Who Really Exploits Women?

Re: # 1

kaka,

I see you continue to recycle an argument no one had responded to the few months ago when it first appeared....

Dawood,

Don`t think you`ve thought through this argument. But far be it from me to supply info that chowk writers eventually claim as their own....

Remember the revolutionary speech made by the boar in Orwell`s fable `Animal Farm`? Near the end of the speech, just before the vote on rats, he proclaims, `All men are enemies. All animals are comrades`. Even rats and rabbits.

Understandably, no human would be interested in joining a revolution which seeks to redress whatever grievances animals have. Not because of the open enmity enshrined in a charter, but for a simple realization that whatever rights animals receive, they will come at expense of humans` position of prestige and entitlement. However, there are some: PETA and for trees and some unanimate things, Greenpeace.

PETA`s motivation could probably be be summed up in the word `justice`. It seems to them that the appropriate way to deal with animals is to treat them kindlier. Greenpeace would make an argment about how everyone including humans benefit by being considerate to our environment. John Stuart Mill had something similar to say about the benefit of treating women as equals (more or less), not so much because of some Kantian Justice that must be done (he was utilitarain afterall), but because humanity in general would benefit by that move.

Between PETA/Kant and Greenpeace/Mill, two approaches emerge: Justice and Utility. Of course, there are the ocaasional deities who mix justice/utility with self-proclaimed wisdoms and various hells/heavens. some of us follow them.

One would think that any self-respecting woman, would clarify in her mind why she thinks any man should co-operate in giving women more rights, more whatever at the expense of a man`s sense of entitlement. For sure, some would argue that it is not a zero-sum scenerio. Mill has already argued that. But is this what the feminists also think? That the redress of women`s condition involves making a plea for utility and not justice? That kind of argument still remains to be popularized. Most of the time, the emphasis has been on shaming men into looking into the face of justice. Most men, understandably, have preferred to keep the status quo over the ethic of being just.

A transcendent approach to being just is to quit seeing individuals in terms of gender identities. Obviously, there are people on both side of the gender divide (male/non-male) who can be preferred over others on criteria other than genitals. An individual non-male, can benefit more by using this approach, then putting stock in the future of `sexual revolution`.