The author's concept of freedom is, in my reading, that there be no arbitrary obstacles or burdens regarding her ascent to ... whatever her actual objective is ... strictly on the basis of factors she never chose and cannot control, eg. her sex. This is, in a certain light, a very relatable objective, with a visceral emotional appeal anyone can feel. Achieving such a society is impossible, we all understand that, too (the article might as well be headlined "Neither Side Even Tries to Offer Women the Impossible"), but beyond that there is a certain self-pity to it. Obstacles are to be overcome, and burdens to be shed; people do it all the time, literally every day. And when we consider society's inequalities between groups, well, dwelling upon the problems of women -- present these days at every income stratus, in basically every corridor of power -- seems again a bit self-involved. Relative to the poor, relative to many visual minorities ... why would society start with femaleness?
p
The author's concept of freedom is, in my reading, that there be no arbitrary obstacles or burdens regarding her ascent to ... whatever her actual objective is ... strictly on the basis of factors she never chose and cannot control, eg. her sex. This is, in a certain light, a very relatable objective, with a visceral emotional appeal anyone can feel. Achieving such a society is impossible, we all understand that, too (the article might as well be headlined "Neither Side Even Tries to Offer Women the Impossible"), but beyond that there is a certain self-pity to it. Obstacles are to be overcome, and burdens to be shed; people do it all the time, literally every day. And when we consider society's inequalities between groups, well, dwelling upon the problems of women -- present these days at every income stratus, in basically every corridor of power -- seems again a bit self-involved. Relative to the poor, relative to many visual minorities ... why would society start with femaleness?
More options
Context Copy link