Gender Balancing: The Checklist

Okay, I’ve got a random comment about the Gender Balancing article I posted up, which brought up a very pertinent idea about the whole gender equality thing .I’ve thought up of a few things in the meanwhile. So here’s a running list of thing I basically thought up, in process.

1. It is true that there can never be true gender equality due to physical differences. If there were no differences, the concept of gender would be useless and it would degenerate into mere role-play in which a person can role-play better or worse than other people. Physical differences play a very big part in defining gender.
2. Thus, we cannot ever neglect physical differences. Gender assymetries (if I can actually use that term… I don’ t think there are gender symmetries) Pregnancy, menstrual cycles are all valid challenges and experiences that must be given the due respect and accomodation.
3. However, beyond the physical differences, we are first and foremost individuals, then gender roles second. That means that we as free-willed units of consciousness, and we have our aspirations and our usefulness to society first. Then only our roles as the male gender, female gender, parent, grandparent, spouse come into play as challenges and obligations.
4. No doubt that sometimes our roles and aspirations conflate, and there is nothing wrong with that. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be a good parent or a good spouse.
5. Thus, can you can you aspire to be a good “male gender”? Or a good “female gender”? (I will not argue about the exact meaning of good. You know what it means.) Can there be such a thing as a examplary “female” — in the sense of an exemplary parent, an exemplary spouse, and the opposite of an exemplary individual? We have to separate the conception of the excellence at being a person, and the conception of excellence at a social role.
6. The idea is to devalue to concept of gender, strip it of its excess denotations and connotations, and free it from the use as an oppressing and stereotyping force.

What does this mean?

1. Should we reject post-feminism? Should we give our respect to women who abuse their sexuality? But here, I have to define abuse, and for the plague of young girls in search of role-models stumbling upon Paris Hilton and her dumb-down culture, I have to appeal to another principle which I have not introduced, namely that the conception of the end of man is the whole and harmonious development of his/her abilities. I don’t think pretending to be dumb for the sake of appealing to the opposite gender will develop any abilities in the long-run. Perhaps also its sends out the broad message that all men want is sex. No doubt that
2. In as many things as possible, we are equals.
3. I hope that in the end, I can justify that men ought not to respect women who abuse their sexuality, as much as women ought not to respect men who are perverts.
4. [Edit: 16 May] The only acceptable reason why you should discriminate positively is that you like someone. You can treat your friends better, you can treat your crush better (regardless of your sexual orientation). Otherwise it should be fair treatment for all.

May 14, 2006.