Quote:
Originally Posted by Livia
It's about WOMENS equality. Men have been more than equal for a long time. And women don't need men to lead us on this. But we do need your support.
I honestly don't see how anything else you've said relates to what I said.
|
Equality is equality, by definition you need more than one component to equalise. "Women's equality" is a meaningless statement... Women's equality to what? Ducks? Bridges? Small single engined light aircraft?
Likewise, "more than equal" doesn't make anything because "more" negates the use of "equal". Have men historically had more than women, have been on the "privileged side" of an imbalance? Yes, there was an entire absense of equality...
I suppose putting it simply; you can't balance an equation that only has one side. Achieving equality will fundamentally involve cooperation... Failure to understand that - insistence on becoming incensed at the very suggestion ("how dare an oppressor try to have an opinion on how this works!!") - is already extremely close to halting progress and slamming it into reverse. I just hope people realise that before it's too late
.
I fully support equality for all individuals. I fully accept that there are still many inequalities interwoven into society that affect that equality. But I completely reject the notion that "women en-masse", like some sort of homogenous hive-mind, are better positioned to understand and address those inequalities, than a collective of all individuals working cooperatively to achieve universal equality which would by definition achieve equality for women.