That attrition is exactly what I meant, you just want to say you are right and reword it to fit your "can never" original point.

Look, I don't think you're arguing in bad faith or anything like that, but please reread my initial comment. I don't recall if my edit quoting the snippet came after your first response or not, but I assure you the context was in regards to those clutching onto whatever hierarchical power they have. My initial point was, and still is, that you can't beg to those in power to relinquish that power, which is almost self-evident. My supporting reasoning the later comment was that speaking of a shared characteristic as a cohesive group is a waste of time, excepting deliberate hyperbole.

Again, irrelevant. They still got great amounts of power. Just because someone else benefited and that power didn't bring them happiness like they believed doesn't change that.

Any strides women achieved in the past century are equaled out by the utter dis-empowerment of the working lower and middle classes. The married woman has more overt power over her husband than before 1960 or 1890, but the American family or individual has far less power than before 1930 until you reach $600k/yr household income. No disagreement that there are more women in explicit higher positions of power. The relevance is that women in the workplace and owning property isn't entirely a bad thing. The introverted woman doing concept-art for 20-40 hrs/week before heading home to walk her dog isn't causing the issues that the meeting obsessed finance/marketing folk are. Note that I am not stating that the doubling of the workforce was the transfer of wealth, as someone like Peterson would.

The top 1% person can do something entirely for themselves and it ripple across everything... Karen Horney had a personal hissy fit against Freud and created her entire progressive rot in the Psychology field.

Yes, but that's not a conscious decision to improve the health of their social class, and often enough not to those professing the same cause.

Edit: My preference for the cautious use of collectives in language is similar to the case some Youtuber made about 'color-blindness'. By proclaiming color-blindness, one is falling into the trap of using rhetoric that is conceptually polluted by the zealots. Similarly, I can't stand the conformist/normie majority's emotional susceptibility towards tribal identity and blind obedience over community responsibility; to be clear I don't consider you part of that reprehensible category.

That attrition is exactly what I meant, you just want to say you are right and reword it to fit your "can never" original point.

Look, I don't think you're arguing in bad faith or anything like that, but please reread my initial comment. I don't recall if my edit quoting the snippet came after your first response or not, but I assure you the context was in regards to those clutching onto whatever hierarchical power they have. My initial point was, and still is, that you can't beg to those in power to relinquish that power, which is almost self-evident. My supporting reasoning the later comment was that speaking of a shared characteristic as a cohesive group is a waste of time, excepting deliberate hyperbole.

Again, irrelevant. They still got great amounts of power. Just because someone else benefited and that power didn't bring them happiness like they believed doesn't change that.

Any strides women achieved in the past century are equaled out by the utter dis-empowerment of the working lower and middle classes. The married woman has more overt power over her husband than before 1960 or 1890, but the American family or individual has far less power than before 1930 until you reach $600k/yr household income. No disagreement that there are more women in explicit higher positions of power. The relevance is that women in the workplace and owning property isn't entirely a bad thing. The introverted woman doing concept-art for 20-40 hrs/week before heading home to walk her dog isn't causing the issues that the meeting obsessed finance/marketing folk are. Note that I am not stating that the doubling of the workforce was the transfer of wealth, as someone like Peterson would.

The top 1% person can do something entirely for themselves and it ripple across everything... Karen Horney had a personal hissy fit against Freud and created her entire progressive rot in the Psychology field.

Yes, but that's not a conscious decision to improve the health of their social class, and often enough not to those professing the same cause.