I guess some folks are primarily concerned with not being a *ist.
I'm personally interested in upward mobility of people and groups who are marginalized.
Black people in the US have a much higher chance of ending up in prison. A racist statement? I can't really tell you, to be honest. But if that can be used to help provide upward mobility to that specific group I'm happy to state that observation.
Valid point. I don't personally care about statements of truth unless they can be used toward some form of improvement. So that's my bias which you might have picked up on.
My own point of view is that I'm not infallible and therefore it is better to state what I think is true, and let people draw whatever conclusions they like, and take whatever actions they like, based on what I say.
I expect on averaging that stating the truth should be beneficial rather than harmful, because people with good intentions will seek to base their arguments and actions on the truth, while people with bad intentions in many cases won't care.
So ultimately I also only care about "improvement" but I don't define this in terms of my own ideology, because I could be wrong on many things.
If there ever came out studies that suggested that women can't be trusted with money, especially compared to men, then well... those studies wouldn't be existing for long.
I've heard that I could pass for a Turk, but yes - I am! I guess now you can label me as one of those typical entitled white males, which isn't ironic at all given that gender issues are often about fighting putting people in boxes like that.
Putting people in boxes isn't the most horrible thing in the world, ya know? It can help you come to positive solutions (not only negative ones). Like giving money to women over men because the evidence shows that the net benefit for the entire community is larger.
That's just my opinion. I don't claim others are wrong, but I do claim that I'm right :).
Labeling is dismissal, not refutation. The latter option is more difficult, but more effective. The former... well, not all dismissal is soapboxing, but all soapboxing is dismissive. "Who cares! Boxes are fun to stand on." Hey, can't argue there.
There's a difference between making up for an existing disparity (the site you linked claims it is doing this and I applaud them for their efforts) and creating a new one (e.g. differential BI).
I don't think there is a single person here who would support giving BI preferentially to men, so when you proposed giving money to women we all assumed you meant giving it preferentially to women, because otherwise your statement would have simply been a restatement of what everyone else was saying. I object to the notion of giving BI preferentially to women, although I fully support the cause of ensuring they receive their share.
This isn't about making up for existing disparity or some form of affirmative action ... it's simply that women seem to be the best investment if you want to impact change on future generations.
Again, you can sit and talk about the "effects" of this or that or you can be involved in helping change someone else's situation[1].
If you're going to do something then you have to look at the evidence available to you. If you've got a village and you give men and women money to help them improve their circumstances and you find out that the majority of men spend the money on themselves (sometimes gambling and alcohol) while the women buy food and spend it on children; what decision would you make?
[1] I set up a free sewing school for WOMEN in India with my father where they take 6 weeks of training and leave with a sewing machine.
The research shows that if mothers obtain the funds they will spend the vast majority on family welfare ~80% whereas the men spend less than 40%.
The difference seems to be attributable to the man having a greater sense of individualism in how they apply the funds and also they incorrectly overestimate their ability spend the funds in profit seeking ways eg gamble the funds or use the funds towards seeking new funds.
I think it's short term vs. long term. Investing in welfare (keeping children clothed, fed and in school) has long term benefits. Unfortunately, that's next to impossible for much of the world.
It's no different from the lottery system here in the US which is used by and marketed to lower income individuals. I don't think anyone says that buying lottery tickets is a "good" investment for a family.
