I agree with your aspiration that all people should be treated with equal respect. However, to have indifference to a person's gender, in how you treat them is to overlook a fundamental aspect of that person.
To respect a woman is to have a sensibility and sense of value of her as an individual, with her talents, abilities, characteristics and her femininity/female attributes/needs/preferences. Likewise, to respect men, you have to treat them like men. If you treat everyone as gender neutral, that is fundamentally disrespectful to everyone. Conversely, to treat people disrespectfully because of gender is sexist.
Given what you say of your aspirations for equality, I don't think that qualifies as feminist - I think that qualifies as being for respect, fairness and decency.
Someone appropriately mentioned above that one would need to clarify a more specific definition, and I completely agree. These words, like my FAVORITE word: "LOVE"; get thrown around a lot, but mean so many different things to so many different people... each person posting up here could say "i agree with feminist ideals, and I haven't seen much misogynistic behavior around in the US these days"... and all could be saying completely different things.
I like your post tho Flavus... gender irrelevence or gender blindness is NOT the same as gender equality. First of all, the whole original spirit of the "gender equality" really is more like "gender equality in the eyes of the law". As you (Flavus) astutely pointed out... treating folks with respect is just that. RESPECT is in fact a "gender blind" concept... and much more accurate and appropriate (IMO) to focus around than the overused and often inaccurately utilized word/phrase like: "gender equality".
I personally get somewhat irritated when people take concepts like "sexism"... and then take it's opposing concept "gender equality", and then extrapolate this to mean "gender blind". It's really a slippery slope that I find more people enjoy riding down than any single other politically correct "human/civil rights" issue that is as present in modern pop U.S. culture. If one means "equal respect for fellow human beings regardless of gender", then just say "respect" or even "equal respect for both genders".
but using ambiguous statements like "gender equality" is somewhat erronious. If I'm to believe that men and women are in fact, "equal" (whatever that means anyway).... then call me "Pat" and let me piss while sitting down in the mens restroom. It's total bullshit. Men and women as members of the human race have a great deal in common with one another. They also have very specific areas of functioning and interaction that are radically different from one another, and no amount of political correctness, or fringe/radical "feminism", legislation, cultural pressures, or even respect, will change that.
Obviously, women do not possess the same athletic prowess of men, on the whole. That being said, there is no doubt that the top 100 female sprinters in the world would whoop the shit out of me in a sprint, hands down, no questions asked, 100 out of 100 times, and I'm not a slow guy. But the top 5 men will whoop them. Nearly ever time, and the #1 and #2 men WILL win every time (save the rare stumble or "problem" race). The strongest men are stronger than the equivlent women, and the 3 best long jumpers in the world... yea, always going to be 3 different men. Very few will argue this point of athletic difference.
But, it goes much further than that. Take for example the "more competitive" professional fields. The top 10 in all of those fields are nearly always going to be dominated by men. And the top 5? very likely will be entirely made up of men. This goes for the #1 spot as well. Doubt me? look up the top 5 Chefs in the world today. Read ANY list... hell, read ALL the lists... 4 out of 5 will be men, no matter who is keeping score. What about the top 5 in archetecture? Men. What about the top 5 in particle physics? Men. But, what about something softer... more "creative"... more "F" based (since statistics show MBTI Feeling preference is overexpressed in women compared to men). well, here's a list of the top 100 fiction books ever published. We could argue it forever, but it's safe to say that these are 100 really kick ass fiction books/stories. I just went down the list, and some I can't tell male or female because I'm unfamiliar with the culture the name comes from, but it's safe to say that 80%-85%+ of that list is male authors:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/08/books.booksnews
Also, the most recognized (greatest just don't fit right) and influential artists of all time... ya, nearly all men. Poets? Men too.
The greatest stock traders of all time are nearly all exlusively men. The greatest jugglers, magicians, and world record holding pilots are 80%+ men. The top paid lawyers are 80%+ men, the TOP PAID lawyer in the U.S. (and I imagine the world) is absolutely a man. Here's a list of the most "powerful" Atty's in the world by time magazine: 8 out of 11 are men. Etc...etc...etc...
http://abovethelaw.com/2012/04/the-most-influential-lawyers-in-the-world-attorneys-on-the-time-100/
So, why do men...at the VERY VERY highest levels in the vast majority of professions, dominate so overwhelmingly across so many vocations, avocations, cultures, fields of study, etc? I believe it comes down to a few basic biological attributes that men typically have much more of than women: a testosterone fueled drive to compete with a singleminded focus, and to prove themselves to others in their "sphere of influence". Why does this exist in men so much more than women? Well, because women who were willing to sleep with more passive, less competitive, less dominating, lower testosterone fueled male human ancestors had male children that ALL DIED OUT! It didn't work, from an evolutionary perspective. Simply put.
When it comes to non-athletic competition...like, say, stock trading, or poker playing, or culinary arts, or particle physics, etc... the reason men are so over-represented IMO is NOT because women are less capable in these fields than man per se.... it's because women choose to make certain sacrifices for a more BALANCED life before their top male counterparts.
Using myself as an example... I happen to fall into the top 5% of my profession in terms of ability and skill... which is an incredibly competitive, highly lucrative profession. More forbes billionaires made their fortune in my profession or a closely related profession than any other (no, i'm not saying it cuz i'm "special", i'm saying it to establish the level of competition I assign to my anecdotal story as somewhat OBJECTIVELY determined...not because my own feelings make me overstate the difficulty of high achievement in my field). I believe I can get to be the top 1%.... Ironically, my wife is actually a bit better suited for this profession than I am!!! So why isn't she one of the best in the world? Because I'm willing to forgo a great deal more than she is to achieve my professional goals. I'm willing to work 16 hours a day, for YEARS on end, without so much as even a full week of "vacation". I'm willing to put in tireless hours, going over every single aspect of my job, in order to try to improve all of them. AND, i'm willing to do this every day...for years, maybe my whole life. I'm not balanced. I'm FOCUSED. For her part, she gains a great deal more emotional satisfaction as she supports me in my endeavor than she ever would striving for such accomplishment herself. She's a very competitive person too, who actually considered becoming a pro race car driver a long time ago... but yet, she choose a more supportive role because in fact it FITS her better...it brings more satisfaction to her life. We can choose our actions, but we are much less able to choose our SATISFACTIONS...
But, I'll tell you what. She (as well as basically every woman on earth) is unmatched in her ability to multi-task. Never could I keep so many things in my mind at one time, and even imagine getting them done well (nevermind actually DOING them well). but, she pulls it off constantly, with ease. She communicates more clearly than the average joe (most janes do this)... and she FIRST looks to create cooperative, "win win" situations... where as my FIRST instinct is "how do i get them to see it my way". She's a better diplomat than I am. And the truth of the matter is... in the modern day 21st century "corporate culture"... these female skills often prove more valueable than the gender biased skills of her male counterparts. I strongly believe that the next 15-30 years will usher in a new era for women in the corporate world... one that they find themselves sought after to a higher degree than their male counterparts...
Only problem is, men will still lead the pack at the very top. Because frankly...not enough women are so singlemindedly devoted to their careers and the necessary sacrifices to make it at the very highest levels. But for those few that DO choose this, they will likely find a receptive and welcoming environment... and very possibly one that views women to have more "raw talent" than the average man in corporate america.
Also worth of note: men are.... on the whole, more willing to "take risks" than women. That means the potential for "glory" is greater for men, on the whole... But, the failure rate of male entrepreneurs is greater than those of female entrepreneurs. Oh, and men have lower life expectancies too in part because they kill themselves off by taking one risk too many, when compared to women. Glory comes with it's own higher price tag.
So...why is my wife, as well as most women, so much better at these things than the "average guy"? Again, because women who weren't good at these, but instead were more focused on "being the best of the best" simply didn't survive for us to ask them why it is this way. Women needed to be more attuned to the emotions of others...namely their children. If they had the single minded competitive focus of a man... then humanity would have been lost long, long ago! They also needed a wider array of communication skills, since their "job" in a tribal society would have relied more on verbal communication on a wider array of topics in order to best perform their "job".
Men, on the other hand, needed a single minded focus... because a distracted tribal male might have taken his eyes off the sabertooth tiger at JUST THE WRONG MOMENT, and suddenly, he is not alert enough to be able to save his buddy next to him. And, since humanities greatest strength from a evolutionary perspective is the power in numbers (more so than even our intelligence). So if his buddy gets eaten because he was distracted, and not focused...then everyone suffers, and maybe dies as well.
I could go on, and on, and on here...but this post is already too long as it is.
the bottom line? men and women are about as "equal" as dogs and cats.
but, both deserve just as much respect as any person anywhere does... and both should be celebrated for their differences and strengths... not brainwashed by some politically correct mumbo jumbo that is ambiguous, taken out of context, and in fact a completely misguided paradigm of which to view the gender differences of men and women.
Equal respect. Appreciated differences. And no more putting oranges in apple carts but yet expecting the world to ignore their eyes and purchase the fruit indiscriminately because they are "nutritionally equal".
-E
