From: macko@pilot.njin.net (Peter C. Macko)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: a final word
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:26:12 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


 sergei@upenn5.hep.upenn.edu (Sergei Borodin) writes:

>From: macko@pilot.njin.net (Peter C. Macko):
>
>!  muh@physics.Berkeley.EDU (Yury M. Mukharsky) writes:
>!
>!>Many people wrote: "man should consider woman as equal"
>!
>!>But they are not! Equal means same, is not it? Surely they are
>!
>! According to this logic, all men are not equal either.  In a
>!mathematical sense you are right. 
> 
> In a common sense it is correct too. All men are NOT equal either.

  Words often have more then one meaning.  


>! But 200 years ago the sentence 
>!"All men are created equal" had been taken to mean that all [white] 
>!men should be given equal opportunity to prove themselves and pursue
>!their chosen vocations. 
>! This was not taken to mean that all men must 
>!have the same hair color, atheltic ability, and IQ score.
>
> Sounds beautiful. Sure, all men should be given an equal opportunity.
> But not all of them would be able to take it. That's the point.
> Because they are different.

  No, the point is that Equal does not necessarily mean "same".  


>!  Later
>!this was extended to include everyone regardless of race or gender.  
>!So no, when most people in the U.S. speak of "equal" in a 
>!non-mathematical sense they don't mean that men and women are the
>!"same".
>
>  I'm confused: what's "non-mathematical sense". An equal opportunity?
> But men already born with different opportunities. You know, parents,
> money, IQ and so on. So, what are you talking about? About advantages 
> of capitalism?


  In a mathematically discrete sense no two individuals can be equal.  
No two people, not even identical twins, have lead the exact same 
lives even if a very rare few are genetically identical.

  The common uses of the word "equal" are much more varied.  It
is correct to say in English that a woman is essentially "equal" to a 
man even if she can't lift an "equal" amount.  The point is not that she 
probably makes up for it somewhere else.  It is that she has the same 
rights and status.  Note definition 3 of the adjective form of the word
"equal" in the Concise Oxford Dictionary:

  3. having the same rights or status ("human beings are essentially equal"). 

  So if a woman desires to do heavy manual labor she has the same right
to such opportunities as does a man.  If she is rejected, then it should
be because she lacks the necessary knowledge, skill and/or ability just 
like rejected male applicants.  It should not be because she is a woman.  
Some might argue that because of the differences between the genders women 
are genererally weaker and thus generally less qualified when it comes to 
heavy manual labor.  This is a ridiculous excuse to universally reject
women for two reasons:

  1) All men are not stronger then all women.  Some women are stronger
     then most men.  So since the assumption that women are weaker then men
     is not universally true it should not be universally applied.  The same
     is true for other gender-based assumptions.

  2) The only sound method of screening employees is by the knowledge, skills 
     and abilities that are required for the position.  Gender isn't a
     knowledge or skill.  It translates into ability only if you're looking 
     for somebody to bear a child or piss a certain distance and even this
     isn't always true (ie. not all women can bear children).  


						-PCM
-- 

  Peter C. Macko                      Internet: macko@pilot.njin.net
  LCSR/Network Research                         macko@cs.rutgers.edu
  Telecommunications/Network Services     UUCP: {backbone}!rutgers!cs!macko
  Rutgers Computing Services,  Rutgers University (Piscataway, NJ)