In my previous article, I have omitted relevant issues of common debates including equity and discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and gender. The article is a framework or structure in the approach to rights is not a complete work.
In a diverse social environment, the dilution of tradition and absolutes basically means inclusiveness and accommodation of different groups in absolute values. And by inclusion is modifying absolutes to be relevant in the modern social set up.
Equity is a basic condition of right to be equal in access and share of distribution. It's a long story but one we experience and share. Colonisation affects mostly indigenous peoples that have put back their progressive development in a life time.
Society or shall I say former colonial societies owe indigenous people for the wrongs, and equitable rights is justified. Thus, indigenous peoples have this as a natural condition of right.
Gender and sex orientation have also endured a fair amount of discrimination especially from traditional absolutes. You see, to accommodate the needs of these groups is to modify absolute values. And this also demands equitable right not only in access and fair share of distribution, but most importantly in practice.
We have experienced a conflict in these modern changes between tradition and same sex unions. But the conflict is evolved in progress from the old to the new that in future generations, same sex union is a normal standard in the altar of marriage.
Other ethnic minority groups have also endured a fair amount of discrimination from traditional absolutes. But some of these have historical factors related to their host countries, some folks have sought refuge or for economic reasons have settled in a new country.
And there are the equitable rights of indigenous peoples, gender and same sex orientation among ethnic minority groups.
The general discrimination term we are familiar with is when someone is disadvantaged from access to resources and services because of his/her gender or ethnicity. Also added is the usual derogative and degrading demonisation of a person because of his/her gender or ethnicity.
And the feminist lobby group stood up for the rights of women. The trouble is, feminist may not have sought to advance women's progress, but to bring down the men who are alleged to be responsible for women's suffering. It's a payback strategy to the death nonetheless, by bringing down the men in professional and responsible positions leaves room for women to advance into.
Having done so, the displacement of professional and experienced talents from responsible positions is also having a static effect on progressive development of a nation.
So, since the rights of women are represented and addressed by the payback movement, do they have a second right to equitable right from discrimination?
Now the point is, some cultures have normally accepted a woman's place in society and the payback movement is interfering with foreign and sovereign affairs of another country. But the women in these foreign countries are jumping in the payback wagon to liberate themselves from absolutes of their cultural tradition.
Again, do women have an equitable right when men are already punished and demoted or decimated from society? I think women should also join indigenous peoples among other ethnic groups to correct the wrongs of colonisation.
Social issues overlap in cultures, beliefs and traditions, but they do stand out. So, the payback movement has assumed a responsibility to punish the men of the world and promote women into their vacated positions. Might as well remove equitable rights of women from society's decisions as they are well represented by the payback movement.
However, women among men in pre-colonised nations share the same mentality. Men are just as much victims of predominant colonial societies, responsible for their socialisation into macho behaviour as women were confined to duties around the house.
So, men themselves have equitable rights, a concession in modifying their macho behaviours.
Influenced by religious principles, traditional absolutes are mainly conservative in mentality. It favours the preservation and maintenance of life. The means of preservation and maintenance are less harmful not only to the individual but also to the traditional family.
You see, there is nothing wrong with the conservative approach. But during socialisation in the span of time, culture and political expedience took advantage of the family platform to gain opportunities to wealth and resources.
We know the rich people in the world are few but are absolutism in their capitalistic belief. It's true to the fact that the more traditional and absolutism a group becomes, the more it restricts its resource to a few. They tend to stay static in their privileged position.
Modernisation is where the traditional societies stagnate by holding on to absolute values, share resources only in a restricted tribal group. Traditional conservativism is static.
On the contrary, the more diverse a group becomes, the more people are inclusive and share in the resources and wealth of their society. Modern diversity is progressive.