No offence, Col Rouge, but it seems to me that this notion of equal opportunity, sanctified in the US, is not only bogus, but feeds the self-congratulatory vanity of those who’ve “made it”. There are of course many reasons for worldly success, such as not being born black in sub-Saharan Africa. Having avoided that fate, success then comes down to a range of peculiar circumstances, including parentage and demographic, gender (though yes, it’s improving) and even looks and presentation (bummer if you have a cleft pallet). Even such intangibles as self-confidence and temperament are factors. These last (I think) are largely determined genetically, or they can be compromised by abusive parents, or any number of life circumstances that can nip them in the bud and prevent one from achieving the kind of success you seem to admire. Finally, of course blind luck often plays a part in the success of “great men”—rich parents or a benefactor, or just being in the right place at the right time. Of course it suits the “great man” just fine to put all his worldly success down entirely to his own greatness and entrepreneurial spirit. In my experience such monumental conceit generally masks a mean and wretched spirit, the obverse of its material station—stunted by the very prodigality of fate! though he will tell himself in his overweening fantasies that ‘twas hard won and richly deserved. Our laissez-faire system twists and deforms what the human “spirit” might otherwise achieve.
Sorry I sound a bit sermonising. There would still be outstanding “individuals” in a world of genuine equal opportunity (not based on empire buiding), but I suspect they’d inspire rather than gloat.
P.S. I can assure you, I'm not envious :-)

Mitchell “no Offence, Col Rouge”

None taken

The rest of your paragraph could be reduced to the following few words

We are all “individuals”, each distinguished by a differing mix of qualities and (possibly) some defects.

So why pretend we are “ALL THE SAME”

Why pretend we are “ALL EQUAL” – excepting “under the law” (as is commonly acknowledged by those with a modicum of insight into jurisprudence)

Regarding “Our laissez-faire system twists and deforms what the human “spirit” might otherwise achieve. “

Wrong

It is the “laissez-faire” aspects of the “system” which enables every individual to aspire to achieve.

It is the levelling influence of the collectivist, by any name, which works to limit the degree an individual can grow or otherwise be enriched by their individual characteristics, ensuring “Equality of Outcome” for all (aka Mediocrity).

Whilst people remain the result of their genetic composition, we will always be individuals, regardless that we are from sub Saharan Africa or any other point North, South, East or West.

So sermonise all you want

I prefer to listen and talk with those who achieve, rather than with those who “sermonise” and attempt to mollify their own inadequacies, and have guilt complexes about being born better off than some shmuck in Sub Saharan Africa

Or to put it another way…

I am responsible for being the best I can be.

I am not responsible for ensuring you or some bloke in sub Saharan Africa is the best you will be,

because you neither control, nor direct not limit my efforts, as I have better things to do with my time than spend it controlling, directing or limiting yours.

"Society" is merely the collective noun applied to a collection of "individuals", like a "flock of geese" or "school of sharks".

and as dearest Margaret said....

"there is no such thing as "Society"

(Full quote avaiilable upon request)

Isn't this the little Green Left Weekly corner of OLO!

I'm enjoying the joust between Col and Mitch, but I still side with Col, and not just because he's my favourite poster and finds himself in a sea of Che T-shirts and black rimmed glasses.

I'm waiting for Col to bring out the 'If equality was obtained, in 3 years the cream will rise to the top once again.'

Hard to beat really. Witch leaves the rest of you raving radical lefties with the question of what such new system could prevent this, given the restriction of no return to communism. Or socialism, which as Col correctly states has an end goal of communism anyway.

Socialism by Stealth. I never get tired of hearing that Col. I am beginning to realise just how much I have underestimated the extent to which Feminism is really Socialism by Stealth too.

What irks me is that Bronny and co keep lauding all these supposedly altruistic 'female' values and slagging the supposed 'androcentric' values of capitalism.

We have...

'broken down the old male hegemony, but it's done nothing to challenge the dominance of androcentric values'

Then...

'Despite this greater female presence in public life, however, there has been no corresponding shift in the way society is organized.

It's still business as usual. The same values that have dominated right throughout this period of increasing female participation are still paramount. They are rarely questioned, let alone properly challenged.'

The answer is why? Well it couldn't be that they aren't androcentric values after all now could it? We all know women, the altruistic nurturers and lovers and peaceful negotiators, protectors of all the worlds children would never so happily and willingly perpetuate such a system.

I think if all these nice good girls cant 'fix' the world and correct this flawed 'male' value system, there really is no hope for you lefties. From where I'm sitting, the chicks in the west who have a piece of the pie aren't any more willing than the blokes to give it up for those kiddies in India and Africa.

Mitchell,
Amen!

Add to that they value money more than equity (as in fairness).
I also find these people often bullies in that they judge everyone by their 'self made' mentality and look down on those who don't accumulate (their method of keeping score) like them or subscribe to their notion of Status Quo 'order'.

The concept of equity and "enough is as good as a feast" are foreign concepts.

The intellectual dishonesty of this position is predicated on the two demonstrably false assumptions
a. Argument by absolutes...you are either laise faire or Socialist etc.
b. the magic pudding scenario....never ending growth.

In short the logic is upside down there are absolutes in abstraction but none in the corporeal.

'All people from middle to lower income groups are exploited in order to maintain existing power structures that benefit a few at the top of the social pyramid.'

Wow. All people. And they don't even know it. Paternalistic much. I see many happy pikeys wandering along to Harvey Norman and Ikea on the weekend. This childish anti-authoritarian picture of exploitation runs 2 ways. Without the rich and powerful investors of the world, what standard of living would these poor and down trodden have then? Without the Taxes of these top of the pyramid types, what kind of social services would they enjoy? Oh, that's right, if we crippled the rich and powerful and paid everyone the same, they would still work as hard and donate all their superior skills and intelligence for the greater good of the world.

'If a few thought about it they'd realize that they've never met a woman who conformed to such a stereotype.'

I dunno pynchme, I think you do a pretty good job of hamming it up. It's why I find you so amusing.

'Lastly, we need a vision of a post-capitalist society. I'd like to talk about that sometime.'

I like your style. Bring down the existing system and then talk over some sort of replacement. Worked well in Iraq.

Mitch,

'global capitalism, with its vast infrastructure and the teeming masses it's bred, is now impossible to reign in. Only capitalism can manage, for now, the human juggernaut it's created.Any disruption to supply might lead to chaos and death on a biblical scale. Indeed, a mass die off is probably inevitable with so many threats looming. It's probably only after such a holocaust that a new and sustainable human culture has any hope of getting off the ground.'

Too true

When feminism started, one of their original aims was to undermine paternalism; condescending views about the level of protection that women need. As time has gone by, this aim seems to have been forgotten. In fact, people like the media and politicians have developed a safe sort of feminism-lite that manages to combine both sound feminist and appeal to old fashioned ideas about ‘protecting women’.

I see feminism-lite when people tip-toe around women’s self-esteem and applaud any old lifestyle choice for fear of damaging some woman’s precious feelings. Feminism-lite is also responsible for the ever broadening definitions of rape/sexual assault and domestic violence and the accompanying rise in the number of ‘victims’. You would need to think that woman were pretty damn fragile to find much of that behaviour genuinely harmful. Of course, once a woman has victim status, no-one can criticise them in any way or even be rude enough to suggest that they might help themself, that would be blaming the victim. The useful thing about feminism-lite is that no woman ever needs to make a sacrifice on account of their deeply held feminist principles.

The people who push this model of feminism need to take a look at a calendar, swallow a cup of cement and harden ....up.