Balderdash! - Comments
an obedient feminist would rebut with the "get yourself an ovary" argument
Would they get penises?
Personally, I certainly think that if there is to be a draft, women as well as men should be drafted. I don't, however, think that in most societies a draft is necessary or even vaguely defensible, so the point is moot.
I don't get the impression that Zubaty really wants women to register for the draft, though; I get the feeling he is more interested in the second part of his conclusion: "stop yapping about [equality]." The entire article is dedicated to defending the "bio-imprinted" natural order whereby supposedly, "[men] are dedicated to protecting and providing for [women]", for instance via war (never mind for a moment when war is actually protective and when it isn't), and women shut up and show due deference and don't seek equal rights. He just wants us all to shut up about any changes, which is kind of weird, because you'd think if the draft (which, by the way, in America, no longer exists) was such a horror, he should be joining feminists in railing against all parts of that grossly misguided order - draft, subservience, all of it.
Why would someone who supposedly loves protecting women and yearns for nothing more than it want women to shut up about the forms we think real equality and the true protections of social justice would take? It's a mystery to me...
On Zubaty and his ilk:
http://crimitism.wordpress.com/2...ptilian-agenda/
Actually I think that speaking of total equality between two different groups is not only impossible, but incoherent.
A more coherent and practical aim is equal consideration of relevant attributes.
He is not against any kind of change - recall that he has "no problem with women becoming senators, CEOs, or Supreme Court Justices". He also points out that women control more wealth than men.
And anyway the bigger moral (as with the comic) is more instructive - people fight harder for their rights than their responsibilities.
Part of his point is "either take up this particular responsibility, or stop talking about equality." But it's also clear he doesn't actually want women to "take up this particular responsibility" because he sees it as the appropriate province of the male. So the upshot is, no, he doesn't want change - he just wants what he thinks is a knock-down argument against change.
Moreover, if you think about it, the world he proposes is rather creepy. If men are the protectors, who are they protecting from? Presumably, men in other societies, if those societies are similarly organised. What is the quid pro quo for the protection? Presumably, women not fighting for equal rights. What is this picture when looked at in a wider perspective? That's right, two sets of men defending their respective property in two sets of women - or, at best, not protection but a protection racket. No wonder women can't just shut up and be grateful, eh?
I know you think MacKinnon is barmy, but she has done some very interesting work on equality jurisprudence that addresses precisely your point above (re "relevant attributes"). You've adopted the traditional Aristotelian model of "equality" - treat likes alike and unlikes unlike - but she points out there is nothing in that that is substantively incompatible with, say, the Holocaust ("the Jews are unalike, and should be exterminated"), or general welfare improvement (lowering everyone to the lowest common denominator of poor treatment is not a useful political goal). Instead, she says, the focus should be on the presence of hierarchical dynamics in any social arrangement, and the social creation of difference which is then reinforced by treating those who have been made different, differently. That is the reason why "separate but equal" is a contradiction in terms; the separation marks a hierarchy. It's very interesting stuff. (She also has a big go at postmodernists, which you might enjoy.)
Did you read the Crimitism link? It's quite funny.
Sorry, one more note on the MacKinnon framework... she thinks it's worth asking, why dominant groups don't have to demonstrate they are the same as anyone else to receive equal treatment! Instead they are the default from which others are measured - which means that the Aristotelian "do you differ in a relevant attribute" approach has hierarchy built in.
Just because unalikes are unalike does not mean that they can be treated arbitrarily. Claiming that Jews are unalike and can be exterminated is simply bad faith, for it gives us a simplistic dichotomy: either pretend everyone is the same (and get upset when the consequences of people not being the same occur), or else we all kill each other. The focus should instead be on treating people by considering relevant characteristics.
If you are against 'separate but equal' then you'd be in favour of unisex toilets. Pfft.
Crimitism was alright (a little unfair).
The point isn't that Aristotelian logic mandates killing the unalikes but that it doesn't substantively address the underlying hierarchy that makes killing them okay. The choice to kill them was consistent with the traditional equality model, which doesn't have a substantive welfare aspect to it. MacKinnon is not saying that "treat likes alike and unlikes unlike" is wrong, just that it's limited.
There's a lot to be said for unisex toilets, but it isn't an issue I've researched so don't really have an opinion. I can see the case both ways.
I do want women to register for the draft. Yes, I want women to shut up and be grateful. If you cant be grateful when you live longer on average than men, control most of the money, make the majority of the population, and make up the minority of the war dead, and never have had to sacrifice themselves to protect others, than I guess one just cant be grateful at all.
Don't forget being the bigger gender in college enrolment.
Commenting by HaloScan
