There are things like this that get under my skin too... Not just the inequity? inequality? injustice? in male-female relations where one is given preferential treatment beause of historical imbalance. I am thinking in the cases of child custody, teaching, sex offences etc. I am not against women having seperate spaces at Uni, but I have trouble coming to terms with the exclusion for the sake of equality argument.
There is also the point of race, which is more important to me than sex (in the context above). I do not mind the fact that Maori get redress for the injustices done to them in early European involvement in NZ, but when policies are laid out that SPECIFICALLY target Maori people for general welfare it begins to piss me off. It may be that there are more Maori people in poverty/ill health etc, but target the ill health or poverty, NOT the people suffering from it. I am sure that people like John Tamihere or Donna Awatere-Huata dont need the help anywhere as much as white trash living in a trailer outside wellytown
I think the point I am trying to make is this:
Sure there was inequality in the past, but is the path to true equality walked by those who address the imbalance through yet more inequality? Equality is not something that can be reached by adding a bit more to the opposite side of the scales.
Note that I am not sure on the nuances of equality and equity, but I hope I got my point across.
Bookmarks