It's the times, bro.
As people demand rights, entitlement, to more and more, special interest groups (any possible combination and permutation of such) seek to gain more as they realize that their incentive to apply disproportionate political pressure can win them benefits and that these are worth going after EVEN to the detriment of the well-being of society as a whole. Mancor Olsen's the Rise and Decline of Nations provides an economic explanation:
Imagine an economy of 100 dollars, of which you produce and receive 1%. No taxes, no redistribution, what you make is what you get. You then discover that if enough political pressure is applied, you can convince politicians to develop a redistributive system, and raise your share from 1% to 2%. However, the economy will suffer. Yet it is still in YOUR interest to carry out the lobbying campaign as long as the economy does not fall by more than 50%, for 2% of (100 - 50) equals 1, in which case there would be no gain. But say the economy only decreased by 10%. You will then have 2% of 90 dollars, 1.80. 80% richer. You didn't have to work HARDER. You just had to say "I have rights, I am entitled to this!"
This is just an illustration, but it gives you an idea of the real economic rationale for hurting society for the beneft of your own group. I'm not saying it's bad, because I personally believe redistribution serves a different, less tangible economic purpose - but redistribution and lobbying lead to economic inefficienies that decrease economic output.
Now let's get back to women.
This isn't JUST about women or affirmative action. It's about the political movement against ALL forms of discrimination.
The EU charter of fundamental rights title III article 21 is the epitome of this development:
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic
features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority,
property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
2. Within the scope of application of the Treaty establishing the European Community and of the
Treaty on European Union, and without prejudice to the special provisions of those Treaties, any
discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.
Doesn't sound so bad on the surface, does it?
What it in fact does is to outlaw people's right to choose based on personal preferences. As more and more people realize they can influence the law in their favor, they peddle to politicians to get them to include these articles in charters. Let's say a black lesbian applies for a job or promotion and is denied. She can then accuse the employer, if she wants, of discrimination towards her based on race, sex or sexual preference and in today's political climate, the employer would have to document his innocence and HOW the hell would do that when hiring is a notoriously gut-feeling exercise?
In Denmark, where maternity leave is 52 weeks, you are not allowed to fire women for reason's related to her pregnancy. Every once in a while, you will hear a story about how some small business just went bankrupt because they couldn't lay off a pregnant female employee when business went down the drain. They tried, she takes them to court, and they are annihilated. Now NO one has a job, but she gets her "damages". She just fucked up the economy a little more, and she is rewarded.
The charter is a totalitarian move on the behalf of descendants of the New Left and political correctness. By outlawing more and more discrimiation, what you are really doing is outlawing your right to free choice.
We move more and more towards a plan economy where politicians redistribute and deploy resources, be it physical or human capital, where they see fit.
Even as the EU is imploding economically, its leaders in Brussles, inconspicous and unknown to the public at large (the EU just elected a new President - did ANYONE notice?), horde more power to themselves to the detriment of individual freedom, and no one is willing to stop the machine because the majority of elected leaders realize which way things are going, and hope to get a chance to hop on the band-wagon after serving as Prime Minister in their own country.
It starts and ends with entitlement. The moral fallacy of believing you deserve something when you have nothing to offer has become wide-spread, especially in this day and age of reality stars, stupidity, SATC, quick fixes and no personal ethics. Where everyone's "beautiful" and "unique" and we are all "equal" (see the irony?). I hope the financial crisis and recession will be the lesson necessary to the national conscience that this cannot last. Christianity served an important function for civil society, namely charity. But it was purely altruistic. Imagine a system where you ONLY paid the taxes you wanted to? If it was to government, I sure as hell would only pay what I thought was strictly necessary for national defence and law enforcement, but that's because I'm a 25yo old male and able to fend for myself. If some priest was bashing guilt-tripping me, maybe I'd pay more to a church instead. Or just if I believed in Christian doctrine of charity, kindness to neighbors and the benefits of interdepence (vis-a-vis indepedence). But as soon as you said government will administer charity, and charity is not simply alms but also generous government-employee retirement packages, social security, medicare, medicaid, affirmative action, and so forth... you got the ball rolling on this nightmare.
