Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bloom-beacon!ora!ambar
From: keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: gender-blindness and equality
Message-ID: <1989Oct4.182033.28666@rpi.edu>
Date: 4 Oct 89 18:20:33 GMT
References: <8910041344.AA27103@mimsy.UMD.EDU> <46465@bbn.COM>
Sender: ambar@ora.ora.com
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 20
Approved: ambar@ora.com

"And this position is wholly consistent with a general belief in justice and
equality"

To examine this statement, a moment, is to understand that "equality" and
"justice" are not wholly compatible with each other as they have been defined
here!  For if "equality" is defined as "being given" equal rewards like
salary, etc, and forcing employers (and others) to give things where they
would not have; and justice is "equality under law, where all people are 
treated as equals, where force is not used against those who are innocent, and
the unearned is never given" then the 2 points of view contradict.  What 
"equality" here means is: preferential treatment to one group over another.
I think it's also pretty obvious that this abrogates individual rights, to
be supplanted by collectivist dictatorship which regards people as unthinking
animals which must be protected from themselves and each other by growing
gov't control.  Related to this are other "egalitarians" who protest that
some people are rich, and some are poor and that this isn't fair.  Or that some
kids in school play baseball well, and some do not, but all should be "given"
equal opportunity to play.  "Giving" has a peculiar definition here, as it
implies the "taking" from those who have earned to "give" to those who don't.
Such is the meaning of "justice with mercy"...