You might think that I am feeling irony-impaired today

I am not entirely certain of the meaning of this post:

The London Fog: Men should wear burkahs too: The United Nations, in collaboration with the World Mental Health Organization and the Women's Universal Suffrage organization, in collaboration with the Homeless Coalition and the Diversity and Anti-Discrimination co-operative, in collaboration with local White Male support groups overlooked by the environmental friendly are advocating mandatory burkahs for all.

I am sure this "Lisa" person is being sarcastic about something, but I'm not sure what.  Is she mocking advocates for women's equality or is she mocking conservative Muslim cultures?   I mean, if she's in favour of women's liberty, then I can easily surmise that she is mocking the mandatory imposition of the burqa under Taliban rule.  But then she uses a trope like "White Male support group" (usually a sarcastic reference to equality-seeking politics) and then refers to "equal opportunity" in a sarcastic way (and not the sarcastic way I would use).  The two propositions contained in Lisa's post are simply too difficult for me to reconcile.

And that is only the beginning of my confusion.  Can someone explain to me what this woman means to tell us?

Comments

[Lisa]

You ask:

"Is she mocking advocates for women's equality or is she mocking conservative Muslim cultures?"

The answer is both. "Equal opportunity" is never properly equal if it comes at the expenses of others. I'm in favour of individual liberty.

Lisa

[me]

Did you really comment on Heart's blog?

[Mandos]

"The answer is both. "Equal opportunity" is never properly equal if it comes at the expenses of others. I'm in favour of individual liberty."

My confusion is deepened. Let's say that there are N jobs. If A has *greater* opportunity than B, then A has a greater likelihood of getting some portion of these N jobs. Right? Then if we were to work to give B *equal* opportunity with A, we'd implicitly have to reduce A's access to some of these jobs, right?

Then by simple arithmetic, "equal opportunity" clearly involves taking something away from A, or else it ain't equal opportunity, no? I mean, if you didn't, A would have greater opportunity still, right?

So when you say, ""Equal opportunity" is never properly equal if it comes at the expenses of others", I can only deduce that you really mean that you don't believe in equal opportunity, right? Because otherwise the math doesn't work.

Right?

[Lisa]

Assuming A has "greater opportunity" than B to N jobs, by what standard do the B's appeal to to gain special status? Deduce all you like, but equality is an figment of the imagination so long as that equality is purchased at the expense of mathematical throwaways.

[Mandos]

to "me": Whoever you are, yes, I did post on Heart's blog, and she approved my comment. My post was not hostile at all, but decidedly quite neutral. I found it difficult to understand some of Rhondda's assertions, and so I asked for clarification.

However...Pony figured out what Rhondda meant, I think, didn't like the way it would have had to be clarified, blamed me for that, and instead accused me to Heart of being hostile. Heart's blog being what it is, she necessarily had to listen to Pony.

I was surprised that Heart approved my comment in the first place, actually.

I may discuss what I wrote elsewhere where it might be on topic. If I feel like it.

[Mandos]

"Assuming A has "greater opportunity" than B to N jobs, by what standard do the B's appeal to to gain special status?"

What special status are you talking about? We are already assuming that A has greater access than B to the jobs in question. Obviously, B's special status is that B has *less* access---B didn't gain special status, B already had it, by having less access.

Otherwise, what did you mean by "special status"? I haven't heard of these things.

"Deduce all you like, but equality is an figment of the imagination so long as that equality is purchased at the expense of mathematical throwaways."

What do you mean by a mathematical throwaway? Who uses mathematical throwaways to purchase anything? I mean, being good little technocrats, we use statistics to determine who is A and who is B---is that what you mean by "mathematical throwaway"?

You're confusing the issue even further by using such imprecise terminology.

[Craig]

Why?

[Mandos]

Because it's there.

[Dave]

Confusing terminology because of a confusion of premises in the original question -- what is meant by opporutnity? There should be equal opportunity before the law, of course, because the government is supposed to be of and for all the people equally, otherwise it is indefensible. As far as other opporunities go, of course they are not equal. A is not obligated to share his opportunities and B is not obligated to expropriate them through the intermediary of the law -- this would destroy equality before the law, after which equality of opportunity becomes meaningless. This is the obvious target of Lisa's post -- all these groups demand in one way or another equality of some opportunity they are not ethically entitled to and simultaneously subvert the only equality of opportunity that is worth defending.