I am sure that some "feminists" argue for equality across the board, despite that being impossible in nature....
Some.
However, for the main part "equality" that the feminist movement strives for is about opportunity. I know that then becomes a messy idea for those who would argue in favour of the present inequitable situation though, because it is a fair, logical and irrefutable position to hold.
Physically, emotionally and developmentally we are (in a general sense) different. Does different though automatically become a default position of inequality?
It seems to me that taking a strengths based viewpoint then, once again the "equality" argument becomes a bit fraut.
CW is right, we are not all equal and, this is not just on the basis of gender, however, it would be disingenuous
to suggest that this somehow refutes any/all arguments about equality on the basis of opportunity.
Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 28
th, 2015 at 5:17pm:
As I stated before, those in power are usually there for a reason: skilled, knowledgeable, wealthy, intelligent, outgoing, extroverted, courageous, confident.
That was a fairly stupid and inaccurate position to take the first time around, it is no smarter now.
More often than not, those in power are their because of nothing more than their personal desire and their predatory instinct. That said, the wealth one is pertinent, being wealthy can happen to any idiot, it is certainly no bench mark for "power" or superiority (well except in the minds of the already wealthy or those who superficially strive for great wealth at the expense of basic humanity).
In fact, those in power often demonstrate the problems with inequality with regard to
opportunity.
Then we get to freedom and equality being inexorably linked. They are.
Like I say, this debate is mostly (in my humble opinion) about freedom to be honest.
I would also, in a small part, agree with CW that equality is neither a natural state or one that can be achieved, at the end of the day. True to some degree, however, this further supports my position that the argument is about freedom.
Freedom to earn the same money as the person one works beside, regardless of race, gender, religion or even 457 visa status.
Freedom to apply and attain jobs, based on genuine capacity.
Freedom to negotiate fairly about house care, child raring, being the bread winner.
Freedom to choose who to (or not to sleep with) without being unfairly judged or discriminated against.
Freedom to come and go as one pleases.
Hell, even freedom to be a dag if one so chooses.
The inequities that Mother Nature provided us were, presumably for us to fullfill certain roles within a natural environment. The social constructs that create inequity though, are changeable, false and harmful and, while ever we argue for them, maintain them and support them then freedom is a delusional ideal we will never ascertain.
And that is at a time where, at least in some areas, we have probably the most freedom en masse that we have ever experienced. Yet, that is not experienced unilaterally.
Finally, to those who gave it, thank you for the positive feedback, that is most appreciated.