1. If you get a chance to look at my closet, you'll see a whole lot of whites, blacks, reds and blues. The occasional pink. The rare violet. The elusive grey. And deep down, nestled between an old sweatshirt and a t-shirt eligible for pension, you'll find a yellow.
That is the yellow I paired with my dark blue jeans and sauntered off to college in, about a year ago. It had been just a week or so into the academic year, when I was still trying to put names to happy faces. The lecture was Political Science. I'm still unsure how that subject found its way into a course on business administration, but BBA is a mixed bag degree anyway. You learn a lot of something, and not much about anything. It's almost a conspiracy to ensure none of us gets too smart.
But I go astray.Back to Pol Science.
I have a somewhat permanent seat in a corner, towards the back of the class. And yes, I was dreaming of crop circles and what Jack Reacher would look like, if real. The professor was attempting to liven up his class by creating a debate. The necessity of female reservation. Same old same old. Women require governmental assistance. The word 'empowerment' was frivolously thrown around.
When all of a sudden I realized what a sexist turn the entire debate had taken, and how sexist the professor was himself. For the first time, the girl in the yellow t-shirt spoke up and denounced all such drivel. For quite some time after, class-mates came up to me saying, 'I know you. You're the girl in the yellow t-shirt, na?'
2. A girl was voted in as this year's Roadie(popular MTV reality show) ONLY because she was a girl, when far more deserving candidates(men in this case), were voted out because they were men.
You are sexist if you judge a person primarily on their gender.
History is peppered with instances of women being treated as second-class citizens. Primarily due to religion, and the orthodoxy associated with the same. Witch-hunting is a widely cited example. Ultimately, it was reason that succeeded and enabled women to demonstrate their ability on equal footing with men.
The basic premise for all moral evaluation is that we are free-willed individuals with the capacity to reason. It is my belief that a person should be judged by their chosen morals, and actions committed of their own free will. To judge somebody on factors that aren't freely chosen, is to ignore the only valid basis on which another human can be judged. It is completely irrational, and to that extent sub-human. We may be praised ad criticized for our actions, not on our skin colour and gender. Politically, this ideal translates into equality before the law; no discrimination against a person but no special favours granted either.
While humans are politically equal, they are not physically, intellectually or morally equal. But these are factors not determined by gender, race or sexual orientation, and therefore cannot be equalized by special treatment in terms of the same. Which makes egalitarianism a moot point in the political spectrum. Egalitarians make the point that humans are equal regardless of gender, sex, weight, skin colour. Yet, the practical effect of this is to give special treatment to certain groups over others based on their gender, sex, weight and skin colour. It is self-contradictory and hypocritical. A demand for political equality is turned into a demand for something more, when talk of reservations and quotas come into the picture.
Contrary to popular perception, a right is not an entitlement, rather it is a freedom. A freedom to choose.
It is the freedom to apply for a job, not freedom to be given a job because the employer wants to create a superficial diversity that looks good on paper.
It is the freedom to give a common entrance examination, and to be accepted into an institution based on your marks, rather than the colour of skin.
It is the freedom to work hard and merit a promotion, not freedom to be promoted to complete an "equality quota."
That is the major issue I have with feminism, the basic premise of which is that women are disadvantaged deliberately on the basis of gender. It conveniently evades the issue the reality that men and women are different; not intellectually, politically or morally, but physically and emotionally. There do exist natural differences between men and women, and denial of this fact is denial of sexual identity. And there are many tasks more suited to one gender than the other, and there does exist a natural preference for some occupations over the other by gender. Feminists do not argue for the situation to be more objective and tolerable for all, rather that women should be given a better shot for being women.
I am not oblivious to the fact that there are certain communities that are not treated fairly in the current system. Women. African Americans. The obese.The treatment meted out to them is far from perfect. Everything from sexism to racism to sexual ignorance is prevalent in societies all over the world, developed and under-developed.
But these are issues that need to fought ideologically. A pertinent role model who can shape cultured ideas and opinions is the requirement. Over-compensating these people with special benefits is not the answer. A sustained change in cultural mindset is.
