Under that logic, no one is equal. I knew a tall, reedy guy who was a great artist. I’m more average height, a little stocky, and am great at math. Are we equal because we both happen to save similar (quite likely not identical!) genitalia? I went to the same school as a women who was about my height, weighed a little less than me, seemed to have a good handle on math, and had a programming style so similar to mine that I couldn’t tell which of us wrote it unless I actually remembered writing it. Is she more or less equal to me than the guy I knew simply because of the greater difference (again, presumably) between our genitalia?
Tbh, yes, everyone is unequal. Everyone has unequal talents and abilities, everyone has unequal chances and reducing this down only to the gender is deeply lacking in understanding.
And this leads to very weird situations like actresses complaining that it’s discrimination if they only earn a hundred million for a movie because a male actor on the same movie earned two hundred million.
There’s certainly specific gender unfairness, e.g. the distribution of chores and work, but in many cases there’s far bigger discrimination along lines we really don’t care about.
For example, a female capitalist earns as much as thousands or even millions of other women, and yet there’s little tangible shitstorms against class devices compared to the shitstorms raging against gender divides.
So while feminism is certainly important, it sadly is often abused by the wealthy and governing classes to distract from the class conflict that is more and more of an issue.
To put it more pointedly: According to the German Wikipedia, the country with the best female to male gender pay ratio is Burundi. Because if nobody earns anything, everyone earns the same. And while the male and female peasants are fighting each other, the rich get to eat everyone’s share.
So, once again, equity is the goal and pointing out how there are differences on some arbitrary line detracts from that goal. On the other hand, giving everyone equal opportunities and equal access to support regardless of those differences so they can all reach some reasonable standard for quality of life helps to achieve that equity, whereas focusing on the lack of equity for some specific demographic may not.
Humans, as we’re the ones with advanced social organizational structures.
But you could go more broadly if you liked. From apes to ants, complex stigmas are an expensive and dubiously beneficial social construct. Keeping things simple is less expensive and more efficient for any large organization.
Can you explain why you think the default state of nature is equality though?
The short of it is that it takes more effort to discriminate from a bureaucratic perspective. Any system that is gender or color blind necessarily has fewer rules, exceptions, and contradictions. If you have a toll booth on a road and you collect a fee for passage, a flat fee is easier to implement than a complex gradient based on nebulously defined characteristics.
In a pure state of (human) nature, absent the economic surpluses of an industrial state, discriminatory practices are limited by their material costs. You only get to Victorian Era states of hierarchy and social sorting when you enjoy the kind of social surplus that can afford a professional class dedicated to policing and punishing people who are out of line. And - even then - this kind of discrimination is primarily enforced at the highest social scales. The neglected underclass and the rural counties aren’t dedicated resources to preempt miscegenation, to segregate the genders, or to enforce exotic codes of conduct common among the urban aristocracy.
Even if you truly believe that do you really want parents and society and the patriarchy continuing to enforce this shit for more generations?
Even if you believe in innate biological differences (which most people do) I still don’t want the principle steering my daughter into nursing and my son engineering because he’s too fucking lazy to do anything, repeat ad infinitum for every little bit of inherited “wisdom” every had decided they need to pump back into the world constantly.
If you want to get into jobs, look at stats for which genders did which jobs 100 years ago and then look at the data for today. Basically the same list. Mostly men are still fixing power lines and mostly women are still working at schools. The differences in biology make for different strengths and weaknesses and there’s literally nothing wrong with that
Also I hate to say this but the patriarchy is what allows feminism to exist so I think we are on a pretty good path right now
Men and women will never be equal just like any animal in nature
Under that logic, no one is equal. I knew a tall, reedy guy who was a great artist. I’m more average height, a little stocky, and am great at math. Are we equal because we both happen to save similar (quite likely not identical!) genitalia? I went to the same school as a women who was about my height, weighed a little less than me, seemed to have a good handle on math, and had a programming style so similar to mine that I couldn’t tell which of us wrote it unless I actually remembered writing it. Is she more or less equal to me than the guy I knew simply because of the greater difference (again, presumably) between our genitalia?
Tbh, yes, everyone is unequal. Everyone has unequal talents and abilities, everyone has unequal chances and reducing this down only to the gender is deeply lacking in understanding.
And this leads to very weird situations like actresses complaining that it’s discrimination if they only earn a hundred million for a movie because a male actor on the same movie earned two hundred million.
There’s certainly specific gender unfairness, e.g. the distribution of chores and work, but in many cases there’s far bigger discrimination along lines we really don’t care about.
For example, a female capitalist earns as much as thousands or even millions of other women, and yet there’s little tangible shitstorms against class devices compared to the shitstorms raging against gender divides.
So while feminism is certainly important, it sadly is often abused by the wealthy and governing classes to distract from the class conflict that is more and more of an issue.
To put it more pointedly: According to the German Wikipedia, the country with the best female to male gender pay ratio is Burundi. Because if nobody earns anything, everyone earns the same. And while the male and female peasants are fighting each other, the rich get to eat everyone’s share.
So, once again, equity is the goal and pointing out how there are differences on some arbitrary line detracts from that goal. On the other hand, giving everyone equal opportunities and equal access to support regardless of those differences so they can all reach some reasonable standard for quality of life helps to achieve that equity, whereas focusing on the lack of equity for some specific demographic may not.
Have you considered eating shit and dying?
Sane response to biological facts
Equality is easy to accomplish. It’s the default state of nature. You have to work overtime to discriminate.
How exactly is nature equal? There are literally spiders that eat their mates
Humans aren’t spiders and cannibalism is not a part of the human reproductive cycle.
Can you explain why you think the default state of nature is equality though? I can’t think of any species where this is true
Humans, as we’re the ones with advanced social organizational structures.
But you could go more broadly if you liked. From apes to ants, complex stigmas are an expensive and dubiously beneficial social construct. Keeping things simple is less expensive and more efficient for any large organization.
The short of it is that it takes more effort to discriminate from a bureaucratic perspective. Any system that is gender or color blind necessarily has fewer rules, exceptions, and contradictions. If you have a toll booth on a road and you collect a fee for passage, a flat fee is easier to implement than a complex gradient based on nebulously defined characteristics.
In a pure state of (human) nature, absent the economic surpluses of an industrial state, discriminatory practices are limited by their material costs. You only get to Victorian Era states of hierarchy and social sorting when you enjoy the kind of social surplus that can afford a professional class dedicated to policing and punishing people who are out of line. And - even then - this kind of discrimination is primarily enforced at the highest social scales. The neglected underclass and the rural counties aren’t dedicated resources to preempt miscegenation, to segregate the genders, or to enforce exotic codes of conduct common among the urban aristocracy.
Even if you truly believe that do you really want parents and society and the patriarchy continuing to enforce this shit for more generations?
Even if you believe in innate biological differences (which most people do) I still don’t want the principle steering my daughter into nursing and my son engineering because he’s too fucking lazy to do anything, repeat ad infinitum for every little bit of inherited “wisdom” every had decided they need to pump back into the world constantly.
If you want to get into jobs, look at stats for which genders did which jobs 100 years ago and then look at the data for today. Basically the same list. Mostly men are still fixing power lines and mostly women are still working at schools. The differences in biology make for different strengths and weaknesses and there’s literally nothing wrong with that
Also I hate to say this but the patriarchy is what allows feminism to exist so I think we are on a pretty good path right now
OK great but let people choose, not systems.
We do get to choose. And people still tend to stick to what they did before they couldn’t, interestingly enough