| This isn’t the position most people want to hear but: You can’t have mutual trust and equivalence between any two affinity groups at a large enough scale over the longest period, because there are biological costs to existence and reproduction that cannot be overcome. > The idea that being pro-male means being anti-female is a hard one to overcome. I get it; but also, people have to get over it. This is not a tenable position. Men by physical nature are the only possible group that can create safety for women and children against other men from other social groups. Why? because in order to reproduce, women must be in a extremely physically vulnerable position for 9-18 months during gestation and nursing. There are cultural ways to offset this, and sure you can replace “men” for “structural security “ if you like but the numbers would look at those as the same (future mechanical sentries notwithstanding) People forget they are literal animals and that it actually has an impact on reality. The majority of human culture was created to “protect” women by limiting their risk to violence from an outside group. Internal violence aka marital rape, that was “productive” was largely ignored because individual independence was a lower cultural value than group cohesion through reproduction. Since the enlightenment however, that math has been inverted and now the individual person, not the tribe, family or state is the primary and basic unit of measurement for “flourishing.” Most people would look at that as an unvarnished success for womens liberation and rightfully so. It makes sense theoretically that humans are past the point of sex differences being the primary difference in power allocation - however that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening is that people are looking in the past and saying “we dont need men anymore please just go away” but not changing the culture to create a space for these now relatively useless men. You land eventually at the Dworkin position: “men are no longer needed because ridding them from the population would increase peace since we can now reproduce safely without them.” The problem is that the culture humans built over the last 80,000 years was built around genetic survival in a complex environment of chineral organizations which flip flop between mutual-cooperation or competition depending on the resources available and alignment between group members. This cannot be solved through cultural changes because the roots are biological. You need either biological changes, which eliminate the risk: access to abortion, contraception, eliminating aggression in XY persons etc…are effective and reduce the population effectively also. However you now have a new problem, or solution, depending on your position of what the goal of humanity is, which is: how many people of what kind should exist. Again, there’s no possible solution here because there’s an intractable existential conflict between the biological realities of humanity and the idea of individual freedom to act unencumbered. You can’t have both individual liberty and unless everyone internally agrees with everyone else on how they should live and act. Not only is that not possible, humans reject the idea of a singular goal for humanity which eliminates the concept ofof population wide alignment. So long as that is true then groups of people will “defect” in Nash equilibrium terms, “break” all the enlightenment rules and then breed their way to domination. If you want any proof of this look at the relative population growth rates of Korea, Japan and Afghanistan. Only one of those countries will have a massive population in 100 years and they aren’t very friendly to the idea of individual freedoms. |
I think that your comment covers one of the primary vectors that this argunent can be approached.