3 ms·
'Welcome to life, it isn't equal, and never will be.' Right, that is 'life' in the sense that it is, to some partial extent - and I say partial because women r
by Emma_Goldman 8y ago
'Welcome to life, it isn't equal, and never will be.'
Right, that is 'life' in the sense that it is, to some partial extent - and I say partial because women regularly successfully reintegrate back into the work force, and many employers don't have your dim view of things - the existing state of things. But humans, if you had not noticed from the ideological and political revolutions of the last three-hundred years, can change and improve society. It is simply factually and politically absurd to say that X is reality at the moment, so X should or must always be reality. You would not say that of the various inequalities - of sex, race and class - of the past, so why say it now?
'Maybe we should stop trying to make the playing field level and just appreciate and celebrate the differences.'
There is nothing intrinsically valuable in 'difference', e.g. a master is different from his slave, but that hardly justifies the difference. So no, I don't think we should bathe in the glory of our inequalities, and chastise people who think we could do better.
- jaxtellerSoA 8y ago>There is nothing intrinsically valuable in 'difference' There is nothing intrinsically valuable in equality. FTFY
- Emma_Goldman 8y agoI said what I meant - obviously - so you didn't 'fix' anything. I was arguing against your suggestion that inequality - and the ways in which society is gendered to the disadvantage of women in particular - is a natural part of 'life' that we should just fatalistically reconcile ourselves to. Maybe I was wrong, and you don't object to equality on empirical grounds (although perhaps they were never serious, anyway), but because you're an anti-egalitarian reactionary.