Hiya Dragan,

>>"gender equality" - What the heck is that???
>
>It would be the idea that people are to be treated equally regardless of (here goes a long list of mankind's follies) their political convictions, skin color, religious orientation, gender, hair length, dressing code, wealth etc etc.

Oh, I understand the given definitions and all that. It's this; how in the world does one precipitate change in another human being? At the end of the day it seems to boil down to either fear or love.

"You change or else"

or

"Would you choose to change?"

>
>> There's no such thing. As a matter of fact there are NO EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS - at least in terms of capabilities, attitude or anything else. We're all individuals. If you mean equal before the law - sure, Lady Justice had a blindfold over her eyes the last time I looked. But, the notion of equality before the law has its roots in the notion that all men are equal in God's eyes.

>
>But, they're not - for he keeps a special area in hell for the non-believers, another one for wrong-believers...

But it's the people who choose their own destination. No arm twisting on God's part. And, in the Historic Christin teachings there is no difference in location. All alone, in utter blackness. Not pretty and totally avoidable - if one chooses.

>
>> But, falling into the socialist trap of confusing equal outcome with equal opportunity is sloppy thinking at best.
>
>I've seen more equality in socialism in terms of education and general access to social services, than here; social mobility was actually greater (speaking of Yugoslav self-management of 50's-80's). The theory of "equal outcome" is a different beast, it's the "righteous distribution of misery", which was the logical consequence of Party running every business.

Well, I suppose the unintended consequences of socialism was the equal sharing of misery. Maybe that's a better definition. Regardless it does lead down that path and we're doing it here (which was my point).