3 ms·

This seems like a really long argument just to end up at the main point being: "It really is sexism". The light bulb moment here is that it's not necessarily se

This seems like a really long argument just to end up at the main point being: "It really is sexism". The light bulb moment here is that it's not necessarily sexism on an individual level but on an institutional one. I believe there is an obvious difference men and women which, on a general level, incites women to weigh family responsibilities over career prospects. However, industrialized nations exacerbate that difference by making it very difficult for women with children to spend the time necessary for career advancement. The key here isn't necessarily throwing your hands up and saying there's nothing you can do about it, but more robust programs for parents to help lessen the load of parenthood.

commandlinefan 7y ago
> more robust programs And by “more robust programs”, you mean more related confiscatory taxation. Meaning that, again, men must surrender even more, and accept even less, to accommodate women.
- icandoit 7y ago
  Would you think a tax levied on the childless and payed out the child-possessing to be sufficiently gender neutral? Why are childrens well-being not the concern of men? You have assumed something to be true, that I haven't, maybe.
- deyouz 7y ago
  >again When did men surrendered something to accommodate women? From what I remember women were the ones who accommodated men for thousand of years.