by Scrolling through Twitter today, I bumped into the following:
What struck me is that this tweet helps to crystallize a problem that is had in intersex relations– the ideas of worth and equality.
Many use the words equality and worth interchangeably– they believe that in order for men and women to be consider equal they need to be of equal worth. This is why you see the measurements made in how much money each sex makes, how many positions each sex occupies on a business or government. These values validate the worth of the individual.
The problem is that these valuations are based on a flawed metric– they are based on how we determine a man’s worth.
Men and women are different in their configurations, and it logically follows that they would be different in valuation.
Tweet
But this is only where it started. The feminist movement succeeded in defining equality based on men’s scale and thereby started to request the benefits equivalent to man, but then realized (whether they knew it or not) that what they had done was make women “defective men”. In order to remedy this, the definition had to be changed again such that women’s strengths were part of what would be come an androgynous being both types of people could be compared to.
But this negates both sex’s strengths, punishes their weaknesses, and ends up with the mess that we have today.
In order to rectify this, we need to define clearly what men’s strengths and weaknesses are and what women’s strengths are. The definition of worth should be how we measure against the items in your type, rather than the other
But to answer my question from the title of the post– no, women are not the lesser sex. They may be called the weaker sex, but that’s not weaker in terms of grit, drive, etc, but as in more precious and valuable. Women are not less than, they are different. This should be a cause for celebration, not a time of trying to make men into defective women or women into defective men.
