Good article. I found it via @FischerKing64. My two cents, as a recent convert to anti commercial surrogacy and as one who is disruptive in business and conservative in politics:
Yes, leftist feminists warned of the commodification of women. But capitalism is far more inventive than they realized. We have a playbook for doing this. Yes, we have now unbundled, disintermediated, and disrupted woman. She is a bunch of parts. Sorry, feminists, it's not just for the convenience of men; it's for other women, too.
But soon she will be unbundled into even smaller parts. Everyone will be unbundled into even smaller parts. Every opportunity will be mined. Every inefficiency will be squeezed. Yikes.
Who is least susceptible to disruption? Who is most susceptible? I don't know the answer. I suspect that you are less susceptible (1) when you have fewer valuable parts to unbundle and (2) when you have more ownership over those parts.
Men bring two big things to reproduction: genes and money/power/status. The first they share with women but are inclined to want to disseminate (!) not concentrate. The second they have ironclad ownership. Thus men will suffer less from disruptive unbundling. They might even enjoy it.
Women bring many more things, and have less ironclad ownership over them. Hence they will suffer more from disruptive unbundling.
As we look to the future, inured to the horrors of transgenderism, I note that in this framework other entities highly susceptible to disruption include children and animals.
I agree that there is a price to progress. I might write some of my own thoughts on the matter. If I zoom out of U.S. politics and think of conservatism more broadly as an aesthetic, cultural, social or political philosophy, which seeks to promote or preserve traditional social institutions, than it is easier for me to see the legitimacy in your argument. I believe many seek to eradicate conservatism from political institutions but fail to understand the predictability that conservatisms provides societies. That is not to justify or take away from the plight of various groups. But it does make it easier for me to ponder why some political views are deemed ‘unacceptable’ - even if the very nature of politics necessitates debate and conflict. What is acceptable anyway? I like people who stand for something and are able to make an informed argument about their perspective.
Good article. I found it via @FischerKing64. My two cents, as a recent convert to anti commercial surrogacy and as one who is disruptive in business and conservative in politics:
Yes, leftist feminists warned of the commodification of women. But capitalism is far more inventive than they realized. We have a playbook for doing this. Yes, we have now unbundled, disintermediated, and disrupted woman. She is a bunch of parts. Sorry, feminists, it's not just for the convenience of men; it's for other women, too.
But soon she will be unbundled into even smaller parts. Everyone will be unbundled into even smaller parts. Every opportunity will be mined. Every inefficiency will be squeezed. Yikes.
Who is least susceptible to disruption? Who is most susceptible? I don't know the answer. I suspect that you are less susceptible (1) when you have fewer valuable parts to unbundle and (2) when you have more ownership over those parts.
Men bring two big things to reproduction: genes and money/power/status. The first they share with women but are inclined to want to disseminate (!) not concentrate. The second they have ironclad ownership. Thus men will suffer less from disruptive unbundling. They might even enjoy it.
Women bring many more things, and have less ironclad ownership over them. Hence they will suffer more from disruptive unbundling.
As we look to the future, inured to the horrors of transgenderism, I note that in this framework other entities highly susceptible to disruption include children and animals.
God help us.
I agree that there is a price to progress. I might write some of my own thoughts on the matter. If I zoom out of U.S. politics and think of conservatism more broadly as an aesthetic, cultural, social or political philosophy, which seeks to promote or preserve traditional social institutions, than it is easier for me to see the legitimacy in your argument. I believe many seek to eradicate conservatism from political institutions but fail to understand the predictability that conservatisms provides societies. That is not to justify or take away from the plight of various groups. But it does make it easier for me to ponder why some political views are deemed ‘unacceptable’ - even if the very nature of politics necessitates debate and conflict. What is acceptable anyway? I like people who stand for something and are able to make an informed argument about their perspective.