先說明，我從來都不贊成男女平等。
所謂平等是指什麼呢？雙方的權利抑或責任？可是，自神創造天地，造亞當&夏娃，就沒有允諾過兩人是平等的。他們都有不一樣的專長和能力，肩負不一樣的任務。正如我常掛在口邊的一句話：只要還是女人生孩子，就不會有男女平等。
我沒有看過太多專論性別權利的社會學名著，只是從有限的視野出發。一直覺得高呼男女平等，爭取女權的女人難免帶點自我貶低的矛盾。為何要平等？因為覺得別人對你不公平。為何覺得不公平？因為要生仔、煮飯、洗衫。做這些就是不公平嗎？就是低等動物嗎？做CEO才是醒目嗎？也不見得。
她們所追求的平等是什麼呢？我一直搞不清楚。是不是碼頭苦力不聘任妳也是不公平？那麼，中國城不聘任男陪酒又公平不公平？男人不做家務就不公平？那麼，女人也犯不著臭罵男人「沒有風度」了。況且，法律只保障十六歲以下少女免受性侵犯，那也是不平等嗎？
一旦進入「平等」的死胡同，凡事須跟男人看齊：摃摃抬抬不在話下(雖然很多人以生理結構不一而推諉，那不過是以「平等」為口號鼓吹不平等的極多例子之一)，隨時一家八口等開飯，被人話「餓死老婆(女人的就是老公了)瘟臭屋」，又或者「懦夫」、「潺仔」之類。
若你追求男女平等，又拒絕以上「形容詞」，即是「有些人比另一些人更平等」(Somebody is more eaual then others)。把所有事都算到「平等」的頭上去，以此為藉日去綁架別人的權利也「平等」不到哪裡去。
我可不要什麼男女平等，劃地自限，逼得自己以女人的能力(專長)，勉強成就男人的責任，同時搶來了男人的權利，也失去了女人的權利。
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality." Dante Alighieri
發表文章
1 則留言:
Apparently there are different kinds of discrimination. Some of them are economically efficient, some not. The first kind I like to term it as stereotype discrimination, which is the case when a group of people sharing one same characteristics have substantial disadvantage, on average, in doing certain task. While hiring someone, it makes economic sencse to screen the whole group of people out simply base on that particular characteristics (so gender in this case) because employers save some time and effort to additional interviews.
The second kind, not surprisingly, is downright value-based discrimination. So employers are just biased against a certain group even there is no evidence for productivity difference. This is not economically efficient.
Of course, it is not as easy to distinguish one from another. But practically, asking for completely equal opportunities is very close to asking to eliminate both kinds of aforementioned discrimination. Extreme case is women should have equal opportunities (like 50%) to be employed as construction workers, which is ridiculous.
And women, given the responsibility of carriage, should, rightly receive the first kind of discrimination from a profit maximizing employers. But its arguable that up to a certain extent it becomes the second kind. Again, the line is blurred.
張貼留言