"Equal and Opposite" was the title of a YouTube video that jumped out to me.

I thought I'd share my comment/view on that title, which is below:

Equal and opposite? Only within the context of traditional gender roles.

Why?

Consider the following concept:

Value Equality vs. Legal Equality

  1. By nature, men and women each evolved to have a separate and exclusive source of value.
    1. For women, the ability to bear children. (Arguably the most important value to a species).
    2. For men, simply being the "stronger" gender. (From this fact alone, men's source of value was primary resource privisioning.)
  2. Each source of value actually created the closest thing you can get to a "balance of reproductive value" among the genders.
  3. Traditionalism encapsulated this natural distinction through cultural enforcement. Quite simply, men were the primary provisioners, in correspondence to their natural source of value of being stronger and able to do just that.
    In essence, we had a system of rough "value equality" whereas we now have a system of "legal equality". Legal equality on paper translates to extreme value inequality in practice. They are not compatible. Why is this so?
  4. Because male investment and provisioning will inherently become far less valuable to women if they now share what used to be men's exclusive, and balancing, source of value. It's basically the equivalent in nature, in hunter gatherer tribes, of making women being able to bear children + making women just as strong as men. A great number of men will have little to no value to women in this circumstance.

A system built (and now in fact dependent) on the prosperity created from a system based on value equality, will collapse under a system based on legal equality -- due to the extreme value inequality that a legal equality based system results in.