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

[Fried Egg]

No, I'm not kidding. Equality is just that: a 'level playing field'. And if men are in all the positions of power and privilege, because of a historical denial of women's rights, if men are educated, have the vote, are able to own property, and so on, then simply introducing equality is insufficient to make things right. A brief period of catching-up is in order, so that there really is a 'level playing field' on which all can compete equally.

How brief is a "brief period" exactly? In the UK, women have had the right to vote and to own property on a par with men for almost 100 years now. Girls now well outperform boys at all levels in education. Presumably the time for affirmative action has well and truly past?

At least be honest, we have no way of measuring how level the playing field is other than by measuring statistical disparities. Affirmative action levels the playing field by forcing equal outcomes upon us.

Once institutional discrimination is brought to an end, men are, by definition, no longer using their power to deny women's rights. In so far as individual men are found to be abusing their positions of power, that of course must be dealt with (we have no argument there). But if you just immediately try to artificially elevate women above and beyond their current abilities, and hold back men who are better qualified, you don't level the playing field, you just dumb down society and make everyone worse off.

[Pattern-chaser]

No, I'm not kidding. Equality is just that: a 'level playing field'. And if men are in all the positions of power and privilege, because of a historical denial of women's rights, if men are educated, have the vote, are able to own property, and so on, then simply introducing equality is insufficient to make things right. A brief period of catching-up is in order, so that there really is a 'level playing field' on which all can compete equally.

How brief is a "brief period" exactly? In the UK, women have had the right to vote and to own property on a par with men for almost 100 years now. Girls now well outperform boys at all levels in education. Presumably the time for affirmative action has well and truly past?

In the areas you mention, equality does seem to be in place, so no action seems necessary or appropriate.

Affirmative action levels the playing field by forcing equal outcomes upon us.

Not at all. It levels the playing field by finishing-off the introduction of equality. When there are female role models alongside male role models, and so on (it's not only about role models, but about all the ways in which the entrenched oppression of inequality has left residual disadvantage), then the catching-up is complete and no longer required.

[Fried Egg]

Consider a working class male miner and and aristocratic woman in 1930 (just a few years after women achieved the vote and full property rights). Who had more power and privilege?

My point is merely that there is always an uneven distribution of power and privilege in society. It does not follow neatly along lines of gender (or on any other social constructs). If the advocates for "equity" are trying to eliminate those power structures then they need a far more complex and sophisticated way of analysing society.

Personally, I don't think that attempting to eliminate power structures in society is even something that we should be striving to achieve but clearly there are many who do. And I think this is near the root of our philosophical dispute over exactly what we're trying to achieve in the pursuit of "equality".

[LuckyR]

No, I'm not kidding. Equality is just that: a 'level playing field'. And if men are in all the positions of power and privilege, because of a historical denial of women's rights, if men are educated, have the vote, are able to own property, and so on, then simply introducing equality is insufficient to make things right. A brief period of catching-up is in order, so that there really is a 'level playing field' on which all can compete equally.

How brief is a "brief period" exactly? In the UK, women have had the right to vote and to own property on a par with men for almost 100 years now. Girls now well outperform boys at all levels in education. Presumably the time for affirmative action has well and truly past?

At least be honest, we have no way of measuring how level the playing field is other than by measuring statistical disparities. Affirmative action levels the playing field by forcing equal outcomes upon us.

Once institutional discrimination is brought to an end, men are, by definition, no longer using their power to deny women's rights. In so far as individual men are found to be abusing their positions of power, that of course must be dealt with (we have no argument there). But if you just immediately try to artificially elevate women above and beyond their current abilities, and hold back men who are better qualified, you don't level the playing field, you just dumb down society and make everyone worse off.

I agree completely... for the specific issue of gender. Though that is certainly not the only or most prominent axis on which there as been historical and current discrimination.

[Mounce574]

No, I'm not kidding. Equality is just that: a 'level playing field'. And if men are in all the positions of power and privilege, because of a historical denial of women's rights, if men are educated, have the vote, are able to own property, and so on, then simply introducing equality is insufficient to make things right. A brief period of catching-up is in order, so that there really is a 'level playing field' on which all can compete equally.

How brief is a "brief period" exactly? In the UK, women have had the right to vote and to own property on a par with men for almost 100 years now. Girls now well outperform boys at all levels in education. Presumably the time for affirmative action has well and truly past?

In the areas you mention, equality does seem to be in place, so no action seems necessary or appropriate.

Affirmative action levels the playing field by forcing equal outcomes upon us.

I agree completely. I am a woman and I don't think I should be paid for something I did not earn. I think employers shouldn't look at a person's gender, race, etc. Whoever is the most qualified for the position should be hired. However, I don't think this could be done unless the interview is blind and voice-altered. Affirmative action doesn't level the field. Corporations have to maintain percentages of gender and race; therefore, they hire unqualified applicants based on this federal requirement. My case in point is the high turnover rates for places like Whirlpool (worked there and watched it happen).

Not at all. It levels the playing field by finishing-off the introduction of equality. When there are female role models alongside male role models, and so on (it's not only about role models, but about all the ways in which the entrenched oppression of inequality has left residual disadvantage), then the catching-up is complete and no longer required.

[Pattern-chaser]

Consider a working class male miner and and aristocratic woman in 1930 (just a few years after women achieved the vote and full property rights). Who had more power and privilege?

Class structure is an instance of inequality, but it isn't the one we're discussing here. Unless you wish to switch from the discrimination that women have suffered throughout our history to a different instance of inequality? Otherwise, the above is merely a distraction from the discussion we were having.

[Fried Egg]

Consider a working class male miner and and aristocratic woman in 1930 (just a few years after women achieved the vote and full property rights). Who had more power and privilege?

Class structure is an instance of inequality, but it isn't the one we're discussing here. Unless you wish to switch from the discrimination that women have suffered throughout our history to a different instance of inequality? Otherwise, the above is merely a distraction from the discussion we were having.

My point is that you cannot isolate one kind of power imbalance from one another, and merely treat one at a time. And when you do, you actually exacerbate the other ones you're not focusing on. That said, I object to the very premise that we should be attempting to eliminate imbalances of power in society. In a "free" society you are always going to have imbalances and if you somehow managed to eliminate them I don't know what on earth makes you think that you wouldn't need to maintain those apparatus of coercion in order to prevent those power imbalances re-occurring.

So, the only way you can eliminate imbalances of power in society is forcing us to all be equal which, to my mind, is abhorrent. Social institutions should treat everyone equally but not force us all to be equal. What you call "finishing-off the introduction of equality" I call going too far and actually reversing equality. Forcing employers to think about and discriminate on the basis of gender whereas otherwise they might have been "gender blind".

This, in a nutshell is what differentiates the drives for "equality" and "equity". The former strives for freedom from institutional oppression and the other strives for destroy those things that make us different. We are never going to see eye to eye but I thank you at least for helping me clarifying my own thoughts on the matter.

[Pattern-chaser]

I object to the very premise that we should be attempting to eliminate imbalances of power in society.

What we do within our own society is our own business. There are no rules at all: we just follow our whims. So we could, if we wished, attempt to "eliminate imbalances of power in society". But I don't think that's what we're discussing here.

To rid ourselves of inequality is merely to dispense with long-followed patterns of unfairness or injustice.

[Fried Egg]

...if men are in all the positions of power and privilege...

I object to the very premise that we should be attempting to eliminate imbalances of power in society.

But I don't think that's what we're discussing here.

Yes, that is exactly what we are discussing here.

To rid ourselves of inequality is merely to dispense with long-followed patterns of unfairness or injustice.

You're just saying the same thing using slightly different words.

Your notion of equality is not my notion of equality. Yours is at odds with mine. As I said, I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this and no amount of restating it in slightly different words is going to help.

[MAYA EL]

Talk about doublethink in action - you claim that you aspire to end discrimination and yet you are quite happy to use discrimination to eliminate the "residual effects" of "historic inequality". Talk about fighting fire with fire.

What I've suggested is not difficult to understand. A temporary boost for women, once equality is actually in place, allows them to catch up to the men who have benefitted from inequality for so very many centuries. Look back to the beginning of that last sentence: the 2nd word is "temporary".

It's almost equivalent to training wheels on a bicycle. They're not required for long, only while you learn to balance. Using this analogy — which won't stretch too far, I admit — the men have been able to ride bikes for a long time, but the women never had the chance. It does not create equality if you just allow women to own bicycles. They need to catch up, which in this case means learning to ride. Once that has been achieved, matters are properly equal, and can be determined by merit and competition. This isn't 'rocket science'.

catch up to men? are you kidding? there is no catching up to be made

No, I'm not kidding. Equality is just that: a 'level playing field'. And if men are in all the positions of power and privilege, because of a historical denial of women's rights, if men are educated, have the vote, are able to own property, and so on, then simply introducing equality is insufficient to make things right. A brief period of catching-up is in order, so that there really is a 'level playing field' on which all can compete equally.

society has been evolving

Yes, the recognition of inequality, and consequent moves toward equality, are part of that.

and at one time the woman had no choice but to stay home because there was no birth control and hardly any jobs that a woman could safely do...

...except for all the jobs they have historically done? Childcare is only one of them. In a hunter-gatherer society, women gather while men hunt. Women have been 'gainfully employed' throughout the history of our species, doing at least as much as men, but doing different things, because in the end, all of those things needed doing. It is a nonsense that women did no work, and another nonsense that women took their leisure at home while men did the work.

Your man hating perspective of the world is not your own it is the exact perspective that has been designed by the same people that are responsible for junk like BLM and I'm sorry but your perspective is of a reality that's completely different from the actual real world

You ignore many of the facts that I said and only cherry picked what you felt you could distort inorder to fit your borrowed opinion

Did you not hear me when I said that up untill very recently woman HAD to let men do most of the paid labor because it was and is physically impossible for a woman to do

Or completely impractical I mean do you want to go for 6monrhs at a time and work 7 days a week 12hr days welding? Or as a grinder? Holding a 20lb 10" grinder grinding welds all day long on the pipeline? And have a period during those 6 months working with no days off? Out in a place with pretty much no comforts of modern home living?

The reality is that life is just life and you choose to see it as unfair and you want to suppress (making life really unfair) all of the men untill woman reaches some point where things are even?

How would you know when that point is reached? You can't know because the other team is suppressed so what you will end up with is a neverending suppression of men and a world of true inequality and all in the name of equality

Truly ironic

[Pattern-chaser]

Your man hating perspective of the world is not your own...

I'm sorry but your perspective is of a reality that's completely different from the actual real world

My opinions are my own, regardless of their origin. They seem to me to reflect the "actual real world" that I live in. They may be wrong, of course; that's the risk one takes by having opinions. You, on the other hand, seem to take no such risk. There is no allowance in your word-choice for you being wrong. That's a brave stance for a philosopher to adopt. It also makes discussion difficult, maybe impossible.

[Good_Egg]

When there are female role models alongside male role models, and so on (it's not only about role models, but about all the ways in which the entrenched oppression of inequality has left residual disadvantage), then the catching-up is complete and no longer required.

Maybe you need to be explicit about what those other ways are ?

If you're saying that it's about role modelling - that there can be no equality of opportunity for any post which has never been held by a woman - then it seems you might have a valid argument.

But if your claim that there is residual discrimination is based either on some sort of article of faith that women are victimised, or on the fact of unequal outcomes, then you're on shaky ground.

[MAYA EL]

Your man hating perspective of the world is not your own...

I'm sorry but your perspective is of a reality that's completely different from the actual real world

My opinions are my own, regardless of their origin. They seem to me to reflect the "actual real world" that I live in. They may be wrong, of course; that's the risk one takes by having opinions. You, on the other hand, seem to take no such risk. There is no allowance in your word-choice for you being wrong. That's a brave stance for a philosopher to adopt. It also makes discussion difficult, maybe impossible.

on the contrary I know that I'm wrong
about what? i don't know and if I did then i wouldn't be wrong about it

my entire view and opinion on life has changed completely more then 1 or 2 times in just the last 6 years

so just because i am confident doesn't mean I don't leave room to be wrong it just means you don't like my opinion despite it being factual and grounded in observable reality

I put a lot of time into contemplating the things i chose to believe and their are many things that i believe while at the same time i don't like them but i still hold them because my #1 goal is the truth rather it damn me or agree with me

And it's surprising how few people are after the same thing as i am.

[Pattern-chaser]

Your man hating perspective of the world is not your own...

just because i am confident doesn't mean I don't leave room to be wrong it just means you don't like my opinion despite it being factual and grounded in observable reality

I respect your opinions as such. But I resent your assumption that my perspective is "man-hating". I have not said this, and the main reason I haven't said it is that I don't believe it to be an appropriate, helpful, or correct perspective.

[Pattern-chaser]

Your man hating perspective of the world is not your own...

just because i am confident doesn't mean I don't leave room to be wrong it just means you don't like my opinion despite it being factual and grounded in observable reality

I respect your opinions as such. But I resent your assumption that my perspective is "man-hating". I have not said this, and the main reason I haven't said it is that I don't believe it to be an appropriate, helpful, or correct perspective.

To support the struggle of women against long-term inequality is not to hate men. That is binary thinking at its very worst: "If you're not with us, you're against us".