So I'm going to use an analogy, and get back to the original point soon after.
Now, before I start, I am touching on a sensitive topic. I would like to clarify that I don't speak about all of the Aboriginal population, but of an archetypal subset. I would also like to note that it is only sensitive because of their current "pedestal treatment", as I like to put it. Australian society is trying to tiptoe around the topic, as it does whenever a previously abused minority is being "equalised". However, by the definition of "Equal treatment", I should be able to speak out against them like any other group.
So over here in Australia, there is a big deal about making sure that the indigenous residents are treated equally, and blah blah blah, and I'm all for it - if it were actually equality. Instead, on pretty much any form you are given, it asks if you are an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, and if yes, you are given particular bonuses. Why? "Because they have been treated in the past so poorly, that equality dictates that it is made up for."
Well, yes and no.
Whilst it is true that the race was treated poorly in the past, that was the parents and grandparents of the current people. The race was treated poorly, not the individuals, and thus it is unfair that they should be getting additional bonus to make up for the way that their ancestors were treated.
But here is the other issue: Whenever society tries to "make up" to a particular abused minority, it puts them on a pedestal, treating them unfairly, and eventually the bonuses very much outweigh the past damages, and then the reverse happens. They try to compensate the other way, and it just becomes this swinging pendulum of their treatment. Noone wants that. The ONLY way to reach equality is to forget the past, and start treating people sufficiently equal, rather than trying to compensate for the past.
For example, if, in a public school, a child has a trace of aboriginal ancestry, they take no responsibility for their actions. If they get into a fight, they cannot be punished without it being called racial discrimination. If they fail a topic, it's racial discrimination. This type of pedestal treatment gives them the attitude of "I can do what I want.". Thus, often they get into fights all they want, and don't do any work, and never claim any level of responsibility for their actions. This then instills a level of dislike of the minority in the other population, which starts the process over again.
Equality means equality. If an Aboriginal person starts a fight with me, he should get the same treatment as any Asian, Caucasian, African or any other race. If they are failing at school due to their own laziness, they should need to take responsibility for their actions like anyone else.
The government has even dedicated an entire DAY to them; "Sorry Day", where the whole nation is supposed to be apologetic. But here's the thing: The Aboriginal Elders don't WANT the compensation, because they see it as I do. It's as much a break in equality as anything negative.
My point is, positive discrimination is STILL discrimination, and it is STILL just as bad. In the same sense as the above, throughout history, women are periodically treated with respect, and then not so much, and each "swing" of treatment tries to compensate for the previous, and overdoes it. The ONLY way to reach an equilibrium is to forget the past, and start again.
I am 100% straight, but I have no problems showing affection to my friends, be they male or female, because that's what they are - friends. As for strangers, male or female, I treat them with the same level of courtesy and respect. The only difference is that, for me, females are treated slightly differently in a way, simply because they ARE potential partners, and thus it is foolish to cause them to be unaware of that. In the same way, I will speak out against a woman just as easily as against a man.
My treatment of women is generally not so much "Pedestal Treatment" as it is being even handed. Consider the notion of defending the weak. Statistically, there ARE more weak women than me, and so accordingly, I am more likely to defend any given woman than any given man. That being said, if you have your stereotype of the enormous Russian woman like this:
http://anongallery.org/img/4/7/usa-vs-russia-log.jpgShe can probably defend herself. In the same way, should a weaker, weedier man need my protection, then he has as much right to it as a weak woman.
In summary, this is where the my moral stance on this lies.
1) Women are treated differently to men by me on average, because they ARE different to men on average.
2) The notion of equality between any groups in society needs to begin with a fresh start, not overcompensation one way or another.
3) Women are potential romantic partners to me, and as such, the possibility of this should not be dismissed as it is with men.
