Gender equality had always been something of contention in the battle of sexes. It just refused to go away after so many decades of activism.
Because the women had still yet to attain equality?
Because the women after attaining equality, but wanted an advantage, and hence protraying themselves as still not being equal?
The men just equally resistant to the notion of a woman being equal?
Whatever the reason, the argument that DS is proposing is this;
"There can be no equality in true sense of word"
Before i got pelted with rotten eggs and tomatoes, allow me to say this.
1) DS agrees as far as human rights go, all human, whatever gender, race, religion, age, social status and whatever classification, shall have universally agreed human rights especially those enshrined in Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and they are inalienable.
2) DS agrees a women should be treated equally as a man as far as performance is concerned.
3) DS agrees luxuries of life are available to all humans who out to attain them by ethical means.
Now, why do DS says we cannot be equal since all of us should have the same human rights?
Simple. The fact that we are different.
Due to our differences, we have different need. WE have different preferences and different things turn us on.
For example, only a mother can have maternity leave.
Why can't man have the same length of maternity leave?
Because he doesn't bore the the child, nor does he goes to labour. He did not have to recuperate like a mother do. Etc. Etc. Granted, he might need to help out his wife, but surely, the amount of leave cannot be the same.
And of course, we cannot be equal in toilet, or we should be sharing toilets instead of having it separated by gender.
At the same time, DS had to say that even basic human rights for women still had some way to go. For example, there is still differences in wages though the work done is essentially the same, ceteris peribus, though the gap is getting smaller and in some profession, eliminated.
At the same breath, DS must also say women also had undue advantage due to their assertion of what they claim is women's rights. Family law is one of the best example and will remain unsolved for foreseeable future. Preference for certain gender in certain profession is another form of sexual discrimination, of which both genders are guilty for.
Now, DS do not want to write an essay or a thesis here, so i will make it short. The difference in needs is the stumbling block in the attainment of equality. This should not be frown upon but should be celebrated. The fact the we are different is what makes human genders and humanity, where one party is a male and another is a female. We can all work together and ensure no one have undue advantage over another just because of gender and at the same time, try to accomodate the differences we had.
This balancing act is indeed tough but by no means inattainable.
Forgive me if i said anything wrong and enlighthen me of your views..