Family system used to take care of elderly and the disabled, which ultimately meant housewives were supposed to do that, unless you could afford a caretaker (which was socially frowned upon in middle class).
Then women got voting power and family system broke down, replaced by social structure. In a way today's capitalist Europe is closer to what Marx suggested than USSR.
Chennai is a classic dead case. That city could have been maintained like London with water ways and road ways. Now they completely forgot about even tap water. Based on Thirukkural if there was one thing that king/ruler should do that would be providing water to citizens free. It is very sad.
"Indiscriminate dumping of toxic solid waste along the road, discharge of sewage, and construction of buildings, railway stations and a new road to connect Old Mahabhalipuram Road and Pallavaram have shrunk the wetland to a great extent."
I did the same - subscribed in 2007 and cancelled it in 2012. And I am here in minority but I cancelled it BECAUSE of its content. The barrage of anti China news, anti India news, and then the lack of any standing on any issue except free market. Economist consistently backtracks on everything if it somehow results in more free market. It is why it was established in the first place so why complain? The height was when they published an article saying how Iran is against hezbollah but two issues later they said Iran must stop supporting hezbollah. Then they once went on for several weeks about chinese government's crackdown on prostitution and how it is fomenting dissent. Then a train crashed and again they went harping about how dissent was just around the corner. Moving out of West in 2010 suddenly showed me how Economist is just a high end mouth piece of British government, hidden behind sophistication and the prestigious name. So I decided to just cancel my subscription.
Anything that doesn't result in equal outcome of greateness is sexism. For example, asking 50% reservation for women in soldiers going to war is sexism because war is not greatness, but preferring women 200% over men in STEM is not sexism because doing science is greatness and women are still < 50% of sceintists.
Just joking of course. Women having different immune system functions means more funding for women specific medicine - hence it is good. Study of behavior at workplace based on gender doesn't generate funding because there aren't many women doing startups anyway.
You keep watching, in a decade or two when there will be enough women in startups that they will actually have any economical significance there WILL be studies conducted. And depending on how that turns out - if 'women better than men', it will be an 'evil corrected' story, and if 'women worse than men', state will intervene via laws to protect women's rights. It has already started actually.
This is why I took the risk of losing mod points and posted 'another decade' comment above.
Everytime I read such articles I am reminded of my stay in Germany. In those 5 years I behaved exactly the way the author behaves, and shared same thoughts as the author.
And then I came back to India and I am so totally different man now, I wonder if the whole autism spectrum has society as an influential input too. Being in India I just have so many friends with whom I can discuss very intimate doubts or facts about life that you can arrive at a peaceful state of mind very easily and function as a normal member of society without ever having a doubt about yourself, while in west in general the focus on individualism means most people don't talk to each other and are always expected to behave a certain way otherwise they will get 'what is wrong with him' look all the time.
Upholding a law is more tricky that being obtuse about how the world is going to unfold before The Judgement Day (TM). Look at Aaron Swartz. There is a way to have things done - if the world is becoming a better place it is because a lot of people are doing a lot of things behind the smokescreen.
This happens to me on some online shopping websites. When I search for some generic term, I am shown a slider between minimum and maximum where minimum is so often 0 and maximum is 10^5, while I am interested in something, say, between 500 to 1500.
My father -- German Jew who escaped in 1938 (only mentioning this because this view is often conflated with anti-semitism) -- was of the view that Israel was a new crusade and would have much the same impact and outcomes. Recall that the medieval crusades also resulted in some long term occupations of the holy land, and they did not have support of an unrivaled superpower.
This is an interesting hypothesis, but I think we should consider that the nobles actually believed in the religious aspects of the Crusades. While I am sure some were in it for the money or prestige at least the first couple of crusades appeared to have been motivated by religious zeal.
Don't mistake excuses for motivations. The law of primogeniture (inheritance to eldest son) along with large family size played a big role in the causes of the crusades.
Let's suppose you've managed, as a family, to hack and slash your way to the top of the nobility. Grandfather was a friend of the guy who became king, father inherited lands and got them productive, and now five brothers have all survived. The eldest gets the land. The next four have learned to ride horses, swing swords, and wear armor. One of them decides that the Church isn't so bad, and thus effectively goes into politics. There are still 3 armed badasses who won't be getting the power and wealth they are used to... unless they go and take it from someone else.
Their brothers in the Church have an idea: maybe you can go be violent somewhere else?
This also had a pretty big impact on South and to a lesser extent North America. All the guys who had finally driven the Moors out of Spain only knew how to fight so went off to Mexico with Hernán Cortés to carry on doing more of the same.