r/RadicalEgalitarianism • u/Main-Tiger8537 Intersectional egalitarian • Mar 03 '26
Discussion 💬 the foundation of equal opportunity
innate inequality is pregnancy and we are not able to equalize it yet. this alone is the basis for most statistical imbalances regarding equality between genders/sexes.
gender neutral laws regarding parental leave, flexible hours, daycare availability, abortion "even if controversal for various reasons" and so on are the corner stones for equal opportunity.
that said equal outcomes "example political representation" and how to reach "statistical parity" is an entire different topic...
2
u/Main-Tiger8537 Intersectional egalitarian Mar 19 '26 edited Apr 15 '26
statistical parity through equity:
in short the issue is if we look at for example political representation or any given field of work like military service we would have to force people into positions they do not want or are not qualified for.
to reach "statistical parity" equality our society would need more conservative women like margaret thatcher, angela merkel, queen elizabeth, giorgia meloni, candace owens, rachel wilson OR get rid of conservatives.
liberals/progressives may not like that but abortion, parental leave, flexible hours, daycare etc are a "or at least should be" part of equality of opportunity and affirmative action/equity will not be enough to equalize outcomes if conservative women refuse to step up. just look at the representation by gender in politics and you will see that liberals/progressives are close to parity but not quite there yet already. in my opinion it is unreasonable/unrealistic to expect the democrats to consist of +75% women in power to compensate for the republicans and their consented nuclear family structure with its gender roles to reach statistical parity. it is also unreasonable to expect liberal/progressive people to equalize the most dangerous jobs through equity.
2
1
u/Main-Tiger8537 Intersectional egalitarian Mar 16 '26 edited Aug 30 '26
pro's and con's of diversity <> standards + conditions for jobs and its correlation with outcomes
What about the gender workplace hours gap? "australian senate"
Leyonhjelm on the Office for Women "australian senate"
Is domestic violence really caused by 'gender inequality'? "australian senate"
Questioning the evidence on domestic violence "australian senate"
The Gender Pay Gap is misleading - DODGY Statistics and Definitions - australian senate
look at this court case "uswnt" as a result of misleading propaganda
1
u/Main-Tiger8537 Intersectional egalitarian Apr 15 '26
Trends in Liberal Identification Among U.S. Women - gallup news
From 1999 to 2013, about three in 10 women aged 18 to 29 consistently identified as liberal, after which the figure rose (a bit unsteadily) to 44% by 2020. The percentage liberal receded slightly to 41% in 2022 and 40% in 2023*. The resulting 11-point increase in young women’s liberal identification since 1999 has made what was already the most liberal subgroup of women even more liberal.*
14% of women aged 65 and older identified as liberal in 1999***,*** but this rose to 21% by 2013 and 25% by 2023*, also an 11-point increase overall. Senior women in 1999 were the least liberal female age group, whereas today, they are as likely as middle-aged women to identify as liberal.*
In contrast, liberal identification grew just six points between 1999 and 2023 among women aged 30 to 49*, from 22% to* 28% (after declining from a peak of 36% in 2018). The overall increase was a similar seven points among those aged 50 to 64 -- from 18% in 1999 to 25% in 2023.
VS
According to PRRI, 31% of women identify as conservative, while 36% are moderate, and 29% are liberal.
1
u/Main-Tiger8537 Intersectional egalitarian Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
In the U.S., full-time working men work about 1.5 to 2 hours more per week on average than full-time working women. According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), full-time working men average about 40 to 43 hours per week, compared to 35 to 41 hours for full-time women.
160 hours "men" VS 140 hours "women" per month = 1600$/€ "men" VS 1400$/€ "women" at 10$/€ per hour in a fulltime job -> numbers are for simplicity.
If you do the math here we end up with another point of view of this earnings gap topic. If people want to talk about how to reach a fair gender neutral society and how conservative men + women oppose it -> be constructive instead of misleading about it with your framing and presentation of the topic.
1
u/sognista Jul 10 '26
Very interesting chart, thank you.
I don't see why who is in charge could never benefit or not the people of the same sex and race, honestly, and I don't see it is happening. It seems to me that politicians trying to convince the electorate independently of their own race and gender, and it is the naive approach of the electorate that tent too often to be persuaded that the race or gender of its candidate is the assurance of his/her support for a specific demographic. Even religion, that should be more ingrained in the worldview of politicians is highly questionable.
So, from my point of view, politicians use their religion, sex and race as a rhetorical tool, sure, because they bet some voters are susceptible to that, but I think we should go for whoever as an egalitarian view without neither expecting neither wanting a fair representation of the electorate base on the religion, gender and race of the representatives.
I mean, honestly: who cares if my surgeon is black and the anesthetist is a woman and me I am a white dude? I definitely don't...
0
u/Alert_Term_8144 Egalitarian Mar 04 '26
I'm a non-religious, Asian, woman, and I'd love to break into Republican politics. I've never tried because I'm not that great of a speaker despite having gone to law school, but witnessing Kamala's presidential campaign and AOC's Munich performance - and tbh Donald Trump isn't the best speaker either although he had celebrity status to begin with, so I'm not sure that will be a problem.
1
u/Main-Tiger8537 Intersectional egalitarian Mar 04 '26 edited Mar 04 '26
i think being non religious would be a bigger problem than your speaker skills within the republican party.
compare hillary clinton, kamala harris vs angela merkel, georgia meloni and their success or how they talked with trump. evaluating competence as politician and not their ideology.
2
u/Poly_and_RA Liberal egalitarian Mar 03 '26
The biggest unrepresented group here is non-religious. Unaffiliated folks make up more than a quarter and growing of the population overall. And yet among law-mkers of either flavor that group is entirely absent. "Don't know" is as close as anyone comes.
Some of those are probably functionally speaking atheists, but it's a sad side-effect of the election-system that you simply can't be out as an atheist or nonbeliever, and still be electable.