While discussing the feminist theory on Equality of Outcome I have already shown you why feminists want reservation for women ignoring the capability factors and what are the problems arising in the society due to that. (details – here)
To know more about destructive Feminist Theories, see This
Today, I will show you why feminists want to destroy our culture and tradition. The root, however, is the same theory of Equality of Outcome.
Equality of Outcome 1: Gender and Political Representation
To explain this form of inequality, this theory argues that when in a society, men take the breadwinner role and women the role of caregivers, the males become in a naturally authoritative position. Hence, even if there is equal opportunity to join political career, women will be submissive and will not come forward to participate. To break this barrier, political parties need to be forced to have equal opportunities given to women candidates.
This theory claims, that if the representation in political parties is not random and that if there is an overwhelming majority of one sex or race, that in itself is an indication that something is blocking the way of others to come in.
So presumption in this is holding political power can empower women, whereas contrary to this we have seen women holding wealth (in form of ornaments and jewelry) and also can arm twist powerful men to hold power in the background. So, in these cases, it hardly matters whether a man is at the helms when the power is controlled by a woman. The best example in modern India is Sonia Gandhi and in traditional societies were royal women for whom all battles were fought. So, men not only offered all their political powers to women traditionally but even in modern age.
Equality of Outcome 2: Gender and Division of Labor
This argument speaks about equal distribution of income, occupations, responsibilities and time and no discrimination in terms of opportunities, careers, payments etc. She referred to the theory proposed by Brian Barry in his Culture and Equality, that if we expect that cultural diversity is natural, then the division of labor that comes along should also be considered natural. In these cases, she argues that equal outcome can only be achieved from departing from equal opportunities to impose equal success rates for all groups; as ‘a culturally diverse society can’t be conceived as one in which everyone is trying to achieve the same goals’.
While stating the above, this theory also talks about Uma Narayan’s ‘Package picture of cultures’, that states that we underestimate the porosity of culture and overestimates homogeneity of culture. So, this basically argues that when documented differences in occupation, lifestyle, and income are explained backward by reference to some presumed factors, this creates a problem.
This argues, that ‘where there are known inequalities in background conditions, the burden of proof lies with those who proclaim ‘difference’ rather than ‘inequality’ as the cause’. Giving a reference to migrants, this theory says, migrants very often deviate from ‘pure’ set of cultural preferences and do pragmatic adjustments to their choices.
For women’s role as caregiver in almost all societies and not taking up political roles, Anne found this as imposed discrimination on women. She quoted Roemer, from her Equality of Opportunity as ‘preferences are often adjusted to what the person falsely deems to be a necessity, and society does her no favor by accepting the consequences that follow from exercising them.’
Anne’s argument here is to make women choose freely from available jobs, we need to look into what provisions are made for childcare, or whether the working pattern will be compatible with all adult members being in paid employment. She argues that if the two sexes had freedom of choice, then ‘our lives would be richer and freer.’
According to Anne, treating women as homogenous entity characterized by some core values that set them apart from ‘men’, is theoretically suspect and empirically plausible. Her argument is when there is abundance of alternative theories for differential success rate, like historical educational disadvantage, association of certain with genders, sexism, and when work patterns are shaped by the expectation that everyone has a wife at home etc. – the safer bet is to assume that all groups would deliver the same rate of success for any work. So, she argues that we can conclude that opportunities were equal when outcomes were equal too.
But you will understand that this analogy which is the core of this theory is completely frivolous because the lifestyle choices in harsh/adverse conditions can’t be matched with natural and preferred choices. An example can be given from Israeli Kibbutz society where women traditionally took up all roles and where fathers role was deliberately cut down when they were migrants. But they went back to traditional gender roles when they had enough choice and peaceful settlements two generations after experiencing ‘extreme equality’.
Equality of Outcome 3: From Groups to Individuals
In this parameter, she acknowledged the fact that individual choices may vary widely but when it comes to a group’s choice or a collective choice, and if that varies, then there is most likely an inherent social bias. In this regard, she says our aspirations, the current value of the outcome of our past choices and the cumulative effect of our past choices that was not thought out before. This theory argues that if opportunities don’t automatically flow to individuals. Quoting Brian Barry from ‘Liberty and Justice’ Anne argued that ‘when the outcomes of our choices are ones that no rational person would deliberately seek, it seems inappropriate to insist on these as just the consequences of personal choice’.
She further argues that ‘if individuals can’t be said to ‘deserve’ the advantages that flow to them through their chance location in the social hierarchy’, then there is a question mark on whether they deserve those benefits that flow to them. The outcome theory argues that these are nothing that comes to us by virtue of our ‘natural’ talents, but these come by virtue of our social position which is nothing but ‘natural lottery’.
Here again, both Brian Barry and Anne Phillips show deliberate double standard that is not explained. When they were talking about a group’s choice they brought analogy of individual persons. Also, be it a group or an individual, our choices are driven by our value system. For example, if western society thinks free sex is the way to liberate humans, Indians may think that liberating soul and seeking higher human values (self-realization goals) is the way for human and would, therefore, choose a restrained lifestyle. Now, westerners like Brian or Anne may follow the western principle but when they clearly don’t understand this Vedic philosophy have no right to form an opinion whether a rational person would choose a life that prohibits free sex. What is the guarantee that people like Anne or Brian are rational persons in the first place?
Learn more about Vedic Philosophy – Here
Women Working – Gainers
Now let’s leave aside all previous arguments and consider that women taking part equally in the workforce is beneficial for them and also for mankind as feminists portray. If that happens –
- There will be an increase in the supply of labor in the market and based on simple economic principles, the wages of every position will proportionately come down. So, capitalists and corporates will gain directly on two aspects – a) with an increase in the supply of abundant quality labor and b) everyone will be redundant in the marketplace, leading to a proportionate drop in wages.
- will gain as their tax base will increase and they can tax more people. In the name of tax reforms, govt. can always play around with common people’s money. So, if we see today women are being attracted to the job market in various ways of ‘Gender Budgeting’ (like 4% extra EPF contribution from govt. etc.), once they form a sizeable chunk of the workforce after getting attracted with these baits, will be taxed at govt. will.
- Some women may feel that they are in better placed as individuals, because they will work and earn money and will have disposable income, compared to the scenario when they are not working but ‘dependents’ on their husbands.
Women Working – Losers
Apart from the above three categories of gainers, the following categories will be losers
- Since wages will come down and the market will be more competitive, all individuals working in corporate will be losers. Because they will not only have to spend more hard-working hours in their workplaces, but they will also earn less from that.
- More women in the workforce will also make women in families worse-off economically. Since overall wages will come down to ‘adjust’ to increase labor supply, both husband and wife will have work to get less money earned compared to if only one of them worked. This is because with tax burden on both of them, the overall income of the family will come down and everyone in a family will be worse-off.
Other than economic parameters, individuals will be worse-off psychologically and sociologically as well. Now, both spouses working will be mandatory as otherwise, no family can sustain with single income due to reduced wages. This will lead to destroying their family lives and they will be more stressed, and psychologically and socially deprived.
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
parthasadhukhan, thank you for this post. Its very inspiring.
Reblogged this on Living in Anglo-America.