identity politics are destroying the democratic party

[Speaker to Animals]

As part of the pedantry patrol, I feel I should point out that 'value to society' and 'intrinsic value' are not exactly the same thing.

No need to play semantic games. You can call this whatever you want. I think you know where I am getting at.

For all of human history until very recently, women held value simply by being fertile women whereas men had to prove their worth, and men's lives were always disposable.

But now fertility is a surplus commodity. We have almost eradicated infant mortality. We have extended the human lifespan a little. While I am sure some of you will instinctively (and instinct is exactly what it is) oppose the idea that fertility no longer makes women intrinsically worthy (no matter what they do or fail to do), the evidence of it is all over our society. Women themselves have rebelled against their own fertility, They understand this at some deep level.

On the other hand, because men are the ones who built this technological civilization and continue to build it, men are becoming inherently valuable due to the inverting demographic pyramid. STEM educated men in their thirties and forties, in about thirty years, are going to be the most valuable members of society hands down. That's where all the innovation comes from and there won't be very many of them. Our lives are quickly becoming non-disposable on a utilitarian basis whereas the opposite is becoming true for women.

This is what I think women are inherently rebelling against through feminism. They realize that their traditional value to society is removed from a pedestal by the advent of technological civilization. So they want to somehow make women just as intrinsically valuable as men by pushing more and more women away from their roles as mothers and wives and into STEM and other positions that make technological civilization possible. It's why they push so hard the idea that women are just like men and the only reason they don't ever perform to the same standards as men -- anywhere and throughout all of history -- is because of a vast global conspiracy perpetrated by men called the patriarchy.

Think about what happens at the height of the global demographic winter when we lost most of our human capital. If we get hit with something like peak oil unprepared for it, our ability to overcome and mitigate the effects will be contingent upon the number of men in their thirties and forties with a solid education and experience. But there won't be many of those guys at all. We could have a legion of single mothers and middle-manager females and not be able to do a damned thing about it.


This doesn't mean that I think some people are worth more than others in principle or before the law or especially before God. I am just looking at it through a practical lens of survival of the group. That special role women held for so long is no longer so special, and yet as a group they generally don't carry their own water.

[Speaker to Animals]

This was always the danger of the kinds of identity politics peddled by the democratic party. They made virtue out of being a cost to society, and instead of just keeping their heads low and enjoying what they had, they only accentuated their cost to society. We keep hearing about how "black lives matter", but that only accentuates the relentless black violence in America. Their entire demographic has always been a net cost to American society. The same is true of women and every other group the democrats pander to as a victim class. Illegal aliens come at a huge cost to the American people, and yet they have no problem going on national television during a DNC convention to demand we just throw more gibs to them because they are hispanic illegal immigrants. How long did they think that would last before whites started to organize into their own identity block?

It's the same thing with men versus women as well. Women as a group take more than they give. While that doesn't disparage individual women who need services (a woman could be disabled, for instance), we are talking here about the entire group as it is applied as identity politics.

Identity politics only really works when you are the stronger group.

[Ex-California]

The other thing that people always forget about women-as-a-victim-class is that they are actually the majority.

Men are rarer

[GloryofGreece]

What happens to all the men (which would be a majority of men) who are not involved in STEM? They still valuable?

[Speaker to Animals]

What happens to all the men (which would be a majority of men) who are not involved in STEM? They still valuable?

It's more about the capacity of men to maintain civilization rather than individual ability. Not all women were fertile either, but they all benefited from the innate value of fertility until very recently.

Nor is it really just about STEM. I write about STEM because it's what I know, but one could equally speak of linemen, oil rig technicians, lumberjacks, sewage technicians, etc.

When a hurricane rolls in, you don't generally see women up on the power lines braving lightning bolts and tornadoes to get the power back.

[Speaker to Animals]

All I am saying is that technological civilization inverted the relationship between the sexes in terms of intrinsic value. Classical and medieval nations could go to war and lose huge numbers of the male population and be just fine. But if they lost too many women, they were dead as an entity longterm, since infant mortality and even child mortality were terribly high. That's just not the case now. Nor do we even need as many people. Automation and work efficiency also undercut the intrinsic value of women's fertility.

But if we lost half the male population of the United States in some war today, we'd be finished. However, if we lost half the female population, we'd probably survive.

We already began to see this turn at the close of WW1 with France. They never really came back from that until recently. If we did something like those world wars today, we'd be in deep shit. Not just because of nuclear weapons but because there is no fucking way we could absorb casualties like the Europeans absorbed in those wars and still persist as a nation state for long.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

In a technological society, people who do things that robots aren't good at will be 'the most' valuable.

The future belongs to the buskers.

[Okeefenokee]

Only if the tasks themselves are worth doing.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

If there is one thing I know with moral certainty, it is that people are often paid handsomely for doing things that aren't 'worth doing.'

[Speaker to Animals]

Wages are neither here nor there. Women were not paid to bear children (at least not directly and overtly), and yet they were the class that had to be saved first. Note that, even when the Titanic was sinking, they called for women and children first, not children and women first.

But the fundamental basis of that policy no longer applies. If we were in the demographic winter about forty years from now, and some mega cruise ship was sinking with a significant number of our college-educated elite aboard, saving women first would reprsesnt the technically least productive option on the table. That fact probably chafes against all our instictive biases, but technological civilization totally upended the basis for our evolutionary drive to protect women at all costs.

That upending formed the subconscious basis for the feminist movement, in my opinion. At a deep though perhaps not totally conscious level, I think most women perceive that their fertility no longer confers value upon them simply for being a woman, despite all the obsequious, pro-female/anti-male rhetoric one hears from the left. This is why they have rebelled against their fertility to varying degrees and sought careers in which they try to compete on the same level as men. Which, personally, I find noble. Most men respect that, whether it's in business or even in the gym.