by Greg Krehbiel on 7 April 2017
Yes, of course that sounds ridiculous, but it might be the next logical step for some common ideas about equality.
Let’s start with gentlemen’s clubs.
So-called women’s advocates objected to all-male clubs because a lot of business is done at those clubs. If women are excluded, they are disadvantaged.
I was going to say please don’t tell them that some business is done in the men’s room, but we’re already past that. Female sports reporters have to be admitted to the men’s locker room to make sure they have parity with the male reporters. It might only be a matter of time before we have to have mixed-sex bathrooms.
More recently, some people were concerned with the effect that VP Pence’s strict dinner and drinking policies might have on women’s career opportunities. If the VP has dinner alone with men, but not with women, doesn’t that put women at a disadvantage in their political careers?
But … what about simple attraction? We all know the male boss might treat the young female better than the young male. In the name of equality should we force him to have therapy to be attracted to both sexes equally? Or, perhaps, therapy to erase all traces of sexual attraction?
Actually, that would be better because right now ugly people are at a disadvantage against attractive people. If none of us had any sexual attraction at all, to anybody, think how much more “equal” the world would be.
And how boring.
IOW, there is something fundamentally wrong with trying to enforce “equality” on a sexual species. It’s just not going to happen.
2017-04-07 » Greg Krehbiel