I heard something Sunday:
“We live in a world where role equals value. That’s why we’re putting women on the front line, because they aren’t seen as valuable until they have the same role as men.”
This isn’t a political piece, nor is the above statement.
It begs the question: What is the motivation?
I’m all about equal pay, should a man and I both be equally qualified.
I’m not all about equal pay because a man makes that much.
If it has nothing to do with my gender,
it has nothing to do with his.
I don’t want something a man has because a man has it.
I want what he has if I deserve it, because I’m an individual.
But,
does it go too far?
Has the argument morphed into Women aren’t equal until they have what men have?
That leaves man as still the default.
That means women aren’t good enough unless they’re men.
That’s still stuck on Square One.
We truly live in a society where role equals value.
But just because a man works when he has kids, doesn’t mean the woman has to.
They should have equal opportunity to, and equal pressure to, as well.
(i.e. no pressure to do either.)
(or: pressure to do what’s best for the family)
Don’t misunderstand; there is value in this movement.
Mary's One Hundred 