Equal But Separate

I believe in equality across the board, especially in the basic things in life, such as employment and housing, but I also believe that there should be room for men and women to be by themselves with members of their own gender in private settings of their own choosing.  This is why I think that men-only clubs in England should not be forced to accept women as members, although, if they do so, then women should have the same rights and privileges as men.  We all need to get away from the opposite sex for a while, to be able to do and say things that one does not do in their company.

Ultimately, this may turn out to be a non-issue, since very few women will want to join a club that is predominantly male.  Men, certainly, would not join a woman's club.  Discrimination is only illegal when it is unreasonable, but, as I have pointed out, there are valid reasons for having separate institutions of this sort, that is to say, for leisure and recreation purposes, that in no way affect fundamental concerns of men or women.

Comments

  1. Alberto, the remarks that follow do not address the particular situation that you discuss in this entry. But here they go.

    Equality is a particularly elusive ideal. It seems that equality is nowhere to be found in political societies, including of course, ours; and that we were "equal" only when we were hunter/gatherers.

    One of the consequences of the agricultural revolution was the end of that "primitive" equality, a consequence of all members of the bands and tribes doing the same thing: hunt. Once there was surplus of food and thus no need to invest the time and talents of everyone in getting food, the social organization became complex and the dynamics of ambition and power made equality impossible to attain. Of course, two sinister, parasitical characters appeared to stay: The politician and the priest. And goodbye, equality.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Belgian Buggery

Hear, Hear!

Chinese Capitalism