5 ms·
Meric (to whom you're replying) does have a point -- if you can effectively bar women from economic activity they're much more likely to stay home or do communi
by kaitai 9y ago
Meric (to whom you're replying) does have a point -- if you can effectively bar women from economic activity they're much more likely to stay home or do community and volunteer work. There are certain advantages to forcing segments of society to do work that is poorly paid or not respected, especially if you can get them to do it for free. Exploitation of women and minorities has been phenomenally successful in history exactly because you can cheaply get the best of these particular demographic groups doing jobs they wouldn't do if they had more opportunity.
It is obvious that this is fundamentally inequitable, but equity isn't everyone's highest value.
- meric 9y agoIf you do not respect work that don't bring money, like parenting, spending time with children, preparing a family gathering, that's your prerogative. Don't project your disdain for these activities on me. You define traditionally feminine activities as disrespected, poorly paid, cheap, and then put traditionally masculine activities on a pedestal by calling it a metric of success then tell everyone who is doing the former they are prevented from doing the latter. Who is creating the inequity here? And is equal material wealth your highest value? What about love? And I am unequivocally against barring women or minorities from economic activity. Just in case, you thought I am.