People stopped using gold because of greed and power. They introduced a usurious system in order to collect wealth to a small group of people, resulting in the mess we're in today. Gold, silver, and commodities are the superior solution.
Perhaps not explicitly, but by ignoring reality and pretending that we live on a different planet, people with this mentality sure do come across that way. Some even explicitly so.
> we all want fulfillment, no matter our sex
Which is why in countries that are most egalitarian, you'll find women naturally drawn to more "female oriented" practices, like nursing or childcare, and men to more "male oriented" work like construction and plumbing. Of course, the SJW's don't like that and want to push women head to head against men, only for it to end in the chaos we see today.
> overly simplistic biological hypotheses
Except it's not so. Phenomenon that have been observed across cultures and geography and time is not a "simplistic biological hypothesis".
I see what you're saying, but I think there's more to it. Mixing men and women in the workplace has been a recipe for disaster time and time again. I'm not excusing the behavior of men who do engage in those actions, but it's almost an expected outcome. We see this across the board, from desk jobs, to labor intensive work like construction or even the military.
Agreed that people look to those at the top of the society. In a hyper capitalistic world we live in today, the vast majority of those people are the ultra wealthy, who happen to almost all be men. Many of those men fought their way up, rightly or wrongly. Feminists and SWJ's want to push women into that same space, claiming that men and women are the same, yet they don't see the contradiction of having to hand hold those women in order for them to be able to compete there in the first place. They're implicitly admitting that men and women are different, but they can't deal with the cognitive dissonance.
> The vast majority of employment opportunities do not involve physical labour requiring strength on a level unobtainable by women.
That's not my argument. Men are not just physically stronger, but they are more vicious and ferocious to deal with. This is especially true the higher up you go. There's a reason that the vast majority of the richest people in the world are men.
The rest of your argument is a strawman. Quit catering to toxic femenist propaganda.
I didn't say they never belong in the workplace. However, the toxicity of feminism is that one of the rotten values it introduced is that a woman must go to the workplace, otherwise she is worthless. Not only that, she has to compete head to head with men, even though biologically speaking, men and women are not the same. Men are more vicious and ferocious, and expecting women to face up to them will not end up well. Anyone paying attention already sees it unfold in front of us.
Because sex is something that most people are going to engage in at one point or another, it's part of human nature. Killing and murdering isn't acceptable.
> The overvaluing and focus on sex of being something amazing or interesting.
Because there are severe consequences to it, pregnancies and STDs being just the start.
Yes, it is an amazing thing, and it is not overvalued at all. It's one of the strongest drives we have as humans, and it should be controlled, otherwise it will lead to chaos.
No reason that women can't accomplish important things, the problem is that feminism pushed the false narrative that men and women are equal across the board, this is obviously a fallacious and dangerous premise, and now society is paying the price. They also brainwashed people that any criticism of their toxic ideas is automatically labeled as "misogynistic", "patriarchal" and "authoritarian", etc. Add to that the notion of equality of outcome (instead of equality of opportunity), and we see what it leads to.
The modern economy is debt based by design (i.e. backed by interest and usurious transactions). This by definition creates a separation in the socio economic hierarchy.
It's for a reason that usury/interest is banned in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism for example. It's a parasitic practice that makes the economy fundamentally unstable. This includes dangerous practices such as selling debt for debt (which triggered the 2008 crisis), and things like stock shorting (which, interestingly enough was also banned during the crisis, at least for some critical company stocks).
Get rid of these dangerous, immoral, and parasitic practices, and we'll be on a strong path to improve things.
> During and after the economic collapse of 2007-2009 I wondered who was at fault; who to blame
Sometimes it is possible to at least narrow things down to an underlying inherent instability. In the case of your example, a huge underlying cause is an economic system based on debt (backed by interest and usurious transactions). It's for a reason that usury/interest is banned in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism for example. It's a parasitic practice that makes the economy fundamentally unstable. This includes dangerous practices such as selling debt for debt (again part of the same crisis), and things like stock shorting (which, interestingly enough was also banned during the crisis, at least for some critical company stocks).
The superior model that has proven to work is Islam's Zakat. It's sort-of-but-not-really a wealth tax. 0% income tax, 0% gains tax, and only people who hold commodities over a certain threshold are taxed (meaning the poor are exempted). Gold and silver holdings for example are taxed at 2.5%, with a different percentage for cattle and produce.
As to your example, you won't pay a wealth tax on your car if you increase its value under Zakat. Now if you want to use it as a currency (start flipping cars) then it's different.
> That's only true if you raise taxes on the kind and amount of income that doctors and lawyers typically make.
That's what Biden wants to do, terrible idea.
Removing favorable treatment of long term capital gains is also a terrible idea. Ideally, there should be 0% gains tax (and income tax), but people will settle for favorable treatment compared to income tax.
That's because it doesn't fit the SJW narrative.