I do have to wonder why you hope women will close the height gap? Is this because of your realization that difference is the root of prejudice, and a hope that with the reduction of difference, the prejudice will likewise be reduced? Personally, I'd rather let natural selection decide the degree of sexual dimorphism in our species, as opposed to philosophical ideals.
Whether you approve or not, the days of natural selection as the primary engine of evolution in our species are over. Cultural selection took over a long time ago, and, in the coming decades and centuries, selection will become a conscious choice. Is that such a bad thing? Why would you rather let the random forces of nature dictate our existence as opposed to our own ideas of form and function? Accepting, for the moment, that we were to factor out all the problems that could result from the exclusive availability of such power—problems that have solutions and are therefore transient rather than fundamental—why indeed is it such a bad idea for humanity to take its fate into its own hands?
I’d like women to close the height gap on men because I don’t want gender roles to exist anymore. You more or less got it right on that count.
Cultural selection helps. Natural selection is relative to environment. We have been shifting the environment, both deliberately and as a side effect. True, culture is an environment, but it is still subordinate to the ecological environment. If our soceity wanted to implement a bizzare eugenics program designed to get people breathing gaseous mercury, we could, in theory, work toward that goal. Of course, with the air we breath still being largely nitrogen, CO2, and oxygen, we'd all die at the end of the program, but hey, we'll have shapped our evolution, and that has to count for something, right?
Breeding up tall women, or any such eugenical type program is a foolish endeavor. We cannot predict the full future of the earth. We might breed out traits that while socially undesirable now, may prove neccissariy for survival later. "Oh, wouldn't it be nice if..." is not a good way to determine how to breed humans for physical traits. If anything, women being taller would be detrimental to the species, as they would also be heavier, and thus require greater resources to sustain. We can guide our own destiny by shapping our environment, or individuals going in to change their genes, but until we have a perfect understanding of genetics and a little thing called the future of the planet, widespread eugenics programs are a foolhardy endeavor.
And even if women were as tall as men, they'd still be women. No mysoginist thinks proudly to himself, "Boy, it's a good thing women are shorter than men, or my intrinsic superiority as a male would be lost!" The height gap is not the root of the problem, and eliminating it will not eliminate sexism.
So your goal is a society where fat people are fat because they chose to be fat? If that is the case, then there is less reason to not have a prejudice, as then fatness becomes a consequence of ones actions, which in any law-possesing soceity, is a just basis of judgement. It seems to me that the key difference between my society and yours is that in yours, the path to obesity is something the social order seeks to obstruct. Thus, yours is the society with the inbuilt prejudice against fat people.
You are leaving out one key ingredient in your scenario: My hope in this case is for a society where people are educated to make, not simply judgments, but judgments of a higher wisdom. Gene Roddenberry put it well when fielding a question from an interviewer. He was asked, on the subject of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, why the man is bald—for surely they have a cure for baldness in the 24th century, yes? And Gene’s answer was, “In the 24th century, they won’t care.”
Suppose we’re talking about baldness—another trait that attracts harassment and discrimination. Suppose science comes up with a foolproof, flawless, and utterly convenient cure for it. Now suppose some people prefer to go on being bald. Yes, perhaps they will therefore attract all the more discrimination for it…but as society liberalizes, and old prejudices fade away, we would hope that it would eventually become acceptable to be bald.
The same thing goes for being fat. If we raise our children and saturate our popular culture with the message that being fat is not an ugly or horrible thing, the prejudice will subside. And, thus, even though medical science will have brought us closer in that era to a society where fatness is a matter of choice, fewer people will be inclined to develop a prejudice against it in the first place!
I was trying to make this point to Ramsus: Just because a trait can or cannot be changed voluntarily, does not by itself justify a prejudice against it. You contend that we should be held accountable for that which is under our control. Fine; I agree. But I disagree with the specious reasoning that we should be held accountable for something solely because it is under our control. I see no reason for fatness to be held to account at all—at least not in the form of a cultural prejudice—whether the condition is voluntary or not.
In that regard, you and I want the same society. One that considers not just immediate, but long term consequences of actions, and strives for both knowledge and wisdom...both of us could live happily in this society! Where we disagree is in terms of social duty. In your responses to Ramsus, you state that people have the right to be fat, and that while they will (or will be more likely to) have health problems as a result, society must shoulder this burden.
There is plenty of room to discuss the political ramifications of alternative lifestyles. Let’s start at the beginning. We live in a free country. Therefore, if people want to “enjoy their monstrously oversized meals” or “lack of physical activity,” then we as a society must be willing to accommodate them to the fullest extent possible before we step in with regulations and laws that discriminate against them.
...
This is because society exists to provide basic rights and protections to everybody. And a fat person’s right to good medical care outweighs your right to save a cent or two in taxation.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. This here is the sort of thing we disagree with. We both say let those that wish to be fat be fat. We both say let them seek out medical care when they are ill. Where we diverge, however, is at the point of who pays for it. You have not demonstrated why society has a duty to protect people from their own educated choices. A fat person's right to good medical care is unrelated to my right to the fruits of my labor. Clearly, you are a fan of socialized healthcare, but surely you can't believe that it is the burden of society to care for self inflicted injuries? If I shoot myself in the leg, why should you pay for my healthcare? Nothing out of my control happened, the social order did not break down, thus society does not owe my healthcare to me. Or take smoking for an example. Smoking is a freely chosen habit that is horribbly destructive to the human body. Since a smoker choses to smoke, and to take on those health risks, why should anyone else pay for their healthcare? I realize that the analogy is not perfect, given that no one is born with a cigarette in hand, but hopefully it illustrates my point. If we agree that fatness is a choice (which I don't think it is in all cases, but in many), society does not have the duty, nor should it, to protect educated adults from their concious decisions.
What you are stating in the above quote is that we have an affirmative duty to give up the fruits of our labors to facilitate the lifestyle choices of others. I guess this is more of a political divide between you and I. I believe the state exists to protect people from each other. You expand that to have the state protect people from themselves. You are assuming that this is the case, without providing why it should be. Is not the greater good served by people taking responsibility for their own actions, and society being ready to help in events beyond the control of the individual, rather than society taking responsibility for the actions of the individual?
Poll