You missed it ENTIRELY. She calls out virtue-signaling, amongst other things. To dismiss her take on the times would be a grave mistake. Keep in mind; I am all for Sarah moving to Mexico and find it ironic Googleis openly admits it is cheaper to buy your way out of most problems in Mexico. I digress.
And dont forget what feminism actually means. The idiots these days walking around and hating men, while calling themselves feminists are just the same as, a bomber calling himself Muslim, or a pope in a palace calling himself Christian.
How can a thinking person complain biology is "fair" or "unfair?" That's like complaining that it is unfair the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
I totally agree with your sentiment, but I do see some merit to acknowledging the so-called '(un)fairness' of biology. Perhaps we actually agree, but are just referring to different concepts by our usage of the word 'fair' - so I will attempt to clarify what my stance actually means. Apologies for this being quite a long post, but I think this is a topic that requires great nuance - and may be of interest to anyone else who happens to read this. Now, on to the point: Whilst biology of course has no internal morality, you can definitely say that its impact can be unfair on a person. As an extreme example to emphasise this, imagine someone born with a major disability (such as paraplegia) - it is totally rational to say that this is 'unfair' to the person. When someone is born a certain way, and hence has no (or limited) choice in the matter, it is legitimate to bring in the concept of 'fairness'. In regards to gender/sex differences, the impact is far more subtle - especially in terms of neurology and its connection with psychological differences (which is particularly difficult to tease apart from social effects). However, the important point of confusion is that we cannot blame biology for its impacts, and so we must learn how to live with it. Perhaps in the future we can solve/remove some of the negatives, but that is a whole other story (effective birth control is arguably a great step along this path). To give a concrete example that should be widely understood, consider the biological fact that childbirth has a much more significant impact on women than on men. Combine that with the fact that mothers are (generally) more interested in caring for young children than fathers (this is perhaps made murky due to common societal standards, but it almost certainly has some strong biological roots). This leads to the well known phenomena of women in their 20's/30's taking a significant amount of time off of work to give birth and raise children. Of course this can have tremendous impacts on a professional career, and hence their ability to excel in a workplace - though to be clear, this is by no means a certainty, just a potential stumbling block for many women. There are even second-order impacts, such as where a rational boss will know of this risk, and preferentially select against women due to this (as a form of risk management). Should this be considered sexism, despite being based on purely rational considerations? Now, what is the solution? Should companies simply be forced to absorb this risk, or should they be compensated? Should women have to feel torn between having kids and achieving professional success? How can we prevent women from being unfairly penalised (financially, socially, or even psychologically) for their choice? These are the difficult and highly nuanced discussions that we need to have as a society - as biology is inherently not guaranteed to be 'fair'. Importantly, we need to also acknowledge that this is based on averages, and so our solutions need to be flexible enough to include people to whom this does not apply - for instance fathers that wish to take on primary child-raising duties. Therefore, I will tender my conclusion that any solutions needs to be situation-specific, not gender- or sex-specific (which is largely why I think that the current discourse based in identity politics will not lead to meaningful solutions, but I digress). One of the major mistakes that many in the 'woke'/SJW movement are making is a general dismissal of biological implications for differential outcomes, claiming that any difference observed MUST be due solely to 'the patriarchy' or some other oppressive group. To be clear, I am not denying that 'oppression' of some form can/does have an impact on these things. I am simply stating that it is ignorant for one to assume that biology has zero impact, despite quite convincing scientific evidence to the contrary. Anyway, thanks for reading all the way to here - I appreciate it. Does this line up with your views, or are there any divergences/concerns?
@@michaelbapties2781 That's a really weak response to a well constructed argument. Life is unfair, get over it? If everybody thought like your dad, we'd have no justice, no morality, no rights, ...
0:04 Who are those 2 cute girls :D ?
0:12 Name of the girl please = D
Also,i lost interest and stopped wathing when she said she considers herself a feminist (about 5-6 minute mark) . So ... so long,suckers = | .
You missed it ENTIRELY. She calls out virtue-signaling, amongst other things.
To dismiss her take on the times would be a grave mistake.
Keep in mind; I am all for Sarah moving to Mexico and find it ironic Googleis openly admits it is cheaper to buy your way out of most problems in Mexico.
I digress.
And dont forget what feminism actually means. The idiots these days walking around and hating men, while calling themselves feminists are just the same as, a bomber calling himself Muslim, or a pope in a palace calling himself Christian.
I call myself a feminist and I also disdain this latest wave of BS feminism.
How can a thinking person complain biology is "fair" or "unfair?" That's like complaining that it is unfair the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
I totally agree with your sentiment, but I do see some merit to acknowledging the so-called '(un)fairness' of biology. Perhaps we actually agree, but are just referring to different concepts by our usage of the word 'fair' - so I will attempt to clarify what my stance actually means. Apologies for this being quite a long post, but I think this is a topic that requires great nuance - and may be of interest to anyone else who happens to read this. Now, on to the point:
Whilst biology of course has no internal morality, you can definitely say that its impact can be unfair on a person. As an extreme example to emphasise this, imagine someone born with a major disability (such as paraplegia) - it is totally rational to say that this is 'unfair' to the person. When someone is born a certain way, and hence has no (or limited) choice in the matter, it is legitimate to bring in the concept of 'fairness'.
In regards to gender/sex differences, the impact is far more subtle - especially in terms of neurology and its connection with psychological differences (which is particularly difficult to tease apart from social effects). However, the important point of confusion is that we cannot blame biology for its impacts, and so we must learn how to live with it. Perhaps in the future we can solve/remove some of the negatives, but that is a whole other story (effective birth control is arguably a great step along this path).
To give a concrete example that should be widely understood, consider the biological fact that childbirth has a much more significant impact on women than on men. Combine that with the fact that mothers are (generally) more interested in caring for young children than fathers (this is perhaps made murky due to common societal standards, but it almost certainly has some strong biological roots). This leads to the well known phenomena of women in their 20's/30's taking a significant amount of time off of work to give birth and raise children. Of course this can have tremendous impacts on a professional career, and hence their ability to excel in a workplace - though to be clear, this is by no means a certainty, just a potential stumbling block for many women. There are even second-order impacts, such as where a rational boss will know of this risk, and preferentially select against women due to this (as a form of risk management). Should this be considered sexism, despite being based on purely rational considerations? Now, what is the solution? Should companies simply be forced to absorb this risk, or should they be compensated? Should women have to feel torn between having kids and achieving professional success? How can we prevent women from being unfairly penalised (financially, socially, or even psychologically) for their choice?
These are the difficult and highly nuanced discussions that we need to have as a society - as biology is inherently not guaranteed to be 'fair'. Importantly, we need to also acknowledge that this is based on averages, and so our solutions need to be flexible enough to include people to whom this does not apply - for instance fathers that wish to take on primary child-raising duties. Therefore, I will tender my conclusion that any solutions needs to be situation-specific, not gender- or sex-specific (which is largely why I think that the current discourse based in identity politics will not lead to meaningful solutions, but I digress).
One of the major mistakes that many in the 'woke'/SJW movement are making is a general dismissal of biological implications for differential outcomes, claiming that any difference observed MUST be due solely to 'the patriarchy' or some other oppressive group. To be clear, I am not denying that 'oppression' of some form can/does have an impact on these things. I am simply stating that it is ignorant for one to assume that biology has zero impact, despite quite convincing scientific evidence to the contrary.
Anyway, thanks for reading all the way to here - I appreciate it. Does this line up with your views, or are there any divergences/concerns?
@@matth9103 Dad taught me at a very young age life is unfair. Get over it
@@michaelbapties2781 That's a really weak response to a well constructed argument. Life is unfair, get over it? If everybody thought like your dad, we'd have no justice, no morality, no rights, ...
@@michaelbapties2781 Incel says what?
@@tdb517 Exactly. Sounds like a typical right winger. "Life is fine for me so scre everyone else"