Rewarding by merit and judging people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin (or their gender) are two solid ways to interact with the world around you. This, however, has been completely discarded by the social justice community, who would rather reward or punish you based on what group you fall into.
It’s definitely something that Professor Jordan Peterson has been pointing out for some time now, much to the dismay of the social justice community, from the top to the bottom.
During a panel in Australia, Peterson attempted to make the case that it’s wrong to immediately make someone’s group identity the marker of how they should be treated.
“If you are a proponent of equality of outcome, then you de facto accept the proposition that the group identity is primary and there are all sorts of dangers that are associated with that that far outweigh whatever good you’re likely to do,” said Peterson.
For one Australian politician, this wasn’t going to fly and she attempted to insinuate that Peterson was being sexist by not immediately wanting to grant female politicians equal power within the Australian parliament.
Peterson then threw the idea back in her face by asking her why feminists don’t strive for equality across the board, and only where it will give them power. Peterson uses the bricklaying profession as an example, noting that feminists seem to have no interest in improving women’s representation in that profession.
Peterson laid it down, stating that the only reason feminists care about parliament is that it relates to power, suggesting that true equality isn’t really what feminists are after.
The politician was given the chance to respond, but didn’t seem to have an answer to it.