There are two points I would like to make. First, I think you are conflating sexual equality with freedom of choice. I’m sure you are aware there are a number of societies that have, to all intents and purposes, sexual equality but assign different roles to different sexes.
“And I’ll ask you again, would you honestly hold this position if you were told that your role was to do things that you have no interest or aptitude in (such as weaving) and you just had to do them, without recourse, because that was your role?”
Leaving aside the observation that few of us are mono-talented and can achieve satisfaction from more than one occupation, I would say that I’m already restrained by society in what I can do, both informally and legally. I accept these restraints for the good of society as a whole. In fact there are even more restrictions that I would like to introduce.
Wilkinson and Pickett have convincingly shown the association between extreme wealth inequality and poor social outcomes. As a result I would like to severely limit an individual’s personal wealth. I have no problem restricting people’s actions if it leads to benefits for the many.
