As a result of the massive volume of traffic on this blog in the past few days, I have received a number of comments via email, most of them positive. Yet some disgruntled readers have chided me for what they see as my blatant sexism. Phrases such as "sexed-out $lutz," "hotties," and "bangin' 80s aerobics-instructor bitchez" seemed to have struck a nerve with some of these sensitive souls. Rather than simply laughing at these pussies, or feeling sorry for them (since they clearly aren't getting any), I would like to point out that the discipline of economics teaches us that women are in fact destined to play a different role in society than men.
The key concept here is that of comparative advantage. A person has a comparative advantage in an activity if that person can perform the activity at a lower opportunity cost than anyone else. Differences in opportunity costs arise from differences in individual abilities and from differences in the characteristics of other resources. Thus one should specialize in one's comparative advantage; in this way the maximum amount of goods gets produced in a society (a goal which, as we all know, is the inherent telos of human existence). Since women have vaginas and wombs, their comparative advantage is coitus and childbearing. Since men have penises, their comparative advantage (to borrow from Lacan) is signification.
It is important to remember here that there does not have to be an absolute comparative advantage, but only a dynamic comparative advantage. This means that individuals, economies, or genders don't necessarily have to be inherently more productive, but, through learning-by-doing, can come to specialize in a certain area and gain a comparative advantage. Thus other aspects of gender differences - intelligence, bravery, etc. - may not be the direct result of biological difference but a result of historical specialization based on social organization. For example, women now have a dynamic comparative advantage in crying, hand-holding, sewing, and reading, while men have a dynamic comparative advantage in making money, lifting, playing Halo 3, and other forms of bro-ing out.
Thus, in most cases it would be a Pareto improvement for women to give it up more frequently, and for men to concentrate on bro-ing out when the marginal benefit of getting play exceeds the associated marginal costs (hand-holding, talking, brushing teeth).
I hope this answers the various objections that have so far been made; however, as this blog serves to engage the public sphere, where a perfect meta-language reigns and discourse is always conducted on a fully inter-subjective and rational level, the discussion will continue, and I welcome further comments or suggestions.
Posts
