>>598>Strongly disagree.I thought the sarcasm was noticeable.
Someone not sarcastic about it would say that "cultural" and "sexist" is not in any way mutually exclusive, but rather, the culture itself is sexist.
Which is kind of stating the obvious, men and women are culturally different. That's where their point lies, that women receiving different upbringing is oppressive against them, and the upbringing is the cause for differences in things such as numbers of each sex in STEM fields.
And yes, such a view, to be logical, must necessary contain the judgement of traditional female role as inferior. Which is funny that the egalitarians usually believe, also, that masculinity is somehow evil and toxic, and yet women should be more like men.
Obviously, egalitarianism is a revolt against nature.
I believe that soundness of this revolt is already being negatively verified and the experiment has resulted in failure, though it might be disputed based on point of view.
>>602I think there is a substantial difference between controling and harnessing something, and attempting to sidestep it, ignoring it. Not to get too deep into this, and end up talking about fundamentals, like in couple other threads, but I would not be so quick to reject nature as something that we simply overcome and forget. I am of the opinion that man stays the same, and some things stem from physical nature of reality that we live in and are not side-steppable. We merely transform the nature a little bit, give it a new paint job. All the basic drives that man has are still there. To harness them, we have to mind their original direction, as going completely against it is fully counter-productive.
To go with a parallel, men may compete intelectually, financially, socially or whatever to woo mates instead of engaging in physical struggle, but the wooing is still there just as much.
The marketing fuckers don't create new drives in consumers, but use existing ones, often very primal, and tap into them, sometimes make them hypertrophic and overexaggerated, but it still stems from quite basic needs. You don't need a new iJunk because you need iJunks, but because you were made to believe that iJunks signify a status in tribe to which you aspire, or whatever. The creating of new needs is more proverbial, it is a simplification of what actually takes place.
And so, I would say that we will not see the abolition of social differences steming from biological diversity among people. Certain physical traits might become insignificant over time, but as long as there is reproduction, there will be gender differences.
Even more than that, the theoretical merging of gender roles would seem to me as regressive, not developmental, because categories, specialization, developing new subgroups with inherent differences, et caetera; that is, higher degree of complexity in structure, is exactly what development is. Or, at least, not to be cargo-cultish, it is a hallmark of it, and inevitably follows development anywhere it goes. Therefore, there is nothing to gain from any merging of social significance of sexes, on the contrary, it is a loss.
Inb4ing any arguments regarding freedom of individual, well, more complexity does limit freedom, if we use freedom meaning positive freedom; ability to do something. At some level, complexity does entail that things have, from the very beginning, different qualities that they didn't decide on - stem cells in a developed human are not the same as embryonic stem cells which can become anything just as much.
With humans, however, this sort of predetermination is not unyelding, and people can go against trends. Therefore, it is not fully a limitation on freedom, but an obstacle on the preferred course for a minority of a group not preferring the route made easier for them by default.
The crux of what I'm saying is, I object to your underestimation of nature as purely chaotic, accidental, something to be conquered, something of no value to us. It's not dogmatic, regressive, something put there for no reason, but a part of greater order that you ignore, because it stands in the way of your presupposed notion (which you didn't outright state, so I may be countering something that you did not say to begin with) that technological development and more individual freedom go hand in hand.
Not to go full Kaczynski, but cyberpunk is dystopian for a reason, and the big, looking far ahead tech companies' obsession with the concept of hivemind is a real thing, not just our literary fiction wet dream.
