Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fried Egg]

It is not a matter that equality does not go far enough, it is that equity is at odds with equality. They are incompatible.

After a prolonged period of inequality, merely instituting equality does not even the score. A short period of equity is necessary to allow the disadvantaged to catch up with the rest who have enjoyed the benefits, got used to them, and learned how to use them to best advantage. Once the disadvantaged have caught up, equality is all that is necessary. But, to allow that just and deserved catch-up period, equity is the only answer, I think.

By "even the score", I think you mean have eliminated statistical disparities between the two groups. So you are merely re-stating what we already know; that "equity" is only concerned with the outcome. But, by definition, if the institutional discrimination has been removed, they are no longer disadvantaged. Members of the previously disadvantaged group now have just as much chance of achieving as members of the previously advantaged group have.

I think that the advocates of "equity" are maybe trying to say that even after the removal of institutional discrimination, there might remain some non institutional discrimination in place (i.e. individuals who harbour their own prejudices) and this is why statistical disparities remain. There are two problems with this idea though:

1) Disparities might persist for other reasons (i.e. personal or cultural reasons). Therefore attempting to forcibly remove them is actually bad for society (and the group you're supposedly trying to help).
2) If there is a genuine persistence of individual prejudice, do quotas (or any of the other tools of the trade) actually help remove these prejudices? I would think it is highly unlikely. In which case, they serve no purpose other than give the illusion that the problem has disappeared.

You have repeatedly suggested that policies aimed at achieving equity are only ever temporary and can eventually be removed (when they are no longer necessary). I am quite skeptical of this Has there ever been a quota that has been removed because it's deemed no longer necessary? I would suggest that they never have because they fail to do what they are designed to achieve for one (or both) of the reasons above.

[Pattern-chaser]

It is not a matter that equality does not go far enough, it is that equity is at odds with equality. They are incompatible.

After a prolonged period of inequality, merely instituting equality does not even the score. A short period of equity is necessary to allow the disadvantaged to catch up with the rest who have enjoyed the benefits, got used to them, and learned how to use them to best advantage. Once the disadvantaged have caught up, equality is all that is necessary. But, to allow that just and deserved catch-up period, equity is the only answer, I think.

By "even the score", I think you mean have eliminated statistical disparities between the two groups. So you are merely re-stating what we already know; that "equity" is only concerned with the outcome. But, by definition, if the institutional discrimination has been removed, they are no longer disadvantaged. Members of the previously disadvantaged group now have just as much chance of achieving as members of the previously advantaged group have.

Just because the inequality has been removed, it doesn't mean that the disadvantaged are no longer disadvantaged. It means the disadvantaged are no longer disadvantaged by ongoing inequality. The remaining advantage of those who benefitted has not gone away. Look what I said, that you didn't seem to notice:

After a prolonged period of inequality, merely instituting equality does not even the score. A short period of equity is necessary to allow the disadvantaged to catch up with the rest who have enjoyed the benefits, got used to them, and learned how to use them to best advantage. Once the disadvantaged have caught up, equality is all that is necessary. But, to allow that just and deserved catch-up period, equity is the only answer, I think.

The 'advantaged' benefitted, and continue to benefit, from that long period of learning and acclimatisation, from having past role model beneficiaries to look up to and emulate, and so forth. Temporary equity serves to balance things out.

[Fried Egg]

Just because the inequality has been removed, it doesn't mean that the disadvantaged are no longer disadvantaged. It means the disadvantaged are no longer disadvantaged by ongoing inequality. The remaining advantage of those who benefitted has not gone away. Look what I said, that you didn't seem to notice:

After a prolonged period of inequality, merely instituting equality does not even the score. A short period of equity is necessary to allow the disadvantaged to catch up with the rest who have enjoyed the benefits, got used to them, and learned how to use them to best advantage. Once the disadvantaged have caught up, equality is all that is necessary. But, to allow that just and deserved catch-up period, equity is the only answer, I think.

The 'advantaged' benefitted, and continue to benefit, from that long period of learning and acclimatisation, from having past role model beneficiaries to look up to and emulate, and so forth. Temporary equity serves to balance things out.

All this tells me is that the forces for "equity" are battling against the other reasons (besides a lack of equal opportunities) that lead to statistical disparities. Like the way our modern western societies seem to be battling against the maternal instinct to get women back to work as quickly as possible, to be no more beholden to the needs of their newly born children than the fathers. These long established biological/sociological differences that cannot possibly be any value . Make men and women equal, by hook or by crook, no matter what we must sacrifice to get there.

Sorry, but I'm not on board with the aims of equity. I do not agree that they are necessary or even desirable.

Also, I reject the fashionable modern idea that you can only find role models in successful members of your "group". i.e. women can only be inspired by examples of other successful women.

[PearlWall8855]

The 'advantaged' benefitted, and continue to benefit, from that long period of learning and acclimatisation, from having past role model beneficiaries to look up to and emulate, and so forth. Temporary equity serves to balance things out.

I think your aims are right. So considering women are 50% of the population, perhaps they are a good place to start with rather than any other disadvantaged group. Unless we were a super advanced civilization both intellectually and in other areas, I think big social policies would need to be focused on a handful at a time.

Take modern day China for example, they might be a perfect country to implement something like this because they are "communist" with "Chinese characteristics" - all that means is they are "socialist" in some areas and "laissez faire market capitalism" in others.

So they collect taxes and redistribute money to put more in women's pockets. I like the idea. Maybe they even design more "goal based" incentives to actively get women on par.

Arguably the society gets more efficient because women feel like their voices are being heard and they become invested in the country development twice than the level they were previously.

I actually think that's all great. I think its super intelligent on paper.

But you then start bumping into other domains of civilization, the government gets proud that they successfully implemented this, and then unfortunately the dictator who implemented this policy dies. The next in succession then thinks he's a big know it all, and does the same thing for, let's say race (there are ethnic minorities in China). Okay then that succeeds.

So the top down planning is bought hook line and sinker. The society becomes more socialist. And the problem with socialism is the "free rider problem", no body does anything because they are going are going to get the same as their brothers and sisters at the end of the day,- so in a socialist society you need to an create extremely clever incentive system to avoid the free rider problem. And I think a lot of the leadership of a society won't happen to be "philosopher kings'

Depending on the degree of equity for women....what do you want specifically done? It sounds like an extreme socialist program. I think it's in the details of what you would want done--- because yes, in theory its actually really really good.

[InfinityMuse]

On gender equality and equity. I would say the topic is very sensitive because of early childhood education. The interdisciplinary system is changing rapidly. Redlining is becoming the enemy of more, while war and migration is leaving hasidic accents of civil and domestic affaires in uniform topographical political maps. School shooting are still high and the fear of judicial policy making changes our political beliefs in high Strada. The battle of the sexes for teachers in grades kindergarten-3rd grade is frustrating and violent. I don't not think equality and equity fit suitable conditions of the matriarchy.

[Sculptor1]

Most commonly when people make a plea for "quality" they actually mean equity.
"Equal" respect under the law.
So I think the distinction point is a phantom.

[InfinityMuse]

Most commonly when people make a plea for "quality" they actually mean equity.
"Equal" respect under the law.
So I think the distinction point is a phantom.

Yes, I agree. Absolutely agree.

The matriarchy is knocking on syndaclism.

[heracleitos]

On gender equality and equity. I would say the topic is very sensitive because of early childhood education. The interdisciplinary system is changing rapidly.

The entire debate on this matter keeps ignoring why sexual dimorphism exists in the first place: facilitating sexually dimorphic behavior:

All sexually reproducing animals display sex differences in social behaviors.

I first examine the role of aromatase in the process of feminization of the brain. I find that absence of aromatase is both necessary and sufficient to produce a feminized brain and that feminization does appear to be the default state of the brain.

I next explored the role of the neurons expressing aromatase, specifically within the medial amygdala (MeA), because the MeA has been shown to be important for sex-specific behaviors.

All together, my findings show that presence or absence of aromatase dictates masculinization or feminization of the brain, and in adulthood, marks neurons within the brain that are necessary for sex-specific behaviors.

Good luck trying to organize "gender equality" in these circumstances, or trying to get the genders to abandon their gender roles.

You can try to force-feed therapy, antidepressants, and antianxiety medication to women, but experience over the last few decades suggests that this approach won't cut it.

[InfinityMuse]

On gender equality and equity. I would say the topic is very sensitive because of early childhood education. The interdisciplinary system is changing rapidly.

The entire debate on this matter keeps ignoring why sexual dimorphism exists in the first place: facilitating sexually dimorphic behavior:

All sexually reproducing animals display sex differences in social behaviors.

I first examine the role of aromatase in the process of feminization of the brain. I find that absence of aromatase is both necessary and sufficient to produce a feminized brain and that feminization does appear to be the default state of the brain.

I next explored the role of the neurons expressing aromatase, specifically within the medial amygdala (MeA), because the MeA has been shown to be important for sex-specific behaviors.

All together, my findings show that presence or absence of aromatase dictates masculinization or feminization of the brain, and in adulthood, marks neurons within the brain that are necessary for sex-specific behaviors.

Good luck trying to organize "gender equality" in these circumstances, or trying to get the genders to abandon their gender roles.

You can try to force-feed therapy, antidepressants, and antianxiety medication to women, but experience over the last few decades suggests that this approach won't cut it.

So, one for one.
The classic boarding school-principle casm.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4037197/

[heracleitos]

So, one for one.
The classic boarding school-principle casm.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4037197/

That is indeed an interesting article on the dimorphism in scorpions:

Striped bark scorpions (Centruroides vittatus) are morphologically and behaviorally sexually dimorphic, and variation in some traits was related to stinging and sprinting performance. Female scorpions have heavier bodies, shorter legs, and metasomas that are lighter, shorter, and thicker.

Concerning feminist scorpions, who refuse to acknowledge these differences, I recommend to set up a new industry that will sell therapy, antidepressants and antianxiety medication to the victims of the scorpion patriarchy.

This solution may not necessarily work particularly well, but at least we will be perceived trying to do something about the problem.

Furthermore, this solution is good for economic growth. Therefore, the most prominent players in the pharma industry will gladly be involved and lend a helping hand to keep the money flowing.

[InfinityMuse]

So, one for one.
The classic boarding school-principle casm.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4037197/

That is indeed an interesting article on the dimorphism in scorpions:

Striped bark scorpions (Centruroides vittatus) are morphologically and behaviorally sexually dimorphic, and variation in some traits was related to stinging and sprinting performance. Female scorpions have heavier bodies, shorter legs, and metasomas that are lighter, shorter, and thicker.

Concerning feminist scorpions, who refuse to acknowledge these differences, I recommend to set up a new industry that will sell therapy, antidepressants and antianxiety medication to the victims of the scorpion patriarchy.

This solution may not necessarily work particularly well, but at least we will be perceived trying to do something about the problem.

Furthermore, this solution is good for economic growth. Therefore, the most prominent players in the pharma industry will gladly be involved and lend a helping hand to keep the money flowing.

This message was brought to you by GNC where bad ideas come to die.

[Pattern-chaser]

Also, I reject the fashionable modern idea that you can only find role models in successful members of your "group". i.e. women can only be inspired by examples of other successful women.

Isn't that a sort of combination of binary thinking and a straw man? Of course women are not only inspired by female role models, but they help, sometimes quite a lot. They pass the message that 'women can do this; look, I did'.

[Pattern-chaser]

School shooting are still high...

Only in America. Out here in the rest of the world, where around 7.5 billion of us live, school shootings are rare, almost unheard of.

[Pattern-chaser]

The 'advantaged' benefitted, and continue to benefit, from that long period of learning and acclimatisation, from having past role model beneficiaries to look up to and emulate, and so forth. Temporary equity serves to balance things out.

...the problem with socialism is the "free rider problem", nobody does anything because they are going to get the same as their brothers and sisters at the end of the day

That isn't really socialism. It sounds like an extreme implementation of authoritarian communism with a coercively-centralised economy. Extreme implementations of any political system are generally unworkable. That applies to right-wing Capitalist systems just as much as to left-wing 'socialist' systems.

[Fried Egg]

Also, I reject the fashionable modern idea that you can only find role models in successful members of your "group". i.e. women can only be inspired by examples of other successful women.

Isn't that a sort of combination of binary thinking and a straw man? Of course women are not only inspired by female role models, but they help, sometimes quite a lot. They pass the message that 'women can do this; look, I did'.

Help what exactly? What exactly are we helping women to do by encouraging them to make choices they might not otherwise have made? Achieving statistical parity with men? Have we really established that that is beneficial to women, or that the benefits of doing so aren't outweighed by the costs?

We used to strive merely for equality, an end to institutional discrimination. That was the evil we sought to eliminate. Now we seek to achieve statistical parity, to engineer society according to our platonic ideals, and happily use the tool of institutional discrimination in order to achieve it. We assume the existence of statistical disparities harms/benefits the members of those arbitrary groups without actually establishing it is the case. And then we assume that the harms/benefits are felt in a uniform way across all members of those groups because without that gross over simplification of reality, our measures could never be justified.

The aims of equity and equality are inherently at odds with each other because one seeks to use as a tool the very thing that the other seeks to destroy.

By all means help women achieve what they want to but first make sure you are actually helping them and then not using institutional discrimination in order to do so.