“Sons and daughters of any future UK monarch will have equal right to the throne, after Commonwealth leaders agreed to change succession laws. - bbc”
I really wonder what feminists and equal rights activists will have to say about this. I really do. Would some say that it is a victory for women’s rights and equality?
This is a paradoxical situation. It is a subsidiary progress in equality, but generic blow to it. In fact, it is a greater affront to equality than progress.
That bloke Cameron states,
''The idea a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he's a man... is at odds with the modern countries we have become''
Why ed knows that this is a blow to equality and democracy is because it is an Incorporative Elitist Strategy (ed’s term). In other words, to maintain the class system, what one has to do is to incorporate the ‘buy in’ or acquiescence of all. And the best way to to do it is to bring about equality for all within the hierarchical system so as to strengthen overarching inequality even further.
Once you can bring about equality within classes, give them a job, and ‘angry birds’ to play with, you will enable people to do their best to make it within their class, and not question the classes above. For instance, giving americans of African origin equality in America; giving women equality in most parts of the world; having equal rights commissions that seek to ensure that nobody is discriminated against, might come across as significant milestones and watchtowers along the highway of democracy and progress. It is not. There was far more consciousness of equality in the plebeian revolt against the patricians (494 b.c.), or the slave uprisings in the Serville wars (135-71 b.c.) in Roman times.
All this does is to quell remonstrances amongst the disaffected whom are struggling against each other, and at each others' expense, for significance and success. Once you can bring about equality within classes, give them a job, and ‘angry birds’ to play with, you will enable people to do their best to make it within their class, and not question the classes above. That is when they will finally be able to blame each other for not ‘making it’ because discrimination of all sorts have been eradicated. When one can assign blame to one’s own class for not making it (as opposed to the primates populating the upper class like the ‘prince’ williams and ‘queen’ elizabeths, the pop ‘stars’, and other ‘celebs’, the Donald Trumps and Oprah Winfreys, the Blairs and Bushes, etc, etc,), people aren’t going to look upwards for the true cause of why they ALL can’t make it.
When disenchanted sectors of the lower classes have equality granted them, and this equality extolled in equality within upper classes, the lower classes will tend to live their significance vicariously through their enfranchised counterparts in the upper classes. When disenchanted sectors of the lower classes have equality granted them, and this equality extolled in equality within upper classes, the lower classes will tend to live their significance vicariously through their enfranchised counterparts in the upper classes. i.e. blacks in the lower classes feeling proud that a black man (or a semi-black man) has become president. They will lose sight of their generic appreciation of the idea of equality when their subsidiary desire for equality is satisfied.
That is why Cameron can use the terms ‘monarch’ and ‘modern’ in the same line. That is why the title of the BBC article can contain ‘equal’ and ‘throne’ in the same line. Those are contradictions mate. How can anyone spit out the words ‘throne’ or ‘monarch’ in the same line as ‘equal’ and ‘modern’ unless it is to show why they are contradictions? To do otherwise is to render them synonymous. They are telling you that one can live the ‘modern’ and ‘equal’ life within a grossly inequitable system, but with the reality of the former rendering the evil of the latter, negligible.