Viva la difference

 It strikes me that we made a serious mistake in our history when we mis-understood, under the weight of the feminist cause, that being equal and the same is not the same thing.

The feminists have quite rightly argued for the need for 'equality' between the sexes.

Given that a man and a woman are doing the same work they should be equal. 

In the eyes of the 'law' they should be equal. In having 'rights' they should be equal.

Of course it's been for women a long hard slog to find equality with many obstacles placed in their way by men who felt threatened. Women growing up in an era of deference to men, the ownership of property and the business decisions which, although small were inevitably made by the man. The man was the breadwinner. On his head rested the financial security of the family, he left the house each morning to contest, not only the weather but with others for his job. Often his job was dirty and dangerous and the competition for it, always a risk. 

The woman on the other hand was the queen of her domain so long as the money continued to come in, she was left to love and cherish her children with no one to conflict her tenure or the security within her home.

Over time activists, who saw their situation, not as mothers, unhampered to do what arguably is the most important job a person can undertake, that of bringing up a child, but as individuals seeking recognition. To them motherhood was of a secondary nature to be put off for as long as possible and ignored in securing the task in hand, that of competing with men. Competition with men became the Grail. There were only so many positions of influence and suitable rewards and for the feminist the question of "why not me" became an obsession. 

Right and wrong in these matters is subjective. 

Is it right that even today women are often paid less than men for doing the same job.

Is it right that promotion for women often takes in questions of her being away to have children and be susceptible to putting the child's needs first.

On the other hand. Is it right that a woman has a 90% chance of having custody of the children when a marriage falls apart. 

Is it right that in the law courts, 50% of a man's current and future earnings are allocated to the woman, irrespective of whether she remarries or is the culpable party in the breakup of the marriage. 

Of course each case must be judged on its own merits but the law has a tendency to view women as they used to be and not take into consideration that body of law which has made their position so much stronger.
But the reason for writing today is not to grasp the thorny issue of feminism but ask, have we mixed up the concept,  is being "equal" the same as being the "same".

The case of Caster Semenya the South African runner who in some ways resembles a man, of which I wrote the other day, highlights the complexity between men and women, it emphasises that it's not just the strength but how the strength is arrived at. 

Through subtle chemical processes we have a man or we have a woman.

 The anatomical difference is secondary to the chemical differences and in fact it's the chemistry that leads to the anatomical variance.

The chemistry is so pervasive that it claims the mind and the way the mind thinks. It is the neurones and the synapses which are fundamental to our being who we are and not being called John or Jane.

 Jane can never be John or visa versa and unless there is an induced abnormality in our chemical makeup,  no amount of social clap trap will alter that.

We are not the same and Vive la difference.