Gender equality?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Men and women are not equal at the outside, nor at the inside \u2015 least of all at the mental side. Therefore, the term gender equality<\/em> sounds forced. The more one goes into genders, the less it makes sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trying to make them somehow equal \u2013 for instance, for fear of disrespect \u2013 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is little respect in making a circle by breaking a square<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Equivalidity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Seeing equal value in different people is the challenge, not asking them to be the same for the sake of equal value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Young, old, black, green, male, or any other gender \u2015 these characteristics should not be the source for seeing different value. In equal validity, people have all freedom to be different \u2015 or equal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whence the striving for equality?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u2013 including many subtle ones \u2013 are not so crucial, and a lot of what people feel to be gender-related can be dismissed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What degree of non-equality is optimal?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The question is not readily answerable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a> may be some guideline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What is sure \u2013 and fascinating \u2013 is that it can always remain a challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n