UBI Enables Gig Work at all Earning Levels.

 UBI would make gig work more attractive both for employees and employers.  For higher end gig work, many people would choose their gigs more carefully and work only when they wanted to so that the working conditions and pay would have to be more attractive to induce people to work the less attractive hours or more intensive gigs.  For employers the flexibility of gig work to cover busy times even though hourly pay would be higer might be cost effective vs paying a high full time wage to get skills necessary for high traffic times.  At low end of the wage scale with essentials covered by UBI gig employers would have to pay competitively for less attractive times which are more important for service availability. There would still be people willing to work part time at low income levels to cover low demand times either as a supplement to UBI or to fill non-productive time on other projects that they might be pursuing in arts or crafts.

J'C  5/14/2019

UBI not Reparations

 While Black People, second only to Native Americans, deserve reparations for past discrimination, practically determining who gets what reparations for which discrimination, is an impossible political problem.  Instead provide UBI for all in the form of a Social Security Stipend for all adults sufficient to cover basic needs paid for by a Social Security tax on all gross income over the stipend, no deductions, no caps, and all income from any source formal, informal, legal or not included.* 

 Those who really deserve reparations and their communities will benefit the most from this outside income, since most who deserve reparations are living hand to mouth and will spend the UBI in their neighborhood on goods and services provided by others who may have a bit more to invest either by saving a bit of the UBI or investing other resources saved from outside jobs or other income.  The economic multiplier in neighborhoods of folks who have a history of systematic discrimination is nearly 3 times.  That is each outside dollar is recycled in the neighborhood three times before it is lost to goods and services outside the hood. UBI to more well off people will be either invested and out of the economy or spent in the wider economy benefiting all working people.  

 *The above is a modified comment on a stonekettle post on reparations for blacks.

 For a discussion of UBI

 A better way to pay for UBI is a progressive VAT. 

Morality as Face(Book) Groups

 Humans, as highly intelligent and extremely social animals are genetically programmed to learn all they can about the customs and mores of their tribe or social group as defined prehistorically by those whose faces they encountered on a daily basis. There could be no thought of violating these customs and mores, as doing so would cause banishment and a solo human was a dead human. This is the basis of conscience, not some big daddy in the sky.  

 As social groups grow beyond the tribal or village size like minded social groups will congregate geographically or in religious groups.  The religious groups may be dispersed far beyond a geographical area but at least in theory the groups maintain a consistent set of customs and mores that serve to control and unify the the local face groups. 

 A child brought up by members or a member of an identifiable social group will associate behavior that promotes the welfare of the group with "good" and that which is contrary to the welfare of the group as "bad." No matter how large the identifiable social group became the local community hall was the transmitter of the group's values.  Typically these community halls are small enough that all are at least nominally acquainted.   Ultimately it seems that compliance with face-group standards is the natural morality of humans. 

 As larger societies moved up the chain to associations of face groups, either religious or secular, commandments, laws and rules of behavior are established to define minimum standards of behavior that promote the welfare of the larger group.  These commandments, laws and rules are not to be confused with morality, as frequently these commandments, laws and rules will conflict with the imprinted sense of what is good and what is bad as it relates to the childhood face group.    

 A face group at that point may withdraw to the extent possible from the larger group.  See the Amish and other Anabaptist groups who live by their own moral standards ignoring the laws of the larger society except where there is unavoidable conflict. Or they may be forced to withdraw from the larger group as the Native Americans were.  Again, nothing to do with the morality of the larger society, simply rules to make the larger society work. One could make a strong case that the laws of society are by definition immoral as they force compliance with activities that may be against the face group morals of individuals within the larger society.

 The world is too big to be a face group these days but if we choose carefully there is a group of people whose customs and mores we can and do internalize. That group will look a lot like our family and close friends even when extended to people we probably will never meet.  The mores so developed may or may not be judged moral by the larger society. 

 Religious and secular associations are the traditional facilitators of face groups and define the approved social standards and mores for the group. 

Social media is emerging as a powerful force for expanding and defining these extended face groups. In some cases a small group of people or bots may be instrumental in defining the customs and mores for the group. Rallies and marches seem to be their churches and meeting halls.  Most groups are frequently in political conflict with many if not most of the other groups.

  J'C  10/20/2019 Edit 10/21 

Art and Artists

   If you cannot evaluate art without evaluating the artist you don't understand art.  I specifically avoid, indeed shun, biographical data about artists.  If their art is expiation for their monstrous private lives perhaps it is expiation for the monstrous private lives of all of us.  Their art is their legacy.  Their private lives should be buried with them and never discussed while they are alive. 

  An artist and herm art are two entirely separate and distinct entities in all cultures.  The art may live and be meaningful long after the artist has returned to dust.  While it is fun to argue about which composers of famous religious music were atheists, the fact remains that the music they composed is sung and revered by believers in any culture affected by the religion depicted in the composition.  

A "critic" is a man who creates nothing and thereby feels qualified to judge the work of creative men. There is a logic in this; he is unbiased - he hates all creative people equally.  Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love,  Robert A Heinlein, 1973.

 The easiest thing a lazy critic can focus on is some private life peccadillo (or worse) to avoid entirely herm work as a critic of evaluating the art to help the rest of us sort out the good from the bad.   

 The current trend even extends to Jefferson's "all men are created equal" as written by a slave holder who even had children by a favored slave.  He had no choice in his culture. That he could transcend his culture to create a better world where all are equal (even though we are not there yet after 200+ years) speaks volumes about his character not to mention the character of his critics who do not even aspire to the all humans are equal standard. 

 Never trust the teller, trust the tale. The proper function of a critic is to save the tale from the artist who created it.   D.H. Lawrence

You should always read any published author especially a DWM without any biographical data clouding your mind. Words mean what they say, regardless of the personal beliefs and/or cultural influences on the author. The best authors (and artists) transcend their personal foibles to change the world.

Music Is Fundamental

 Many scientific studies have found that if you want your kid to do well in school give herm music lessons.  In fact some studies have shown that students having difficulty in school can improve their school performance by simply getting a musical instrument. They will learn to play it and the learning skills will carry over into their schoolwork.

  Almost anyone can make a joyful noise on a musical instrument, but going beyond that joyful noise to making music, even simple music, requires developing motor and mental skills that are progressively more complex as the demands of the music increase. It is an open ended learning process, there is always more to learn as skills increase.

  I recently went to a concert entitled "More Pianos than Bathtubs" which celebrated a time in our history when one of the major entertainment venues was the parlor piano where guests were invited to sing, or in some cases bring their instruments for an impromptu chamber concert.  An amusing discussion of this phenominon can be found at The Piano In The Parlor

 

Monogamy

 Monogamy is not a description of a relationship. It is a description of a reproductive strategy. 

 Polyamory is default for prepubescent children and non-adults and should be encouraged with the usual precautions for STDs.   In societies where women breed shortly after puberty other standards apply but given modern contraception strategies for men and women polyamory should be the rule until parenting is contemplated.  I am not talking hetero only here especially prepubescent and early teen sexuality.  Sow your wild oats to your hearts content on any infertile ground of either gender to determine what kind of sexuality makes sense for ones settled years which may end up to be childless polyamory.  


 If no children are planned monoamory may well be toxic. My generation gave the world the conceopt of going steady as early as high school, that is, dating only a single partner as long as the relationship lasts. The strain this puts on relationship building is overwhelming as sexuality, having fun on a date, and commitment to a single other who initially you may not know well does not work well.  Even more pressure is on the relationship if pregnancy before marriage is a violation of the norm as it was when contraception was limited to condoms.  Even with reliable contraception for women trying to combine sexuality, companionship, fun, and mental stimulation into a single relationship seems to put too much strain on both partners.   

 Most people contemplating children hetero or homo are monogamous as a tried and proven stable environment for raising children. It is not the only way. Polygamy as usually practiced one male several females seems to work in some cultures as the women share the child raising with the male as a resource provider and impregnator.  Single parenting is outrageously difficult, but possible.  An absent partner providing resources does help. 
 

Autonomous Cars and the Future of Cities

(Mary Sperling) claimed her car from the robopark, guided it up the ramp and set the controls for the North Shore. The car waited for a break in the traffic, then dived into the high-speed stream and hurried north. Mary settled back for a nap….awakened by the jangle of the emergency alarm and by the speedster slowing to a stop… “All cars resume local control….” Methuselah's Children, Robert A Heinlein, (1941) or 1958.  

 With autonomous or even semi-autonomous cars in 120mph+ pelotons on existing freeways and Musk 120mph skates in tunnels in LA, whole metro areas are sprawlsville.  The American life style will not be changed to urban living.  Ford, General Motors, and all the rest will still be around in 2100 promoting sprawl. 

 The car is the most important surviving public status symbol, and Americans at least are not going to give that up.  They will drive less especially locally but providing rides between urban nodes will still be an important status indicator.  Cities, especially new cities, will evolve out of the suburbs with high density urban nodes around regional amenities with complete urban services, restaurants, service establishments and high density housing at all price points for those who choose to live and possibly work in an urban node.  

 The majority of the population will still be economically and ethnically segregated in single family homes and low density apartments in the suburbs, exurbs and now dead rural towns. The current pattern for office commercial segregated in suburban campuses will continue for the foreseeable future. Even working class cars will be high speed semi-autonomous and urban nodes will still require high density autonomous parking for residents and visitors.     

 Freeways will evolve to narrower lanes restricted to autonomous vehicles, with high speed lanes running in pelotons for efficiency and throughput.  Current freeways of three lanes or more with a breakdown lane in the center will in the near future convert to two or more high speed lanes, one transition lane and leave one wide lane with a breakdown lane for non-autonomous cars at existing speed limits and entrance and exit. 

 Autonomous cars will park in high density parking lots on floors limited to small SUVs by floor spacing, served by elevators.  Garages for autonomous vehicles only will be constructed over a major intersection with an existing freeway which is already served by transit and close to developed commercial or urban centers.  The garage may be built over the freeway.  Pedestrian and bicycle access is over the existing sidewalk space on the cross street and transit access over a lane of the cross street.  Cars will enter from freeway access ramps to car lanes inside the garage next to the pedestrian/bikeway.  Driverless autonomous cabs would be available at the freeway nodes for those needing them. 

 See also http://jcarlinsv.blogspot.com/2017/05/autonomous-cars-and-cities.html

Technology and the Future of Cities

 With Hyperloops, autonomous or even semi-autonomous cars in 120mph+ pelotons on existing freeways and Musk 120mph skates in tunnels, whole metro areas are sprawlsville.  The American life style will not be changed to urban living.  Ford, General Motors, and all the rest will still be around in 2100 promoting sprawl. 

 The SUV is the most important surviving public status symbol, and Americans at least are not going to give that up.  They will drive less especially locally but driving to the country club or a neighbor's home will still be an important status indicator.  Cities will evolve out of the suburbs with high density urban nodes around regional amenities with complete urban services, restaurants, service establishments and high density housing at all price points for those who choose to live and possibly work in an urban node.   But the majority of the population will still be economically and ethnically segregated in single family homes and low density apartments in the suburbs. The current pattern for office commercial segregated in suburban campuses will continue for the foreseeable future.

 Freeways will evolve to narrower lanes restricted to autonomous vehicles, with high speed lanes running in pelotons for efficiency and throughput.  Current freeways of three lanes or more with a breakdown lane in the center can in the near future convert to two or more high speed lanes, one transition lane and leave one wide lane with a breakdown lane for non- autonomous cars at existing speed limits and entrance and exit. Transition lanes would have restricted access and egress.  All that would be required to facilitate this transition would be to improve the roadbed in the high speed and transition lanes.  Autonomous cars exist today capable of 120-150 mph and transit vehicles soon will be once the need for them exists.    

 Autonomous cars can park in high density parking lots on floors limited to small SUVs by floor spacing, served by elevators.  Garages for autonomous vehicles only may be constructed over a major intersection with an existing freeway which is already served by transit and close to developed commercial centers.  The garage may be built over the freeway.  The passenger access floor will have bus clearance for larger vehicles also at high density enabled by autonomous control.  Pedestrian and bicycle access is over the existing sidewalk space on the cross street and transit access over a lane of the cross street.  Cars will enter from freeway access ramps to car lanes inside the garage next to the pedestrian/bikeway. Once passengers exit the car for local transportation and tell the car computer their expected departure time the car will park itself.   Driverless autonomous cabs would be available at the freeway nodes for those needing them. 

Infrequent transit nodes using grade separated bike, pedestrian, local transit and transit access car traffic as entry to the transit garage. This would create a local traffic and transit interface with high speed autonomous transit which would use existing on-ramps to access the high speed lanes.  These transit nodes would evolve rapidly to high density urban centers.  Cities and suburbs should plan for and encourage these high density urban transit villages. 

 The Upper middle class will commute from their tract mansions to suburban commercial campuses or to a high speed freeway, tunnel skate, or hyperloop node to the city using driverless cabs for the last few mile access as necessary.  

  Service workers and others with minimum wage employment will commute from now remote suburbs, car or vanpooling as needed where high speed transit is unavailable.  

  Depending on what happens with UBI and "Medicare for All" the workers displaced by robotics and the existing poor will move to now dead rural communities.  Assuming UBI and Medicare, the revived rural communities will become vibrant villages of local commerce and art most of which will generate excess funds for local amenities.   



 Suburbs will always be suburbs.  With Hyperloops and 150 mph autonomous cars running in pelotons on dedicated freeway lanes one can live in the burbs and work in cities.  The Pittsburgh-Columbus-Chicago Hyperloop demonstration proposal provides a 40 minute commute from Columbus to either Chicago or Pittsburgh.  At 150 MPH Grass Valley-Nevada City is less than an hour from SF.

 In the outer suburbs the autonomous car will drop you at the garage over the freeway at the regional urban center, probably still low rise and driverless cabs will shuttle you to your local retail, entertainment center, and community place.   

Gender Inclusive Pronouns

 
  My preferred pronouns are "hesh" and "herm"  My preferred honorific is "Myr"

 I was frequently involved in God discussions in the early 60's and found the effort of avoiding the Pronouns for God too much effort and found the shock of using Hesh and Herm in reference to God a useful result in my discussions. Typically it generated the assertion that God was male and that the proper pronouns were He and His. This generally derailed the discussion into a useful discussion of God's testosterone levels. 

  In response to the Feminist Movement's attempt to eliminate "men" as a gender inclusive reference to people I began using hesh and herm as a gender inclusive pronouns in much of my writing. When I discovered James Tiptree's "Myr" as a gender inclusive honorific I immediately adopted it.  When I began to see "hesh" and "Myr" or "herm" in the popular literature without explanation, (I admit to noticing each time) I quit linking to explanatory posts like this one except when it was obviously necessary.

  I also eliminated gender specific pronouns from my vocabulary as a general pronoun and use "hesh" and "herm" as my pronouns of choice whether the gender of the referent is known or not. This is particularly useful in calling attention to gender specific terms like "Actor," Waitress," or "Chairman." Traditionalists be damned. They need their consciousness raised. If it jars their reading or hearing of the term, they still need the consciousness raising. When referring to historical people I use standard pronouns as gender is usually significant.


 I also use the terms when the referent is of known gender but the gender is not relevant in context. Reference to the  gender of the author of a scientific paper with a pronoun was beat into my head by my first partner whose papers in a male chauvinist academic profession were referred to as "HER" papers as if they were therefore less important than "his" papers. They in fact were less important than "his" papers, even though in general they were significantly better. It is no accident that women in science generally publish with initials only. If men are offended by being referred to with gender inclusive pronouns, too bad. They need to get used to it. Particularly the sexist males. They can be sure I intended to insult them with the gender inclusive pronoun.  

 I find the use of "they, their" somewhat offensive in referring to gender queer people, in particular when gender specific pronouns are used for others.  I find the convention trend of using preferred pronoun ribbons more offensive.  It seems that many people are flaunting their cis or trans preference.  If only they  their were offered it would be less offensive.  Personally, I hand out and wear a "Myr - hesh herm" ribbon.  If anyone asks my gender preference I politely respond "Unless you are hitting on me, it is none of your business."

More at https://jcarlinsv.blogspot.com/2012/06/gender-inclusive-pronouns.html

Gender Inclusive Thinking and Reading

 I invented the gender inclusive pronouns "Hesh" and "Herm" very early in life, and discovered that they helped me think about a supernatural power in a sympathetic way that was impossible with the testosterone poisoned "He."  Even trying to insert God in place of the male pronoun every time didn't work too well.  The testosterone is frequently implied by context.  By college I had learned to think of everyone as hesh rather than he or she even when it was important to tell the difference.  It was the first step to radical humanism as once I began to think of people as hesh it was hard to create differences along any lines since the major pervasive division on gender lines carried over from the patriarchal social system we inherited from God was obliterated in my mind.  When you can't even think in gender terms, differentiation on other human variables is nearly impossible.  Try thinking about that "other" person without gender and note what it does to your mind.  

 For the record, I was a strictly heterosexual male as interested in the hormonal needs only satisfied by a heterosexual female as anybody else.  But thinking of a woman as hesh in spite of the obvious delightful differences did change the way I related to women from the first contact in class or on the street to very intense relationships.  Even my parenting partner was early on a partner with benefits rather than a sexual person.   

 When reading scientific literature I never noticed the scientist's name, by policy, until it was necessary for reference and even then as a footnote on the back of the index card.  Yep, I used them.  Any gender related references were automatically changed to hesh/herm mentally and on the card.   I learned a lot that way.  Some highly recommended papers turned to crap when the DWM was turned into hesh. Or LM for that matter. 

 I have since changed policy a bit as the cutting edge scientists in my family educated me that for a woman to succeed in any meritocracy they had to be twice as good as the average male.  It follows that an accepted paper by a woman has to have twice the chances of being worth reading as one by the average man.  Similarly for professional choices.  Even though I think of them as hesh in the interview I will give interview preference to a woman given a bunch of equivalent CVs or Resumes.   

 Applying the same thinking to reading and rereading fiction has been enlightening and fascinating.  I mentally reassign a gender ambiguous name to the major characters and thinking of all as hesh.  In the mandatory sex scenes some role reversals are needed but it is surprising how often they are not.  It is amusing to think of a sex partner as trans occasionally. 

Humanism in the Real World

 Strength is a prerequisite for humanism. If you don't believe in yourself you cannot believe in others.

 A humanist treats all people as individuals with the dignity and respect they have earned as a human being regardless of any group they may have been born into, chosen, or indoctrinated into at some point in their lives.  A humanist recognizes that humans come with a lot of baggage some of which may not be functional in a modern society, but a humanist recognizes that it is what the individual has unpacked from that baggage which is important, not the baggage itself.  Many men and women from religious and social indoctrination carry a heavy load of baggage of xenophobia, paternalism and misogyny, but to the extent that they have or have not left some of it behind, the humanist will accord respect for the human accordingly.

 A major misconception about humanism is that humanists are incapable of judging other humans and treat all humans equally.  As a first assumption this should be true, but from Tom Lehrer's intro to National Brotherhood Week

I am sure we all agree we ought to love one another, and I know that there are people that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that.

 The real skill in humanism is using behavioral cues rather than assumptions about the baggage that the person appears to be carrying in deciding how to deal with the encounter.  This is not to say that awareness of the baggage is unimportant in interpreting behavioral cues, but it is the cue properly interpreted rather than the baggage that should dictate the human response.

 In dealing with a member of a discriminated against class the humanist is sensitive to and tries to defuse any justified resentment, but accepts it as a reasonable reaction and tries to find human commonalities to build a humanistic relationship on.  Always with the recognition that triggers exist, and can be inadvertently used.  Accepting responsibility for not avoiding triggers is an important part of defusing them.   As an example if I am caught holding a door for a feminist, and she objects that she can do it herself* I simply apologize for being in her way.  I have stimulated conversations with more than one feminist non-acquaintance that way.

 A note on the current bigoted trend of "Color Blindness."  A humanist celebrates the diversity of coloration, face and eye shape, and the cultural traditions associated with that diversity in the human race.  Their history is our history and no group has a lock on superiority in anything.  Humans are "tribal" animals and we naturally gravitate to the lore and traditions of our tribe but doing so by ignoring or denigrating the lore and traditions of the other tribes' leads only to hate and bigotry.  

 Members of an identifiable group must also be aware of the baggage that they carry as a member of the group, even though they have done their best to unpack and discard the worst of it.  As an example I am a member of the white, male, privileged, MBA, financially secure group.  In other words the assholes that run the businesses that run the government and oppress the working class and the disadvantaged.  I have diligently tried to avoid the social disabilities that come with the class of privileged white males.

• Sexism/misogyny. 
• Patriarchal assumptions. 
• Being a winner rather than a loser. 
• Refusing to cooperate or collaborate as an equal.
• Rejection of active parenting. That is marrying a woman to do the job and accepting the costs of child support as freedom to change my mind. Or simply fucking someone to "carry a seed" and not really caring about whether that seed grows properly or not as long as it is born.
• Using material success as a measure of worth. "He* who dies with the most toys wins." 
• Hiring, bribing, or intimidating others to cover one's ass in all of the above.  

 Unpacking religious and social baggage is a difficult and frequently impossible human task.  Castigating all those who have not done so because of their baggage is neither functional nor humanistic.  Those who have managed to unpack and leave behind some of the more dysfunctional bags need all the respect and help from others they can get, and not be thrown under the baggage bus.  For those on the bus education and ostracism are about the only options for a rational humanist, but these options are generational in impact, and those individuals on the bus that have unpacked a bit are critical to the education role, and deserve all the dignity and respect they can find if they manage to leave the bus even for a short holiday.

 As humans are tribal animals tribal religious baggage is the most difficult for a humanist to deal with.  Telling Malala or any Muslim expatriate that she must lose the hijab if she is to be credible as a feminist is one of most dysfunctional tactics I have run into recently.  It certainly is a powerful statement of the misogyny of Muslim men, but until you change the men, we are talking generations here; the hijab is a rational response to that misogyny.  Incidentally fundamentalist Christian and Jewish men are just as misogynist, but society has made more progress in changing their behavior which is the first step in changing their thinking.  It is the men who must change the men to enable the women to feel more comfortable with relaxing the dress codes.

 I have always selected female professionals when available when I had a choice, using the assumption that a female had to be twice as good as the average man to even have a chance in any professional role.  That is based on the reality that the average man who is successful in a professional position may be far to the left on the competence curve and still be able to compete in a paternalistic society.  Sorry, men, half of you are from the bottom half of your class.  Even in professional schools where women face discrimination even today.  Factoring in the discriminatory entrance barriers it is easy to believe that more than half the men end up in the bottom half of the class.  The few women who graduate are generally near the top as they have the Mrs. to fall back on if the going is too tough.  Men are always suckers for intelligent, competent women and the sex bait is difficult to resist, even if a Mrs. is the hook.

  Humanism is a fundamental change in internal attitude that may or may not be accomplished in even a single lifetime.  It is simply a constant struggle to avoid categorization.  A personal anecdote may be illustrative.  As noted above I select among women medical professionals for care.  Nonetheless I have always been aware of the fact that they were female, and the stray mating dance thoughts always had to be repressed.  Especially if they were attractive in the gender sense.  Perhaps it is simply age, but I realized after a recent routine physical that I had finally made it over the gender hurdle and the doctor was just that: a professional doing herm job competently.  It wasn't that I didn't know she was female, I chose her for that reason, and it turned out that she was attractive, but after the first visit, hesh was "just" a competent doctor, and I was paying attention only to that as hesh was still in the evaluation stage of choice as a PCP. 



*Gender reference intentional.
  

Why I Am Not a Feminist

 Because I am a humanist.  A humanist treats all people as individuals with the dignity and respect they have earned as a human being regardless of any group they may have been born into, chosen, or indoctrinated into at some point in their lives.  A humanist recognizes that humans come with a lot of baggage some of which may not be functional in a modern society, but a humanist recognizes that it is what the individual has unpacked from that baggage which is important, not the baggage itself.  Many men and women from religious and social indoctrination carry a heavy load of baggage of paternalism and misogyny, but to the extent that they have or have not left some of it behind, the humanist will accord respect for the human accordingly.

 As unpacking religious and social baggage is a difficult and frequently impossible human task, castigating all those who have not done so because of their baggage is neither functional nor humanistic.  Those who have managed to unpack and leave behind some of the more dysfunctional bags need all the respect and help from others they can get, and not be thrown under the baggage bus.  For those still carrying dysfunctional bags education and ostracism are about the only options for a rational humanist, but these options are generational in impact, and those individuals that have unpacked a bit are critical to the education role. They deserve all the dignity and respect they can get in spite of some residual prejudices.

 Men and women are fundamentally different biologically, emotionally, and in the roles they play in insuring that the next generation of humanity is an improvement over the last which is a fundamental evolutionary drive for all sexual animals.  The mating dance in most species is clear evidence that females will refuse to mate with less than the best male available.  Whatever being the best means the female and the male will invest significant time, energy and genetics in being best.  Males tend to be show-offs, brightly colored, bigger and more aggressive (expendable) while females tend to be drab, and blend into the scenery so they still can get the offspring to self-sufficiency even in the absence of the territorial protection of the male.  The male's primary role in the progeny project is to provide a safe and bountiful space for the female to nurture the young.  

 In pre-industrial societies the division of labor between men and women was unforced, with women taking on the productive jobs that were compatible with child care, clothing provisioning, gardening, feeding the family, and housekeeping.  Generally the productivity of women was an investment in the family, rather than income producing.  The men, relatively more expendable after conception, took on the more time and labor intensive jobs on the periphery of the settlement that were also dangerous:  Hunting, grain farming, herding, and warfare.  Men also took on the local jobs that were essentially uninterruptable, smithing, building, etc.  For this productivity men were paid so that they could exchange their labor for other useful items they couldn't make. Most of the pay was spent on things useful to provide the safe and bountiful space for the family.  Some may have been reserved for capital improvements in his own productivity, or hiring others to boost his productivity.

 Industrialization had a profound effect on the economic value of the productivity of women in the home. The 18th century mills were primarily devoted to production of cloth mainly cotton which effectively eliminated the economic productivity of spinning and weaving in the home.  The sewing machine and the clothing factories was the final nail in the coffin of homemade clothing as a value producing industry compatible with child raising.  In the early 20th century home appliances mainly the washing machine improved the home productivity of moms to the point that homemaking, shopping, cooking and serving were the last remaining home economic activity that were compatible with raising children.

 Industrialization had an equally profound effect on the economic role of men.  No longer could the smith compete with a home forge, he had to tend an industrial forge that was running 24/7.  A wagon wright (archaic terminology intentional) no longer could produce a wagon, much less a mechanical vehicle in his shop at home; he was tied to an assembly line metaphorically catching a wheel bouncing off the floor to attach it to the axle.  The wagon came on schedule and the wheel bounced on time, and the worker could not even pee until a relief showed up. This set the pattern for a man's job in any role in industry.  Inflexible long hours on the job, that were well compensated as wages were relatively inconsequential compared with productivity of the enterprise.  If the genetic imperative of producing a reproducing adult carrying his genes was a need for a man, the Faustian bargain of enabling a less physically demanding but more important parenting role in the absence of a functional father for their parenting partner in exchange for the long, demanding job outside the home to provide the resources for caregiving, nurturing, and socializing their children to reproductive adulthood.

 Management of these soul crunching enterprises reinforced some of the more antisocial characteristics of males: competitiveness, aggression, and lack of concern for their fellow humans of either gender.  It has always been known that "Nice guys finish last."  Not that it was necessary but science has caught up:    From a SciAm Book

Research shows that nice people are more likely to get and keep a job, but they tend to earn less and get passed over for leadership positions more often than their more demanding colleagues.

 They earn less because nobody really wants to be an asshole, and being an asshole is a necessary attribute for a leadership position.  From supply and demand theory a soulless enterprise will have to pay more to induce people to be assholes.  It therefore follows that assholes make more than nice guys or nice gals.  Human females fall heavily into the nice gal part of the humanism curve and it would seem reasonable for feminists to be trying to raise compensation for all in the nice people jobs.  Instead feminists seem to be pushing to compete for equal access to the high paid asshole jobs.  There are a few women that fall on the asshole end of the humanism curve and since they are competing with the average male asshole they generally do well in proportion to their distribution on the curve. Adequate pay for equal work in the nice guy positions primarily occupied by moms and people of both genders with more important things to do than being an asshole like students, artists, and care givers does not appear on the feminist agenda.

 A few feminists advocate for parental leave for both genders, but being a parent or a potential parent is a disqualification for leadership unless your name is Zuckerberg or you are in a comparable situation. While the interviewer may not ask if you are sterile or a non-parent, there are other ways of determining if your loyalty is to the corporation rather than humanity.  Note that a male active parent carries the same disability as a mom or a potential mom. Take too much time off to referee or even cheer a child's game or take herm to a tournament and watch the promotion bait for a salary increase fly off the hook.

 There is a reason that moms are mostly women.  As a male mom at times I can attest that raising children to be productive and responsibly reproductive humans demands a lot of time, energy and emotional investment in those children.  From oxytocin, to breast feeding natural forces have generated a strong emotional bond between women and their children.  The nurturing investment in the gene pool is natural for women as they know for sure that the genes of the children are at least half hers given modern biology knowledge and instinctively for biologically naive women. 

 The medical revolution which reduced maternal and infant mortality to insignificance and relatively reliable conception planning which became possible in the early 20th century had a profound effect on the last remaining home activity: child raising. When one conception could be reliably considered to be one reproductive adult, and women could reliably control their own fecundity without the consent of any man, a family size of 2 to 4 children became optimal socially, further freeing up women from the ties to the home.  Nonetheless, the demands of proper parenting of even a few children limit the kinds of work outside the home that women can consider even after the last child is in (pre) school when the father is in the socially traditional and absent provisioning role or as unfortunately all too common absent in any role.  The soulless corporate enterprise managed by assholes insures that most of these jobs that allow time for parenting are minimum wage or less (see tipped servers) and are generally held by moms either voluntarily or of necessity.  Just another reality for most women that is ignored by feminists and one of the major reasons I object to the label.  The men and women fighting to raise the minimum wage do not call themselves feminists.

 A major waste of time and effort by feminists is trying to change the nature of the mating dance of humans as sexual animals.  Normal male attention getting behavior: What used to be called chivalry; commenting on the attractiveness of a female; offering trinkets, food and drink; displays of their male prowess to strange women; even quiet appreciation of the attractiveness of a woman are all condemned by feminists as treating women as sexual objects.  In other words they are trying to change the mammalian male view of the female of the species. Men may come to appreciate other attractive attributes but the first thing a dry prick looks at are the secondary sex attributes.  They don't even need to be conventionally attractive but they have to be female.    

 Everything that feminism has done since it became a movement in the last half of the 20th century has at best hindered women in fully participating as sexual humans in society.   Changing the language to pretend that male dominance does not exist.  Male dominance is a historical artifact of the dependence of reproducing women in many cultures, and in an industrial society.  Demanding access to asshole positions and the pay that goes along with them.  And suggesting that moms working or stay at home are an affront to feminism. 

 Finally and probably the most important reason I am not a feminist is that almost all feminists of all genders discourage successful women from contributing to the human gene pool whether they choose to become stay at home moms, or continue to be successful in contributing economically in the society while parenting. The mommy wars are not over.  A proper feminist of either gender is childless, usually permanently so, in order to avoid the parenting penalty inherent in any job.