> I personally think the first man down the ladder on mars should be a woman
Shouldn't it just be the commander of the mission?
The way you speak is so condescending to women, as though they wouldn't have the ability to earn their place and it has to be handed to them. I can't speak to your intentions but it's not equality if you thought it was.
You're making the meritocracy argument and it is disingenuous. You don't have a monopoly on understanding "equality" and it is certainly not as simple in our society as you assume.
"seems fair to me" is hardly enough basis for a claim either. I did go on to state how it is impossible in our society today - do you actually disagree with that?
Theres nothing disingenuous about thinking the person that earned the honor should be the one to do it. Your claim that I think I have a monopoly is disingenuous. GP stating it should be a woman, just for being a woman, is being disingenuous.
Most women I know appreciate the "perks" of being a woman, but none of them are under any delusion about it. They would be insulted if they lost on equal footing, and were rewarded for it anyway. I've never met anyone who was happy knowing someone let them win.
If you want to make an argument that men and women are never on equal footing, I could understand that but I'm not even sure what you are proposing instead.
What I'm saying is that "earned the honor" - or rather that there is a single "best person" - is already a flawed assumption. Meritocracy is thoroughly debunked so anyone asserting it is either way out of touch or being disingenuous.
The reason is because of historical oppression and entrenched systems of oppression still in place today. In that context, meritocracy only serves to reinforce the status quo.
I'm sure NASA can come very close to a true meritocracy - but that doesn't change the fact that there are benefits to having women in visible positions of power, accomplishment, etc. There will be multiple qualified people for any job, and it is 100% acceptable to choose someone because they come from a historically underrepresented group, solely to increase visibility and enfranchisement of that group.
> but that doesn't change the fact that there are benefits to having women in visible positions of power, accomplishment, etc
So you're making the same proposal. You want to hire a woman because she's a woman. This is a massive disservice to female empowerment.
> There will be multiple qualified people for any job, and it is 100% acceptable to choose someone because they come from a historically underrepresented group, solely to increase visibility and enfranchisement of that group.
This is an absurd line of thinking. If two people truly are equally qualified, some immutable trait like race, sex, etc. should not be the determining factor. If you are ok with someone being hired for a job because they are a native american or a woman, then you should also be ok with someone choosing to only hire white men and asian men. Both of these scenarios are racist/sexist.
Shouldn't it just be the commander of the mission?
The way you speak is so condescending to women, as though they wouldn't have the ability to earn their place and it has to be handed to them. I can't speak to your intentions but it's not equality if you thought it was.