[quote=njtosd][quote=scaredyclassic]Microrwaves. A quick pass with a swiffer. I see minivans with families scaring McDonald’s in temecula. Day care. I’m not sure it’s worth much in general, just to the right buyer. Limited market.
Men also a net loss.
We aren’t selecting for attributes actively. Just letting the market work. If people have no value, womens,work has no value. If you can afford children by all means, have thrm.
It’s just most people really barely csn.[/quote]
You all need to study evolutionary biology. For instance, if we assume a stock market to which two groups by definition contribute equally, would you ever say one or the other groups is more powerful? Now assume the stock market is the next generation – half the genes come from men and half from women. For every one Ghengis Khan (who had <10,000 offspring), there are all kinds of guys who got none. Women are much more constant in terms of their contribution (hence the relative lack of worry about being a "real woman" etc.). Each gender has evolved different strategies to maximize their representation in future generations. But neither (as a group) can be more powerful.[/quote]
But there's a difference between contributing equally, and extracting the profits equally. Even if both groups contributed equally, it's entirely possible that one group extracts a greater portion of the benefits. Credit isn't always given where it's due (one could argue that credit is often misattributed).
As to power, in our global society, those who control resources, currencies, and the benefits and capital derived from those resources have the ultimate power. Laws and traditions, going back thousands of years (often justified by religious dogma), were specifically designed to ensure that one group would benefit disproportionately from our social, political, and economic structures. One might wonder whether or not this was the sole original purpose of established religion.
