[dionidium]

I think you can imagine it :) Our culture conceives of a universal egalitarianism across all domains of human interest, but it hasn't really thought through all the implications of that, which is why a phrase like "woman and children" can still be used in an era where it's supposedly abhorrent to make those kinds of distinctions.

All that's being pointed out here is that it can't both be the case that there are no relevant differences between men and women and also that a phrase like "women and children" is useful. You have to pick one.

[rayiner]

> Our culture conceives of a universal egalitarianism across all domains of human interest, but it hasn't really thought through all the implications of that, which is why a phrase like "woman and children" can still be used in an era where it's supposedly abhorrent to make those kinds of distinctions.

I think most people even in America embrace a pragmatic egalitarianism where they think it's okay for women or men to be lawyers or politicians, but men continue to have a unique role when it comes to fighting wars or fixing power lines in the middle of a storm, while women continue to have a unique role when it comes to reproducing the species.

I think it's a small minority who think the difference between 1930 and today is solely due to us being more enlightened about gender roles, and nothing to do with the fact that the primary achievements of that age had to do with things like building thousands of miles of highways, while the primary achievements of this age are quite different.