|
PeonForHer -> RE: Sub guys: Do you have contempt for dominant men? (6/30/2011 8:07:04 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: milfyclass
Hmm interesting. Would like to know more.
The thing is, milfyclass, there's now a broad and very entrenched acceptance of the principle of the individual, not any given group of people, as the crucial unit to be considered in an ethical, political or social context. The upshot of this is that there isn't any way of formulating a 'matriarchal philosophy' that can be actualized - put into real-world practice.
Here's an example. Say that there's broad agreement that women should have lead men. How is that principle going to work in any given, day-to-day situation? Say you have one woman, Ms X, and three men all applying for a job to run the Physics department in a school. Do you give the job to Ms X, who has no experience of teaching Physics at all, or to one of the males, one of whom is called Prof Einstein and has proven himself rather good at Physics in the past?
If you go for the woman, on the basis that 'women should lead', then you will have literally been acting out of prejudice. You'll have *prejudged* her to be the better leader on the basis of her sex. In principle it wouldn't be any different to choosing someone for the job on the basis of his/her race. Thus, most people agree that the only fair way and reasonable way to choose that new person to run the Physics department - or to lead anything else in society - is on the basis of any given person's individual qualities (or lack thereof).
Now, if you were to say, 'We need to recognise feminine qualities much more, and prioritise those much more in our search for leadership roles' - then I might well agree. But, again, we're stuck with the same problem of actualizing that in reality. Women, as a whole, may well have feminine qualities in greater abundance than men, as a whole. But you're not looking for either sex 'as a whole' to take any given leadership role, you're looking for *one individual*. What do you do if you have two candidates for a counsellor's job at a school - one of whom is a Mrs L. Borgia, the other of whom is a Mr St Peter?
What it boils down to is this: what we don't need is new prejudices on the basis of which we can organise our societies. What we *do* need, I think, is more reason, and more fairness, about organising society on the basis of human qualities that we want, rather than the presumed, and prejudged, 'holders' of those human qualities - be those holders of said qualities whites, middle-class people, men or women.
|
|
|
|
