It is incredibly frustrating to reconcile how so many exist in a space wherein they choose to assert fantasy over reality, while chastising those who dare point out the facts with “wrong think”. It need not be said that reality will eventually catch up to these utopians, and I will do everything I can to hurry this process along. But it boggles the mind how the insistence of equal outcome on that which is unequal has now also manifested itself in the idea of “equal gender representation”.
Taken to its extremes, the doctrine wherein ‘all men are equal, but some are more equal than others’ would get you something like North Korea, whose widespread poverty is only matched by its exceptionally dilapidated populous – drowning in eternal misery while obliviously believing otherwise. But I guess a socialist would take comfort in the fact that they are all equally miserable, at least for the most part.
However, basic economics is not so much the emphasis as is the insistence of social justice warriors on equal gender representation everywhere. So let’s look at the implications. Based purely on ideological fantasies, this incredibly simplistic idea assumes that men and women are ambassadors of their own gender, and that a man can’t represent a woman’s views or vice versa. Notions of individuality are therefore necessarily thrown out the window, with biological differences being both recognised and undermined concurrently, partly through the incorrect idea that gender is a social construct. The low-resolution lens that follows quickly becomes a substitute for arguments grounded in reality, with the conclusion being that these two homogenous groups must be forced into a state of equal outcome by a benevolent, quasi-omniscient, human entity.
However, as Nobel-prize winning economist Dr.Thomas Sowell points out, the state of equal distribution of wealth, representation or any such thing is far from being the norm, and yet many people still assume as much. “Nowhere in the world do you find this evenness that people use as a norm. And I find it fascinating that people will hold up as a norm something that has never been seen on this planet, and regard as an anomaly something that is seen in country after country.”
To give you one point of contact, consider a highly-cited psychology study that sought to find gender differences in personality traits across 26 cultures (N = 23,031). The robust findings clearly showed that “contrary to predictions from the social role model, gender differences were most pronounced in European and American cultures in which traditional sex roles are minimized.” In Scandinavia in particular, where there have been many efforts to make society more egalitarian in legal and social terms, the gender differences in personality between men and women have gotten bigger, not smaller. This means that social constructionism or the tabula rasa hypothesis is insufficient – wrong – disproved. Innate gender differences are as clear as the existence of gravity, and those who say otherwise (without new colossal evidence) can be treated as if saying that 2 + 2 = 5.
Incidentally, the study kills two birds with one stone, as by further demonstrating the obvious - that men and women are different (and will act out these differences in any given domain), it also dismantles the implicit assumption that evenness is the norm, and that the reason why it isn’t the case is solely due to “dominance power structures” – which is quite plainly, also wrong. Naturally, this doesn’t give credence to the emphasis on group identity (especially at an institutional level), as there still exists significant variability within either sex (hence the importance of individuality). However, this does mean that we have invented laws based on falsehoods.
Simply acknowledging reality repudiates the very premise of equal outcome, as there is no reason to think that different life forms will interact in such a way as to distribute themselves equally in any given domain absent direction, be it economic or social. Nor is there any reason to think that the same failed doctrine applied in other areas will result in something other than eternal misery. It follows that to impose policy predicated on half-truths, obfuscation and misinformation is to attempt to assert a form of dogma on a reality that fundamentally rejects it.
In actual fact, most problems are multi-variant and aren’t reducible to “oppressor vs oppressed”. Those who emphasise the latter over the former are either naive or motivated by something about which I dare not speculate.
Nothing is easier than to prove that a human institution or endeavour is flawed. But to implement radical change based solely on long-debunked ideological grounds is to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and then proceed to kill the baby. The default position must be that there is no perfect, final solution - there are only attempts, some successful others not so much. If one compares an institution to some imaginary utopia, then no human society could conceivably ever measure up to it. Lingering on such fantastic comparisons, while simultaneously basing policy on them is to voluntarily depart from a reality that has yet to be fully understood.
And indeed, one cannot fail to mention the all-too-convenient social currency that comes with espousing such endless, seemingly innocuous platitudes, which are always presented with an air of haughty moral superiority – and that’s to their shame. Truly, there is no shortage of virtue signallers who seem all too reluctant to give up their resources or positions of authority for the “equality” they so enthusiastically promote.
To implement and maintain a system of ascribed status from a governing body will necessarily undermine any form of meritocracy, notions of individuality and personal freedom. And those who claim to wish for a policy of blanket equity upon others would do well to be sure they wish it upon themselves, else they may find themselves horrified when it comes back to bite them – which it invariably will.