pull down to refresh

It's becoming clear that NYT writers such as this are increasingly speaking to a smaller and smaller bubble that includes only themselves.
By defining a morality that sees progress only in terms of career and material success, they have ignored biological and social realities that have shaped human relationships for millennia. They have cut an entire realm of human psychology--love, family, community, responsibility, sacrifice--out of their moral framework. As such, they have made themselves increasingly irrelevant.
I am glad that women have made strides in terms of what they are and aren't able to do in the workplace, but rather than count their wins and broaden their perspective, the modern feminists continue to harp on issues that many have long since moved on from.
It's clear as day from the election results and from the direction of social media that people are getting tired of their moral framework and are looking for something fresh, something that speaks more deeply into all areas of the human psyche.
180 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 2 Dec
I am glad that women have made strides in terms of what they are and aren't able to do in the workplace, but rather than count their wins and broaden their perspective, the modern feminists continue to harp on issues that many have long since moved on from
I think its important to recognize that the push for "women in the workplace" was not some completely organic social-justice movement. It was instead a direct response to fiat inflation - the average family simply demanded 2 earners.
I'm willing to bet if you overlaid "women in the workplace" chart over an M2 money supply chart there would be a very strong correlation. (ie. its another WTF happen in 1971 data series).
Completely anecdotal: However in my professional / friends / family circle, I would guesstimate that 60+% of all the "women with careers" that I know would drop those careers if their husbands suddenly got a 2x or 3x increase in salary.
reply
guess I should have read comments before I wrote one myself. Yes, this is PRECISELY what I'm getting at (admittedly through snark, whereas @SimpleStacker got there through eloquence) #791257
reply