The film covered many things that chimed with the chapters "Boys, girls and freaks" and "Children". The ignorance paradox leans towards equalitism, which encompasses the feminism and men's rights movements. Equal share, equal opportunities and equal treatment of all people is seen by many as an ideal. It needs little reference to the gender assigned to people.
A claim shown in the film: It is largely men that die in war
The film presented figures showing the very high proportion of males who have been killed in wars. Two things run counter to this. In the UK, lots of women died in the factories supplying munitions, many others were made seriously ill. In the Vietnam war, only the numbers of American servicemen were mentioned. Vast numbers of Vietnamese women fought on the front lines and presumably died in battle. I suspect the ratio of men/women deaths was much closer for them. Around the world we are beginning to see more females take part in army duties and any imbalance could be temporary. As many women as men will most likely succumb to war related deaths when equal numbers join armies. Israel has a policy where all people of a certain age spend time in the army. On this note it has been shown that the difference in capability between the so-called sexes is minimal. A female candidate won a full-on competition, a training regime, carried out with the SAS, Spetsnaz, Australian special forces and navy seals.
Women in the top jobs
In terms of female representation in the highest offices in the land, there is hope that a better balance might arise. Things are improving. The UK general election of 2017 saw the highest number of successful MPs wining seats being of those classed as women. Whilst there are other movements taking hold that will wipe all of this away, there is potential and likelihood of a "there on merit" mentality prevailing in more places of the world.
In philosophy, we see many grey areas and oddities. We have a drink of water and then own the fluid until we urinate it. We care little for it once it passed out and meanders down the drain and into the river. You lose weight and part of you is gone. Thus; "It is in my body so therefore I can make the decision", can be viewed as an ugly argument.
I could be facetious and say that if I put you inside me I can do what I like with you. Eat you even. Once inside, no crime nor moral hazard. The entity inside the womb has the blueprints from 2 people and it could be argued that 2 people's wishes need to be taken into account when deciding upon abortion. Once at a certain stage of development, the fetus becomes a viable human being and owns itself. A fair, reasonable, honourable decision to abort or not would be made by the 2 providers of the blueprints. Is one party taking more of a risk? Yes of course childbirth is a dangerous game, but in modern times the death rate of mothers is low. They have stretch marks and other health issues to contend with alongside sacrifices (abstinence from smoking/drinking etc). Nevertheless, were a sperm provider to suggest that they transfer the fetus to another womb it takes away a lot of the ownership feelings. Guardianship replaces ownership.
Custody battles could be reframed. Strip out the bias, remove the terms "mother" and "father" and replace with person A and B, then decide which offers the most, with no knowledge what sex person A or B is described as. A genuine look at the events before the separation can be used to see who has shown to be the most fitting parent.
Take 'men', 'women', 'he', 'she' etc out of the argument
A transition to equalitism throws up some fun points. A government that previously offered free tampons to women, would be obliged to offer free tampons to all. The really young are unlikely to object to this, they have no need for them. Neither do the old. I doubt there would be queues of people taking them purely because they are there for the taking. One or two will put a few in their survival kits (they are most handy for lighting fires), but most seek things that is of use to them.
The problem I see with the group, men's rights activism, is that they have failed to learn from the mistakes of the women' rights movement. Both are sexist. Both claim to want equality for all so why not have an equality movement and call is something that has no gender connotations. FGM is sexist as is MGM. All genital mutilation is awful, dreadful, disgusting and depraved. The film briefly showed a baby being tied down 'well restrained', then brutally disfigured and violated. If you as an adult want to be circumcised, whatever gender or apparatus you have, then that is your choice. Those forcibly carrying it out on someone else would be sent to prison in my utopian equalitarian land. The practice of these spiteful pernicious maiming of babies have become entrenched and won't stop anytime soon.
The Boys, girls and freaks chapter was written over fifteen years ago. Over time it has become more refined and complete. It began as a provocative joke, but as each year passed I stand by it more and more. The ridicule and out right total objection I faced at the start is being replaced by a confident proposition that has not been met by a decent counter argument. It is daft to consider the nature of the sexes as being black and white. There is no distinct set of differences between men and women.
Equalitism in sport will put a lot of people into a head spin. There would no longer be a fastest man/woman on earth but a fastest person. No segregation in tennis, football or athletics. Perhaps, as someone suggested, we could have clashes based on weight, similar to what happens in boxing. I am sure someone with brighter ideas than me could propose a solution. Ultimately, you have to ask whether having a penis is essential for playing. Or be someone that looks like they may or may have had a penis. It would bring about a fairness that is also rather unfair on those wrapped up in the present way of doing things.
Copyright © 2003-2017. Ignorance Paradox all rights reserved