Gender Equivalidity
People can be deemed equal in worth without any bit of need to adhere to one mold. Crucial is value, not sameness.
Gender equality?
Men and women are not equal at the outside, nor at the inside ― least of all at the mental side. Therefore, the term gender equality sounds forced. The more one goes into genders, the less it makes sense.
Trying to make them somehow equal – for instance, for fear of disrespect – may end in not respecting any individual for what he/she truly and naturally is. This way, any person gets excessively pushed into a mold of equality.
There is little respect in making a circle by breaking a square.
Equivalidity
There is more respect in making a circle by empowering a square (or triangle). This starts by valuing the square for what he is before molding him into something else like a circle.
Seeing equal value in different people is the challenge, not asking them to be the same for the sake of equal value.
Young, old, black, green, male, or any other gender ― these characteristics should not be the source for seeing different value. In equal validity, people have all freedom to be different ― or equal.
Whence the striving for equality?
At least in some cases, this may come from a rather mechanistic view of the human being. If genders can be readily made equal, that means the in-depth differences – including many subtle ones – are not so crucial, and a lot of what people feel to be gender-related can be dismissed.
This feels like making things less or unimportant. In this manner, the equality in value gets realized by making everything less valuable, at the same time more interchangeable.
On the other hand, of course, gender non-equality can also be a mold used by some culture to divide the sexes and subdue one more than the other. A reaction to this molding should not be the installation of another mold. That would be like jumping from one box into another box.
What degree of non-equality is optimal?
The question is not readily answerable.
Well, yes, that’s what I can say about it. I guess the only reasonable answer can be given at an individual level. Here, it is an ethical question. Aurelian ethics may be some guideline.
What is sure – and fascinating – is that it can always remain a challenge.
Wild orchids
Wild orchids have an individually independent attitude concerning gender. That doesn’t mean they strive for equality; quite the contrary.
No two natural orchids – the flowers – are the same. They’re all pretty different, which makes them more beautiful and interesting. It’s the same in the human case.
Wild orchids are free ― no need for any degree of equality to attain natural equivalidity. They are spontaneously themselves, respecting themselves and others plainly as they are.
Nothing human is unimportant.
Everything human is infinitely valuable if only correctly treated.
Related Posts
Poetry is Not the Absence of Rationality
Nevertheless, to many people, it seems to be so. I find this dangerous. It sets both against each other and precludes a nice being-human in full potential. [see also: “Rationality and Poetry”] Mistrusting ‘the expert’ Experts frequently bend on their rational stance to lend them authority to speak and even decide what others should do. Read the full article…
From Sexual Harassment to Being a Gentleman
A ‘no’ is a no, even between quotation marks. In any ambivalent situation, you should not sexually harass any woman – or man – in any way. But we should start tackling this issue from a positive side… To me, ‘gentleman’ is still a nice word. I hope it will stay so forever. What it Read the full article…
Culture Changes when Top-Down meets Bottom-Up
Not separately from each other, but intertwined and as though mutually attracted ― making it personal. Sustainable change is culture change. Top-down (through rules and regulations, encompassing changes on a big scale) This may work when also being carried from the bottom up. This means that rules should only be enacted after the bottom-up has Read the full article…