I wanted to find the context, the article in the Observer in 1987 where she said it or wrote it. It seems, at first glance, that it might have an intention to go against the Declaration of Independence, in which the revolutionaries were rejecting monarchy, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
Yet it is something we've all reasoned through before. Yes, we should all have one vote, have equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity to pursue our happinesses. That's the collective American dream, what people come here for. That's the politics of the matter, certainly our birthrights as citizens. That's where the cry of equality is the cry of the USA. Let women be equal. Let all races be equal. Let all sexual persuasions be equal.
A recent comedian I was listening to, talking about either sexual performance or penis size, said that it's not true that all men are created equal. And she got the laugh. The joke goes further with the Murdoch quote, that somehow we would need to strive to make all men equal. It gets muddier and muddier, considering how we could make everyone have equal height, equal vision, equal IQs, and so on. How to resolve equality of men and women in all these regards makes the matter yet muddier.
Until Simone Biles is defeated, no one is equal to her at what she does. To have her equal on this score, cripples her. Trump cannot be a genius by proclaiming himself one. If we considered him one, we would be bringing geniuses down to his level. But before the law? Yes, all must be equal, and when this is not the case, it must be righted. And if they each, both Biles and Trump and you and I,with equal opportunity, took the same job at the USPS or at Amazon Prime and performed it the same way, then all should get equal pay. Then, when it is time to vote, we each get to, and we each get one, like everyone else.
Not all signatures on the Declaration are equal. John Hancock's is famously larger. Does this matter in the eyes of the Creator mentioned therein?
I had a wonderful note from John Bayley [Oxford literary critic and Iris Murdoch’s former spouse] saying, “Iris never reads reviews of her work, but were she to do so, I’m sure she would be the first to appreciate your courtesy…” It didn’t make any sense at all. If she was the first to appreciate it, she would put down her pen and never pick it up again!
I wanted to find the context, the article in the Observer in 1987 where she said it or wrote it. It seems, at first glance, that it might have an intention to go against the Declaration of Independence, in which the revolutionaries were rejecting monarchy, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
ReplyDeleteYet it is something we've all reasoned through before. Yes, we should all have one vote, have equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity to pursue our happinesses. That's the collective American dream, what people come here for. That's the politics of the matter, certainly our birthrights as citizens. That's where the cry of equality is the cry of the USA. Let women be equal. Let all races be equal. Let all sexual persuasions be equal.
A recent comedian I was listening to, talking about either sexual performance or penis size, said that it's not true that all men are created equal. And she got the laugh. The joke goes further with the Murdoch quote, that somehow we would need to strive to make all men equal. It gets muddier and muddier, considering how we could make everyone have equal height, equal vision, equal IQs, and so on. How to resolve equality of men and women in all these regards makes the matter yet muddier.
Until Simone Biles is defeated, no one is equal to her at what she does. To have her equal on this score, cripples her. Trump cannot be a genius by proclaiming himself one. If we considered him one, we would be bringing geniuses down to his level. But before the law? Yes, all must be equal, and when this is not the case, it must be righted. And if they each, both Biles and Trump and you and I,with equal opportunity, took the same job at the USPS or at Amazon Prime and performed it the same way, then all should get equal pay. Then, when it is time to vote, we each get to, and we each get one, like everyone else.
Not all signatures on the Declaration are equal. John Hancock's is famously larger. Does this matter in the eyes of the Creator mentioned therein?
The way things work. I just bumped into an article that has a little section of Christopher Ricks on Iris Murdoch: Christopher Ricks: “Criticism is being good at noticing things”. Here's the little section:
ReplyDelete~~
On reviewing Iris Murdoch
I had a wonderful note from John Bayley [Oxford literary critic and Iris Murdoch’s former spouse] saying, “Iris never reads reviews of her work, but were she to do so, I’m sure she would be the first to appreciate your courtesy…” It didn’t make any sense at all. If she was the first to appreciate it, she would put down her pen and never pick it up again!
~~