IvoryBlackBishop wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 9:01 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:27 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:18 pm
Bravo.
Now answer the question above...if you can.
Aaaaaaand....
It's gone quiet.
No wonder. It cannot be done. There
is no such middle position. Either a difference exists, or no difference exists.
Either the Egalitarian Feminists are right, or the Difference Feminists are right. But not both. It's not even possible.
I find that dichomtic; the differences "may exist" but without contextualization to determine when, where, and to whom they are relevant, it ends up just being a source of "argument".
The problem is not "dichomtic" to use your word; it's not that it's either one or the other. That's no problem. The problem is what to make of the fact that it's one or the other.
One of the silly prejudices of our society is to think that any realization that compels a choice must, automatically, be "oversimplified," or "too narrow," or something like that. But there are choices where there is no other choice; and in such cases, waiting for a third option is just irrational.
For example: This thing's alive; this thing is non-living. The light switch is on; the light switch is off. A difference exists; a difference does not exist. These are examples of dichotomies that are real. And all one can do is accept there are only those two options, and deal. To deny them, in the name of being "moderate" is simply irrational and silly. But that's what our society prefers us to do.
I don't see why the mere existence of "differences" should interfere with human potential in individualized cases or scenarios.
Well, with things like the examples you list (mere careers) it may not...or not much. But that's a later matter. The present matter is to decide if there are any essential differences at all -- whether it's even worth recognizing that there are such things as men and women, or we should just get over it and call everybody "person."
Here's the problem in Feminism:
If you are a man, there is no way you're ever going to 'get' everything that a woman brings to the equation. Something essential, precious and unique dwells in being female. (Diversity Feminism).
or
A woman is nothing in essence, and a man is nothing in essence. They're essentially the same. All distinctions are arbitrary. (Egalitarian Feminism)
But Egalitarian Feminism has a further irrationality inherent to it. Because if Egalitarian Feminism is true, then you can't essentially BE either one.
There's nothing to "be." Rather, "man" and "woman" are just things you
call yourself, but which have
no essential referent in reality.
So if anybody's got any kind of rational case, it's the Diversity Feminists. But there are still some problems with that case, and they involve the question of WHAT feature makes the essence of femaleness. Diversity Feminists themselves don't agree on that.
And it might well have implications for later concerns, and even on the much later concern you mention, of what careers fit the essence. But that's waaaay down the line. At the moment, all we're trying to figure out is which way people want to side.