12 Rules for Life (Full) ENGLISH

appalling post-modern claim: that logic itself—along with the techniques of
science—is merely part of the oppressive patriarchal system).
It is also the case, of course, that all outcomes cannot be equalized. First,
outcomes must be measured. Comparing the salaries of people who occupy
the same position is relatively straightforward (although complicated
significantly by such things as date of hire, given the difference in demand
for workers, for example, at different time periods). But there are other
dimensions of comparison that are arguably equally relevant, such as tenure,
promotion rate, and social influence. The introduction of the “equal pay for
equal work” argument immediately complicates even salary comparison
beyond practicality, for one simple reason: who decides what work is equal?
It’s not possible. That’s why the marketplace exists. Worse is the problem of
group comparison: women should make as much as men. OK. Black women
should make as much as white women. OK. Should salary then be adjusted
for all parameters of race? At what level of resolution? What racial categories
are “real”?
The U.S. National Institute of Health, to take a single bureaucratic
example, recognizes American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black,
Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and White. But there are
more than five hundred separate American Indian tribes. By what possible
logic should “American Indian” therefore stand as a canonical category?
Osage tribal members have a yearly average income of $30K, while Tohono
O’odham’s make $11K. Are they equally oppressed? What about disabilities?
Disabled people should make as much as non-disabled people. OK. On the
surface, that’s a noble, compassionate, fair claim. But who is disabled? Is
someone living with a parent with Alzheimer’s disabled? If not, why not?
What about someone with a lower IQ? Someone less attractive? Someone
overweight? Some people clearly move through life markedly overburdened
with problems that are beyond their control, but it is a rare person indeed who
isn’t suffering from at least one serious catastrophe at any given time—
particularly if you include their family in the equation. And why shouldn’t
you? Here’s the fundamental problem: group identity can be fractionated
right down to the level of the individual. That sentence should be written in
capital letters. Every person is unique—and not just in a trivial manner:
importantly, significantly, meaningfully unique. Group membership cannot
capture that variability. Period.