|Top News > letters|
Myth in gender equality
There can be no gender equality where a difference in gender is manifest. Where gender equality is claimed, there ought not to be laws exclusively for the protection of one gender from domestic violence allegedly perpetrated by the other. Domesticity exists as a partnership.
Domestic violence is as old as the hills. It is evident as rivalry among suitors in courtship, maturing with adulthood as adultery.
Modern concern in human relations has heightened awareness of this animal behaviour through enforcement of laws for the protection of one gender ostensibly equal, but still perceived as weaker than its relative.
The underlying causes of domestic disputes are money and adultery (which now has to be re-defined to accommodate infidelity in same-sex domestic relations).
When there is too little money available to maintain a domestic arrangement and suspicion is aroused that cash flow in being diverted to other sources of social and sexual gratification, war is declared by the deprived partner. “Slow poisoning” is used as a weapon in the place from which the victim is migrating to be regaled simultaneously with “Come hither” potions to counteract “Stan’ home”, slow him down to impotence, or to terminate his life, he begins to “eat out” where he is induced to keep on coming.
This phenomenon in all its variations does not always involve physical violence manifest as blows; until perhaps, adulteration and/or adultery is confirmed, then violence may erupt, but not always unilaterally. The female of the species is deadlier though weaker than the male.
It is established that physical violence against women in domestic disputes as a form of “parental discipline” did not always attract the moral censure directed at “corporal punishment”, or the judgment pronounced since the extensive crusade on the bandwagon for gender equality and juvenile rights without responsibilities in social contracts.
The question arising from the evolution of this crusade for gender equality asks: If women are entitled to equal access to the pinnacle of power in every sphere, why should there be
segregation of gender in any field of human endeavour. To the point: Shouldn’t women compete against men in Olympic sports and physical contests as proof of equality?
One suggested answer is that one gender is naturally more than equal to the other in certain circumstances. In absolute terms, the genders must ultimately be unequal.
The social discipline required in acknowledgement of this reality is the segregation of sexes where inequalities are manifest, especially between puberty and the confirmed abatement of
hormonal rage in adulthood.
Generally, where the principle of equality under the law is prevalent, no law with a bias in favour of one gender is valid, particularly if it seeks to establish an illusion of equality of sexes in contradiction of the natural reality.
The choice is between gender equality and protection of the weaker sex.
Leonard St. Hill