Gender Awareness & Public Policy | Feminist Economics Part 4

[@valerieurquhart3133]

Thank you for articulating what we women have been conditioned to accept as our "normal."

[@vg7985]

These are interesting series, however I don't see much interest from audience. Actually I notice opposite trend - men lead series that bash women and feminism are especially popular on KZbin and in other media. Men feel disrespected and hurt even by small female achievements .

[@oopspuruagain]

True

[@user-ir7og3lx2d]

"disrespected and hurt even by small female achievements" NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. Men are not hurt by "Female Achievements", men are hurt by the feminist "male bashing".

[@vg7985]

Really, A? Female volleyball player beheaded in Afghanistan! KZbinr female killed, education for women is banned, and you're saying that men are just fine with women trying to achieve anything, right?

[@Shikhasharma-rg3yy]

Mesmerizing

[@khaimgulkovich3368]

Cooking is a food mutilation.

[@emilianosintarias7337]

Notice how she talks about gender, but that just means women. She just told you that male migrants face more unstable incomes (which are also in more deadly industries), while women's industries are more stable, and yet she says that is a difficulty for women. Uh, what? In the last video she even implied that women workers are victims of violent crime more than male workers, which goes against every statistic in every country. Again, "we should understand the different challenges facing male and female workers" = "let's only understand female workers". This whole series is just sexism dressed up in economic and sociological jargon. I am sure it is well received by well off people in government, business, or academic circles. Most working people of all genders however can see right through this, and know very well that both women and men are getting squeezed.

[@valerieurquhart3133]

Regarding statistics of males are more apt to be victims of crime than women, that is only REPORTED crimes. In most cases the woman is bullied or threatened out of filing a report, or the police authorities do not take her seriously.

[@emilianosintarias7337]

That isn't only when looking at reported crimes. And across the board violence toward women is taken more seriously. Despite an equal amount of DV (and related total deaths) for men and women, there are 100 times more resources and shelters for women. Women's murder cases are more likely to be kept open and to be solved, sentences are harsher for cases with female victims, female r-pe victims are taken more seriously than male victims. Deep down, if you are a fair person I think you have to see that sexism against women is done through unfairly presuming away their agency/expertise and that naturally means they are taken more seriously as victims. Harder to get a fair shot at the presidency naturally = easier shot and getting people to believe that you were r-ped. With men it is the opposite - sexism against men is inflating their agency (blaming the victim or assuming he created that situation so in fact their is no victim).@@valerieurquhart3133

[@valerieurquhart3133]

@@emilianosintarias7337 Excellent points. Unfortunately, we are losing safe spaces as the trans invade our shelters, resources, public washrooms, prisons, etc. In response to DV it can take at least 2 weeks to get a restraining order. A male will get a stiffer sentence for an assault on another male in a bar than an assault on his female partner. Regarding r-ape, unacceptable no matter who is the victim. Easier to be believed if the victim is a woman? Not in all cases. Some are still tried on past sexual history or apparel (blue jeans, USA). Then there is incel, especially those who picked the black pill. Their goal meets the criteria on the terrorist check list, with supportive historical data. Unfortunately, some how, we missed the mark. We both can provide excellent data to prove our points but sex crimes should not be made into a competition. Oct 7 saw how Hamas performed repeated war crimes in r-ping both males and females. We need to work together to change the legal system (national and international) to recognize that those actions are aggravated assault and hate crimes, and should be treated as such. Sentences for those who are found guilty of s-x crimes should be such as would deter further such actions in our respective societies. I thank you for this respectful discussion.

[@TheDynamicmarket]

this is not economics, it is activism/politics or empirical observation or political science

[@harrisjm62]

your right, economics doesn't do empirical observation :p

[@javierstanziola1328]

Interesting. The discussion in here is about who produces what, who gets what from that production and who gets to consume what. It is about wage distribution, empirical work and expanding theories. Sounds like economics to me.

[@TheDynamicmarket]

@@javierstanziola1328 Economics can only confirm that there is discrimination and that those who are discriminated do not get their fair share. Economic theory cannot deal with the things that are changing from one decade to another, because it must be about the principles that transcend time, at least longer periods of time. Aside from that, justice is not the provenience of economics but of political science, sociology and jurisprudence. So far as the feminism is concerned, economics is able to explain that it is at least in part the selfishness and greed of women (and some men because they too get more money via employed wives) that propels it. The pursuit of their own interests through their jobs caused women to spend less time with their children and not to take care of their children and old parents and to outsource these activities. Indifference curves that describe such choices and the supply and demand curves of such services are for example the subject of economics. Feminism follows a more general economic principle that most people are at least in part egoistic and that this is one of the things that does not change. Women did de facto choose the more selfish path when they were given the choice between having great relations with their children and husbands and spending the maximum of effort and time with them and other friends and relatives, and pursuing their own interests and independence. In general, Adam Smith is right and human nature is fundamentally at bottom not transformable although it may be tweakable/refinable. Self-actualisation, freedom and independence are the basic needs of every human that we should strive to fulfill - this is the economic explanation of feminism and a normative principle that should be followed and supported by the governments.

[@snowballeffect7812]

@@TheDynamicmarket you should look into how iceland solved their wage gap issue and the definition of economics.

[@sangeethphilip5589]

Who told so? Economics sees development as a broader perspective than growth. These are topics that come right under the arc of development. Please try to understand economics in the right sense rather than just some money supply and investment which are mainly coming under the growth perspective only.

[@khaimgulkovich3368]

There is a choice: motherhood is a vital labor and females are willing to perform it for free, instead of choosing the childfree option. Worse than that, they are choosing to parasitize upon males.