Do you honestly believe that women aren't naturally worse at certain things? How about physical strength? Any man ranked in the top 50 of the tennis pro tour can smoke pretty much any woman who plays tennis. You'll find the same is the case with squash, cricket, basketball, you name it. It is a natural inequality, and there is no point in denying it. "Equality" does not mean equality of results. It means equality of opportunity.
The difference is that the mainstream left-wing themselves routinely say that they want equality of outcome:
Paul Krugman's -- "we should try to create the society each of us would want if we didn’t know in advance who we’d be."
Or as Ezra Klein put it -- "In truth, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome aren't opposites. They're partners. Companions. Inseparable amigos. You can't have real equality of opportunity without equality of outcome. A rich parent can purchase test prep a poor parent can't. A rich parent can usher their children into social networks a poor parent can't. A rich parent can make donations to Harvard that a poor parent can't."
Or Jonathan Chait -- "the attempt to draw a distinction between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity collapses immediately."
No mainstream right-winger is getting anywhere close to arguing that people should starve to death.
In the UK we have a government that is actively starving the terminally ill to death, by classifying them as "fit for work" and stopping subsistence benefit payouts for them.
Careful, you're using "Starving" in that instance as hyperbole. Losing your benefits and starving are two very different things.
In the US we have a government safety net, and a private safety net.
If someone falls out of the government safety net, as they are sometimes known to do, there are still churches and non-profits across the country which will provide them with food and shelter. They may lose benefits, but they're not starving. That distinction is important.
I'm sorry, but I find your comment astonishingly insensitive and disrespectful to those on the wrong end of this change.
tl;dr People are dying because of government policy. Some people have in fact quite literally starved to death. There is absolutely no hyperbole involved here. It's a literal, physical, undeniable fact.
The possibility that others may perhaps find their way to private help is largely irrelevant, because private help - if it exists at all - is geographically patchy, resource constrained, and often disorganised.
I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you have to experience what this means in practice.
Republicans agree in-so-far as we believe we need to create a society with the best possible outcomes for the most people. Despite what Liberals pundits often claim, that's never been in disagreement.
The disagreement is about what type of system produces the best results -- be that using cultural change and market forces to bring up the general tide, or giving increasing power to a central government to try to force equality of outcomes.
We believe that if you try to force equal outcomes, you end up destroying your civilization. The best you can hope for is freedom.
That means we believe in making the world better without government coercion, and we believe that history supports that position.
Even if they were saying that, which they aren't, it doesn't really matter given that no one (outside of three special cases) in America starves.
Those three cases are abused children, the mentally ill, and forgotten elderly. In all cases food scarcity was not the problem. They're problems of community oversight.
There is an argument to be made here. The majority of the money is in men's sports. Arguably that means that's where the best trainers, nutritionists, and sports doctors go. The edge that those things can give you cannot be discounted.
The Williams sisters had a lot more money and access to better nutritionists than Karsten Braasch, who was placed a lowly ~200 in the ATP rankings (and he used to smoke cigarettes, also). Nevertheless, he beat them 6-1 6-2. From here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_Braasch:
> Braasch competed in a "Battle of the Sexes" contest against Venus Williams and Serena Williams at the 1998 Australian Open when he was ranked 203. A decade and a half older than the sisters, Braasch was described by one journalist as "a man whose training regime centred around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager."[2] He nonetheless defeated both sisters, playing a single set against each, beating Serena 6–1 and Venus 6–2.
The onus would be on you to prove that this "edge" explains the entirety of men's domination in sports. I don't quite know how you'll explain away in social terms greater muscle mass, greater testosterone, and all other physical differences, but you are welcome to try.
