Not necessarily. Consider a society with two kinds of "Sneetches." One kind has stars, one does not. They begin with equal numbers on an island with equal opportunities, but socially they have network effects: They prefer to do business with "their own kind" and so forth.
Such a system could be unstable: A small, random increase in power by either group could accelerate over time the way tribes in survivor can create coïlitionsn and eliminate everyone else.
Now let's say we end up with all the positions of power held by the Sneetches with stars. A Sneetch without a star might make a similar comment. But perhaps, this Sneetch has the insight to see that what needs to be changed is the system, rather than merely shuffling the players around. Putting Sneetches without stars into positions of power in and of itself won't change the inherent problem of network effects. Perhaps things will realign around Sneetches from the West side of the Island, or Sneetches that like a particular sport, but still be discriminatory in a way.
This Sneetch might simply want to change the underlying mechanism of Sneetch society. Go for a cure, you might say, rather than relieve a symptom.
To suggest there is even a such a thing as being "like a man" is as inherently sexist as suggesting that all women are "too emotional" for any real position of power.
Goldman's argument is a version of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Uchikoma is correct to discount it for what it is.
To suggest there is even a such a thing as being "like a man" is as inherently sexist as suggesting that all women are "too emotional" for any real position of power.
Seriously?
Maybe I misunderstand you, but it sounds like the following:
Woman stands up: "All the positions of power are held by men, who promote other men into positions of power. It is obvious that men are sexist!"
To which you reply: "To suggest that men are something-something is as inherently sexist as suggesting that women are too emotional to hold power. You are a sexist!!!!!"
Black person stands up: "And another thing, all the men in power are white!"
Somebody else replies, "Possibly, but the fact is that we are colour-blind and never noticed it. You are a racist!"
(the problem) Emma Goldman had with feminism, if women are looking to hold the same morally bankrupt positions of power that men have then equality is a false hope for all.
i.e.: If women obtain power their positions should be different from men because men hold morally bankrupt positions. Women who obtain power by being competent at the game as it stands/expressing views similar to men are not worth celebrating at all.
I'm not sure what you are arguing, but this is the original point and of course it is obviously a sexist position.
Not exactly. I see what you're getting at - but the original point is criticizing those positions of power as morally bankrupt and noting that although it is equality to see women in those same positions, those claiming it would be beneficial by making those positions more moral are holding to a false premise.
i.e. that women entering these positions, which the commenter holds as morally bankrupt, won't make them better.
Suppose that the people in power are doing things wrong. It is valid and not sexist to point out that putting other kinds of people in power to do the same things wrong, will not solve the real problem. The problem is that they are doing things wrong, not which plumbing they have.
He's saying that it's the position of power that is morally bankrupt, not the man that happens to be filling it today.
If tomorrow a woman was in the same position of power then it would still be morally bankrupt, because it is the position which leads to moral bankruptcy, not the person filling the position.
This is the kind of claim that is made by those arguing for systemic changes; i.e. that the system itself is corrupt and can't be fixed just by inserting "good people".
Thanks, that's a much better explanation in half as many words.
Personally, because I don't automatically view a position of power as corrupting, it's not a view I can support. 'Good people' make measurable differences everyday, and if women want to be those good people than all the power to them.
This is pure sexism and stereotyping men.