I do love how the stupid comment is refuted by a purposely stupid comment that perfectly refutes the first stupid comment in the same realm of stupidity. This is gonna blow some idiots mind.
Because turning addition into an analogy about gender it's meaningless and stupid, but we've got this weird obsession with turning shit into metaphors and pretending that it proves something.
I was so fricken stressed five years ago when I got divorced because of all the noise. A year later I had full custody and I didn’t have to do anything other than be present for them and be willing to take on the full burden of their care, school, doctors, housing, meals, clothes, etc. Their mom eventually moved a long distance away a couple years later so they don’t get to see her much which kind of sucks but I wonder how many whiny ass fathers actually walk the walk vs flapping their jaw.
Well to a certain degree I guess. They're never going to be as equal as numbers can. What is even meant by men and women being "equal"? Equality of opportunity?
this comes up in math too. there are many situations where we don’t need mathematical objects to be platonic copies to treat them “equally” so we work with equivalence relations instead.
It's been my experience that people who value equality don't care about the nitty gritty of what it means, because it's a value. An ideal. And if you hold equality as an ideal, that means it's always something to work towards. Inqualities are triaged, but they're all something that we should overcome in the name of fairness and egalitarianism.
Someone always brings up "equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome" when they want to disrupt and derail people who value equality by getting them to wrestle in the mud about how much equality is too much. And, to be frank, it feels like you're trying to throw the "equality of outcome" wrench into the gears here, and I don't believe that is ever done in good faith.
What's the problem with equality of outcome? What does it even mean? Where does the objection come from?
Simply put, it comes from resentment. It comes from the idea that "I worked hard, so I deserve a better quality of life than someone I choose to believe worked less hard!" And that's just a long way of saying "I believe I am more deserving than someone else".
But why? Often this comes from people who already have a certain level of comfort in life believing that they hold more right to that comfort, safety, and happiness than someone else. Too often in this sphere, it comes from people who liked tech and did well in technical subjects in school believing that that entitles them to a higher quality of life than someone who wasn't interested in or had no special aptitude for those subjects. But shouldn't one of the freedoms that comes from equality being the freedom to find joy in what you want? Why should I be rewarded more lucrative Ly than you for enjoying something different?
And if I don't enjoy it, should it really make sense for me to suffer at something I don't enjoy for the sake of wealth? Maybe the equality of outcome is really the equal ability to experience joy, and comfort, and security no matter what we enjoy and how we invest our time? If the world has the resources to allow it, then why should one person be punished for chasing their joy while another is rewarded?
The answer usually boils down to "I made better decisions, so I should be rewarded!" which is just another way of saying "people who make mistakes should be punished!"
And that seems like bullshit. What kind of world is that? Where people aren't safe to make mistakes (and this is ignoring the idea that someone's passion can be considered a mistake)? Where they're punished for trying something different? Or for not jumping on a trend? Where safety and comfort are used as crudgles to force people to do things that make them miserable?
Because that's really what "what do you mean by equality?" is really saying.
you do have a point in the sense that if we live in a utopia, I think there is good reason to think that it shouldn't matter what choices people make, they all get the same 'reward'/financial outcome/etc.
You said:
If the world has the resources to allow it, then why should one person be punished for chasing their joy while another is rewarded?
Yes okay, but what if there are limited resources? Or a world that needs improvement? Isn't it then better to incentivize people to work hard to make our world of limited resources a world of abundance? If yes, then it means to give those a higher reward at the expense of those who made "other choices".
Are we now living in a world of limited resources / that needs improvement? If yes, then it would probably be justified to take from those who made "other choices"
What is event meant by man and women being "equal"?
That we're all human beings who deserve to not have our gender determine what we can and cannot do? I think that's pretty obvious. In practice, of course, we're not there yet. Misogyny is rampant and insidious. But the goal in my mind is for gender to just legitimately not matter at all, outside of, like, romantic and sexual relationships.
Nobody is just man or woman and nothing else. We all have a huge number of traits that all together make us individuals. From the physical like size, hair and so on to the mental, what we enjoy, what interests us and so on.
King Charles, the Rock and me are men. Solely on gender we are the same. But people would be quick to point out all the differences.
Plus a whole huge swathe of problematic gender expectations to squash to boot.
No, it's not about squashing the identities themselves, it's about squashing the gendered expectations. Women shouldn't be expected to know how to do laundry, cook, or avoid dirty jobs. Men shouldn't be expected to be tough and "walk off" injury and trauma, etc.
Sure, only some are "different", but remember: It's not about dissing or removing the identities themselves, (outside of the highly problematic ones like the very machismo man) it's about not setting them as expectations for everyone.
Laundry and cooking are basic life skills and most people regardless of gender should know how to do those tasks. No one should be expected to be doing those tasks because of their gender.
Women shouldn’t be expected to know how to do laundry, cook, or avoid dirty jobs. Men shouldn’t be expected to be tough and “walk off” injury and trauma, etc.
I know I'm walking a fine line, but still, in general, women have certain interests/traits and thus have their own skills/tendencies: care for children, avoid dirty jobs, etc. And men are tougher thus can more easily "walk off" injury and trauma. So when you see a man and a woman in an accident, both relatively little wounded, would it be morally bad to say to the man "you can probably walk it off", and to the woman "do you need more help with that?" ? Because there is just a higher probability of this being the case. This shouldn't obviously taken for granted, but if you don't know them, and the injuries are right in the middle where you kind of expect them to be okay, but are just on the verge of asking/stating anyway, you would say these things and thus distinguish between them based on gender. Is that so bad?
The math assumes they're equal before writing the two sides of the equation. But in truth what's being proposed would be written as follows:
1+4 = 2+3
Um, no. :-)
But here's a question for you;
"What do women, as a whole, contribute to society?"
Now here's the fun part….. Women screech; "We are not baby making machines!!!"
Beside the fact that yes, they are in fact, literally designed for growing babies, giving birth, feeding and nuturing babies. So yes, considering medical folks have referred to the human body as a "living machine", then they literally are "baby making machines". But given how women get all kinds of upset when men say that's a woman's main purpose, what's funny is that every woman I've ever asked the question (above), without even thinking about it has replied with; "We make babies!". :-)
And I always reply; "Nope! Sorry, but you don't get to answer with that, because…..
It takes a man and a woman to make a baby, not just you.
You women keep flying off the handle when men mention women having babies, so you don't get to hypocritically use it now. But I want you to notice that while you claim that women "don't need men" and you could survive without men around, when asked what women contribute to society, the only thing you could think of was having babies. And even that you can't do without men.
Less and less women are having babies, causing nations infected with the mind-virus called "feminism" to fall below the required replacement rate, thereby causing them to soon die. In fact, by 2030, almost half of women between 20 & 45, will be childless and alone for the rest of their lives. The female response? To blame men and then continue on doing the same things that are causing the problem.
So no, the narcissistic "we make babies" false claim is out! And since you can't think of anything else and nations are now actually dying thanks to you women, that means that according to you, women are literally useless in a society, since by their own admission, they contribute nothing to society and in fact are a drain on it, since as a whole, for every $1.00 that women pay in taxes, they (as a whole) suck out from the government, via women only programs, etc., et al, about.$1.50 and that means that it's men, as always, paying for women. Women that they do not even know!
So tell me, how does any of that add up to "men and women are equal"?
:-)
the best part of this dumb comment is that the only way it's right is if you fail at basic arithmetic that single-digit-age children could correct you on
it's a perfect metaphor for sexists and transphobes