully aware of the track record of Western governance over the last 30 years.
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
18hr ago
We've also done all of those.
The first one is a gimme. Of course, they don't have female children either.
The second one is already law in Blue areas (some nations take it a bit further and only make it illegal if the child is female- it's sold as an anti-Muslim thing, but the incentives align).
The third one is likely already the case for Women are Wonderful reasons.
The fourth one is war-as-population-control (re: white feathers of WW1).
Reducing the ratio of men to women means increasing the political power of feminists.
No, it doesn't. In fact, it's the reverse.
Remember, men provide, women select.
If less providers, selectors are now competing with each other and don't get to be as picky, (and each individual provider becomes more important), so the political power of selectors in aggregate decreases (a "seller's market"). If more providers, selectors get to be pickier (and providers are competing with each other more) so the political power of selectors increases (a "buyer's market").
This is socio-economics 101.
Right now, even with a rough 50/50 split, men are in surplus due to automation that uniquely affects that gender, and have been for the last 100 years- hence they have no power -> feminism. Communism is the same way, for that matter; too many (male) Russians and too little economic opportunity to sustain a democracy. Implications for China are obvious.
If we were able to automate women out of their jobs just as hard as we did men at the opening of the 20th century, or experienced a massive war where 20% of Western men were wiped out, politics would shift for a generation. As they had from 1945 to about 1990, which is also the reason you don't notice that 2020 is, socioeconomically, closer to 1900 than 1960 because the socioeconomic problems were merely hidden for that generation, and now that the surplus (in power for providers/sellers/men) is all gone they've come back with a vengeance.
Maybe women will lower their standards purely due to a lack of options, but I honestly wouldn't count on it.
It doesn't matter if they do or not. By increasing the number of women, and by lowering their political power without being able to partner up, you've increased the number that will settle to match the number of men. And that, empirically, is good enough.
I don't think this holds.
Much like the sexes are "male" and "female", there are 2 genders: "Man" and "Political". (By the same logic, there are also only 2 races.)
A woman is a Political that only claims that one singular identity. If it claims anything else, that Political is not a woman, so we don't erroneously classify other Alphabet People, or ex-women who are not Men, to be women.
By contrast, a Man is the gender expression of the people who don't think their gender merits any special privilege. This is generally because, from a biological or environmental standpoint, they aren't granted any- if they disagree with this, they're (by definition) a Political. This ensures we don't preclude females from being Men if they waive the privilege being female inherently grants them, but so many of them won't that it's not worth building separate facilities for them. Of course, being Men, that wouldn't bother them.
Categorizing gender identities this way solves most problems. For instance, we can continue with the 2-protected-space (changing rooms/bathrooms) system for Men and Political, where Politicals aren't allowed in the Men's room and vice versa. Again, because the gender expression of a Political is complaining (about the other users, the lack of accommodations, or whatever), it's very easy to tell who's who- if a Political goes into the Men's room and bitches about how unsafe it was (or whatever), that act reveals them to have broken the rules.
This also permits Politicals to express their gender identity fully in that space- which I agree is very important- and includes things like "complaining that males in dresses are in there leering at little girls". If a Political doesn't like that, they might choose to identify as a Man in that moment and use the room for Man, but as you'll recall they express their gender identity by not complaining about a lack of sex-specific accommodation so if they do that they're barred from [identifying as a Political and] complaining about it.
Note that, because the sexes are male and female, Men will accept that dichotomy is accurate and (if they happen to be straddling the gap a bit) will accept that the categories don't necessarily cover them (if they are mad about that, they aren't a Man, which solves the question of what gender the intersex are). So Men's clothing stores will carry male and female clothing, while clothing stores for Politicals are free to express their gender identity and have all the alternate opinions about the fact Men divide the world into two sexes that they want.
Sure, Politicals might still demand access to Man-only spaces, but that approach is not compatible with the idea that one's gender identity is a free choice. A more corrupt version of this (where it's only a free choice when it advantages Politicals) would necessitate 3 gender identities: one for Political women, one for Political non-women, and one for everyone else; or "women", "men", and "cissies" for short.
More options
Context Copy link