Does perfect mean good?

As humans, we strive for equality knowing that we all only have one life. We are reminded that judging people by their identity, a factor that no one can control, is unjustified. 

Hearing the latest news of sexual assault or racism, we protest in horror and anger. We persuade our legislators to create new laws and enforce severe punishments for those who take away the rights of others. We post on our social media to spread awareness of current issues to fight for justice and peace. We make these decisions and put our voices out there because we feel indignant. We want inequality to end because it creates harmful effects in our society. 

However, equality may never be achieved in the real world, or at least not in the next hundred years. Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century dark romantic writer, once believed that all men are inherently evil, and this is true to an extent. We often find pleasure in other people's struggles; we victimize people because we dislike their race, sexual orientation, or culture; we trash talk behind people's backs out of spite and jealousy. Humans, by default, are selfish and egocentric, and these innate characters barricade us from reaching a perfectly equal life. 

One way that we could achieve perfect equality, however, is to dissipate all forms of imbalances and differences in our lives, which would be practically impossible and unfavorable. Everyone would need to be identical to one another, meaning everyone has the same opinions, same physical traits, and same personalities. The upside to this is that everyone will be treated the same, but if this really happens, we remove one of the most fundamental, exciting aspects of our lives: celebrating and embracing the differences in our cultures, talents, interests, and more. The article below examines the problematic nature of perfect equality further.

What Is The Price of Perfect Equality by Shannon Chamberlain

How about perfect equality in relationships and marriages? Isn't it important?

In Their Eyes Were Watching God, Hurston emphasizes Joe Stark's cruelty to his wife, Janie, who intentionally silences her emotions and submits herself to his physical abuse. When Joe finally dies, marking an end to his oppression, Janie bursts out in excitement, crying "Come heah people! Jody is dead. Mah husband is gone from me.'" Although Janie appears sinister to find pleasure over the death of her husband, who supported her financially over the years, her uncharacteristic reaction reveals how inequality in a relationship can have unknowing, negative effects, as Janie only found her self-worth and freedom from Joe's absence. Furthermore, contrasting Janie's emotion with her relationship with Joe to Tea Cake, who treats her with actual respect and attention, Hurston alludes that equality is a significant factor to a genuine, meaningful relationship.

Similarly, in The Awakening, Chopin portrays the dangers of inequality in marriages using Edna Pontellier and her husband, Leonce. Freeing herself from conventional housewife duties and his high expectations, Edna has a secret affair with Robert Lebrun and ignores her children, boldly stating "'I am no longer one of Mr. Pontellier's possessions to dispose of or not. I give myself where I choose.'" At first, the stereotype that forces housewife chores on Edna limits her freedom and dreams in life. Taking great measures to escape from her burdensome life, being disloyal to her husband and her children, she finally finds her place in this world. Again, inequality plays a great downfall in her marriage with Leonce.

So yes, equality is key to a successful relationship, but the truth is that perfect equality cannot always be attained in real life, and a short excerpt from Middlemarch by George Eliot reveals why. In Lydgate and Rosamond's marriage, inequality arises from an outside, unavoidable factor: finance. While both sides have their own opinion of how their money should be used, Lydgate takes initiative in their financial struggle, limiting Rosamond's wants and causing her to regret her marriage. 

Similar situations can occur in real life, as money oftentimes becomes a troubling factor in many relationships. It is a scarce resource, and disagreements on how it is spent will inevitably arise, sooner or later. If there is no agreement on how it should be allocated, one person will have to take over the situation, causing inequality to become present in his or her relationship.

However, just like how perfect equality is unfavorable in society, it may be unfavorable in relationships as well. 

Here is a hypothetical situation:

Let's say that both a husband and the wife distribute their finances in half, and they each choose how their portion is spent. Complete equal voice and power— seems favorable, right? Let's say both a husband and the wife distribute their house chores in half (same amount of work), and they stick to their own responsibilities forever— seems favorable, right?

Yes, it is, and this is what we all want— perfect equality. But, such a relationship misses an important key element: disagreements. 

In many ways, disagreement is what leads to a successful relationship. It strengthens our bonds by deepening our understanding of our partner's thoughts and personalities. It adds exciting elements in relationships, as partners work together to uncover solutions to conflicting ideals. As Jordan Peterson once stated, a real relationship is "like a wrestling match... that you emerge and transform from." Isn't that what we want from our relationships?

Why Fighting is Necessary for Relationships- Jordan Peterson

Alain de Botton from New York Times once said that "Compatibility is an achievement of love; it must not be its precondition," and I fully agree with this. To achieve satisfaction within our relationships, we need to start from disagreements and work cooperatively to create a consensus. We need to show respect to one another, become open-minded, and master resolving disagreements strategically. This way, not only will we have favorable outcomes in our relationships, but we also bring a sense of unity in society by coping with cultural differences and political biases for example.

Perhaps this is the closest way to achieve equality without being perfect.