Why Women Should Stop Striving for Equality

This is a nuanced approach to the issue of feminism and equal rights for women:

https://video-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xpa1/v/t42.1790-2/11715660_10153458441771323_894442496_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjMxNSwicmxhIjo2OTl9&rl=315&vabr=175&oh=33c2cb3fd53531815ca331ef539a8a95&oe=559D51F9

Link didn't work for me, but all people should strive for success perhaps! Equality should be expected IMO. The striving for equality is probably the result of someone striving for success but being restricted by some aspect... in this case gender.

I had to search for the video. It's an interesting view and one I don't necessarily completely agree with, but it was worth watching. I think it's worth thinking about that the message that modern women's rights group project to the world can be very focused on getting equality by having more women in positions of power like CEO's of companies. It's interesting to compare her message with the message presented by Sheryl Sandberg.

Adder wrote: Link didn't work for me, but all people should strive for success perhaps! Equality should be expected IMO. The striving for equality is probably the result of someone striving for success but being restricted by some aspect... in this case gender.

My bad, I assumed it would work.

The argument is that in striving for equality, who exactly should women try to be equal to? Men? But men aren't even equal amongst themselves, there are vast differences between men, so which ones should women try to be equal to exactly?

The argument this woman makes is that instead of striving for equality, women should strive for liberation. The difference? Liberation, unlike equality, doesn't try to make social expectations the same for men and women, rather it seeks to redefine our concepts of social expectation.

Rather than trying to make everyone fit into a system which has already been defined, liberation is about rebuilding the system so that it takes into account the differences between people. Don't get people to fit the mold, get the mold to fit the people.

Weirdly that link worked on my phone earlier but no longer works.

It's hard to discuss liberation without asking what we're being restrained against. It suffers from the same problem as arguing that women should strive for equality when you don't know what to be equal to.

I did write a lot more, but it was more a rant so I decided against it.

I can't get the link either; therefore, I will root in given topic: Why Woman Should Stop Striving for Equality.

?

The first premise is, they are opposite from men, not equal. Huh? Yes, in terms of their function opposite the male function in making another human.

Second premise is about feminine nature. What does this mean? In this emanation from the first, not all woman are predominantly feminine natured. One could be the opposite end of the range of feminine/masculine range, of masculine nature, whether one is a child bearer or not.

Equality of gender is impossible in the first premise.

Now with the second premise, here is a rewrite for the male species.

Second premise is also about masculine nature. What does this mean? In this emanation from the first, not all men are predominantly masculine natured. One could be the opposite end of the range of masculine/feminine range, of female nature, whether one is raising a child or not.

Because gender equality is an impossibility, it would serve humanity better to drop it on that basis.

Would not humanity and each of us that strive for equality on a voluminous range of platforms be better served with a more practical, natural root (2nd frame) versus one that does not exist (1st frame)?

Depends what kind of equality we're taking about, mareeka.

Also I don't understand your last sentence, I'm sorry.

Edan wrote: Depends what kind of equality we're taking about, mareeka.

Also I don't understand your last sentence, I'm sorry.

Hopefully, Edan, this speaks to both statements.


It seems to be human nature to first strive for more (which is not bad or good) and yet it seems it is also in the nature of humans to, at times, strive to make the outer factors change when changing ourselves may better serve everybody.

So yes, where is this equality we are talking about? In what frame, on what platform, am I desiring equality? Between what and what? Where are the fact about those things?

If it starts with human male and female being equal; well they are not. In that sense, I have to agree with the thread topic if it means gender equality. Regarding all other desires of equality, I must examine the practically and purpose of each and how it exists outside of me.

I want to be taller, not with high heels, just a foot taller. Yes, I want to be 6 foot six to look my partner eye to eye. Lol. If he joins a club for people over 6 feet tall, I am excluded. Do I fight for equal rights?

I just read Akkarin's commentary on what the link is about; i.e., after my two posts.

Yes, a new frame for the movement of woman in society.

Didn't find the video, but I've had some thoughts of my own on this.

Yeah, we are not 'equal' (same). Cultures evolve even more than species do, and have an effect on the latter's biological evolutionary path ("Fitting in" has always been as much a fitness factor as physical attractiveness or skills).
But even ignoring the effect of delusions about deity-granted mandates, Homo sapiens have sexual dimorphism. Other animals have gender roles, we should stop pretending we are above them in this.

Now, don't take me wrong. Can a woman be a great soldier? Sure. Can a father rise a child as well as a lone mother could? I believe so. But the performance, as well as the ease of falling into the role, are subtly affected by things like hormones - which differ between us more than we care to admit. And greatly affected by society's expectations, and ideas we are programmed at childhood with, like the term "the fairer sex" - and that is what we should ditch.
"You can be try you like, but here's where you may have a small advantage" is a good thing to tell a child, I think.

Of course, it depends on the individual. In general, I believe most roles one can take can be fulfilling, we just need to ditch the idea that dominant, independent people are somehow more respectable than those who dedicate themselves to support.
-"Are you content with, and successful at, this?"
-"Very, on both counts."
-"You have my respect. And envy."


A small issue I take with the title, though: Why only about *women* striving for equality ?