I would love to hear your opinions on my reasoning here. I’m in a good place as a software engineer but I can easily list of a range of examples where I’ve been openly discriminated against for being a white male. Like it’s not even reading between the lines. It’s like, we kicked you off the panel in this conference for a student who hasn’t even graduated yet and has done nothing remarkable because she’s a woman. Oh you’re a white male? You have to pay double for the training course despite coming from a working class background and some of these women went to private school and have supportive professional parents. This accelerator program is only for women. Women I know who have done nothing close to remarkable receiving awards and grants.

When I talk to feminist women they flippantly say “well that sucks but”, the but part is just moving onto something else, usually a for the greater good argument because they can’t tell me anything close to this level of discrimination. I find for the greater good arguments to be merely selfish desires wrapped up in virtue. I can show this with another for the greater good argument. Before we go on however I have to stress that the argument is for merely highlighting how for the greater good arguments can be abused. My girlfriend is highly educated, I love dating educated women they’re way more interesting for me. The terrible for the greater good argument takes the form of moral grandstanding about the gap between rich and poor.

The gap between the rich and poor is getting worse and that’s a bad thing for freedom, social mobility, unrest, and the poor getting on the right side of capitalism such as owning a house as opposed to renting it. A for the greater good argument could advocate for denying women the right to university education to reduce the gap between rich and poor. For instance, before this, men were marrying their sectaries etc, however, now, men are marrying their peers at universities. A great example is the healthcare system. Doctors used to marry nurses. Now doctors marry other doctors mainly because they have more in common. Also, these dual professionals can save for a few years together before buying a house. Instead of one professional income they have two. Because they have double the professional income these couples can compete against each other with high deposits and cash flow for houses in good neighbourhoods with good schools, rocketing up the house prices in good areas increasing social segregation. Furthermore, a lot of working class women are not gunning for investment banker, doctor, lawyer, engineer, journalist positions. So we're exacerbating wealth inequality to please a few privileged women who have the financial and educational background to chase such fields. Oh they need to check their privilege and appreciate that they need to be stopped not only for wealth inequality but to allow working class women chances to marry high earning men.

Now clearly nobody in their right mind in a developed western country would advocate denying women the right to university education. We all have female friends, girlfriends, sisters etc that we would hate to see held back because of their gender. However, this argument shows that for the greater good arguments are really just a selfish thing someone wants, combined with mental gymnastics and a moral grandstanding position to force it. We all cringe at denying women the right to university education yet I’ve met plenty of feminists who happily shrug their shoulders at holding back men with little empathy for the individuals “for the greater good of quotas”. I am having less and less tolerance for people who use for the greater good arguments. Just admit you’re a selfish person who doesn’t care about people outside of your vision. Don’t wrap it up in fake virtue and make out I’m the bad person for not just mindlessly accepting your poorly constructed thinly veiled selfish power-grab.