Ragnarok wrote:There's taking it too far. As extreme examples, let's say they're looking for an actor to play the next James Bond... should an actress have an equal chance at the role?
Should a movie have quotas for male and female roles? What about different ethnicities, body shapes, physical abilities?
Should a white man blacked up have an equal chance to play a role written for an African person?
People don't want equality, they want the benefits of hard work without having to work hard, they want the rights but not responsibilities.
This is equality.
It depends what sort of society you want to create, one that rewards simple existence and relegates everyone to homogenized mediocrity or one that rewards competitiveness, ability and drive.
Should all athletics world records be condensed to unisex ones (effectively making women's athletic performances disappear from the record books)?
I don't see how this would change anything. The fastest woman alive would still be the fastest woman alive even if a million men could run faster than her.
I'm not sure I buy the "A man invented the car, so his entire gender gets credit and should assumed to be good drivers" argument.
That's your own interpretation of what I said.
Men are aggressive, competitive and take risks. This doesn't make them genetically competent, nor does it give them the right to mow down pedestrians. But you can't have one without the other.
I digress, this argument is tiresome. It's more satisfying to sit back and roast marshmallows than try and fight the flames.