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

[Pattern-chaser]

Treating people as instances of a group instead of as individuals is inherently wrong.

This is Libertarian 'truth', not philosophical 'truth'. I don't think this is a political topic, is it?

[Fried Egg]

Treating people as instances of a group instead of as individuals is inherently wrong.

This is Libertarian 'truth', not philosophical 'truth'.

Why not take the ethical judgement out of it then?

It's an empirical fact that all members of a socially constructed group are not all the same. Treating them as if they were is going to be problematic (in as far as particular individuals differ from the group norm).

You're not obliged to care about it(or maybe you think the the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs) but you can't deny it.

I don't think this is a political topic, is it?

In what way is a discussion on the concept of gender equality vs. equity not a political topic?

[Pattern-chaser]

It's an empirical fact that all members of a socially constructed group are not all the same. Treating them as if they were is going to be problematic (in as far as particular individuals differ from the group norm).

You're not obliged to care about it (or maybe you think that the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs) but you can't deny it.

People can be usefully viewed as a group, as a collection of individuals, or as independent individuals. All three perspectives offer useful insights. So I don't deny your one perspective, but I add to it the other two, that are also of value. There are probably other useful and valuable perspectives too...

[Fried Egg]

It's an empirical fact that all members of a socially constructed group are not all the same. Treating them as if they were is going to be problematic (in as far as particular individuals differ from the group norm).

You're not obliged to care about it (or maybe you think that the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs) but you can't deny it.

People can be usefully viewed as a group, as a collection of individuals, or as independent individuals. All three perspectives offer useful insights. So I don't deny your one perspective, but I add to it the other two, that are also of value. There are probably other useful and valuable perspectives too...

It is not an either or. Or at least it shouldn't be. We are individuals and yet we may share certain attributes in common with each other. It is certainly a useful tool to categorise people into different groups according to these attributes we share in common. It would be foolish to reject this completely and only treat people strictly as individuals without any regard to what they have in common. But it would be going to far to treat everyone strictly as members of groups without any regard to our individuality. And it is precisely this mistake, I think, that people who advocate for "equity" are making.

For example, If I were to consider the profession of brick laying and break down the brick layers by gender and find them split 70-30 in favour of men (completely fabricated numbers by me) then we might be tempted to declare that, since there is no inherent reason why women cannot perform this profession equally as well as men, this must indicate some kind of institutional discrimination against women. Furthermore, why not impose gender quotas to brick laying firms to ensure that 50% of the brick layers they employ are women?

I would like to think that I shouldn't need to point out the problems with such a scheme but clearly there are people who are in favour of "equity" or we wouldn't be having this discussion. If I reason from the fact that there is no reason why women can't brick lay as well as men to the conclusion that therefore better quality female brick layers are being rejected in favour of lesser quality male brick layers, it is reasonable to think that a quota might fix this problem: If I am forced to employ more women I will choose the best ones and if I am forced to employ less men I will reject the worst ones. Thereby leading to a state of affairs where there is a 50-50 split between male & female brick layers which happily coincides with the best brick layers being employed. But of course it might well be the case that far fewer women choose to go into the profession of brick laying (for any number of reasons). It might even be the case that the physical differences (on average) between men and women mean that men are more suited to brick laying (on average). Whatever the non-discriminatory reasons for this disproportionate split between men and women, in so far as they exist, it is clear that the imposition of a quota will actually lead to firms being forced to turn down some better qualified men in favour for lesser qualified women in order to meet it.

Would a quota be justified anyway merely to redress the injustices of the past when discrimination did exist? That would seem like pointless retribution to me. The beneficiaries of past discrimination are in the past and do not confer that benefit to their modern day counterparts. I think somebody already pointed out at the beginning of this thread why such a notion makes little sense when it comes to gender discrimination (where it might make more sense with other kinds of discrimination - such as race).

So anyway, the point is that there is a balance to be achieved here. We should not ignore our individuality nor the things we have in common.

[Pattern-chaser]

People can be usefully viewed as a group, as a collection of individuals, or as independent individuals. All three perspectives offer useful insights. So I don't deny your one perspective, but I add to it the other two, that are also of value. There are probably other useful and valuable perspectives too...

It is not an either or. Or at least it shouldn't be. We are individuals and yet we may share certain attributes in common with each other. It is certainly a useful tool to categorise people into different groups according to these attributes we share in common. It would be foolish to reject this completely and only treat people strictly as individuals without any regard to what they have in common. But it would be going to far to treat everyone strictly as members of groups without any regard to our individuality. And it is precisely this mistake, I think, that people who advocate for "equity" are making.

In general terms, I do not dispute what you say. But I wonder if there is a part of this reasoning that you're missing? We have the 3 perspectives that I described — and maybe many more too — but they apply in different proportions to specific problems/issues. And there are some problems where it is more useful and informative to consider humans as a group. [Equally, and obviously, there are also problems best treated by considering humans to be isolated individuals, considered en masse. But we are not currently considering such a problem.]

I don't think it is immoral or illogical to consider two groups, that have historically acted as groups, and been treated as groups, as groups. Equity is such a case. If women, as a group, have been denied XYZ by men, also acting as a group, it seems reasonable to consider the problem in terms of those two groups. No-one's individuality is denied, it just isn't especially relevant to the particular problem in hand.

And yes, a solution to a problem like equity might well prove unfair to a few individuals, and that is an unfortunate consequence of this particular issue being treated as a group issue; but it is a group issue. That a few individuals suffer is undesirable, but not a good reason not to implement a solution that is otherwise fair and just. Sometimes it is not possible to be fair and just to everyone, everywhere, simultaneously. So we settle for doing the best we can, for as many as possible. How else could it be?

[Fried Egg]

I don't think it is immoral or illogical to consider two groups, that have historically acted as groups, and been treated as groups, as groups. Equity is such a case. If women, as a group, have been denied XYZ by men, also acting as a group, it seems reasonable to consider the problem in terms of those two groups. No-one's individuality is denied, it just isn't especially relevant to the particular problem in hand.

Perhaps a problem here is you consider groups capable of acting, and thereby having collective responsibility for those actions? But I would say that it is individuals that act and that are responsible, not groups. We do not prosecute groups of people for committing crimes, only individuals. If a gang of people goes out, ends up fighting another another gang and someone in one of those gangs dies, we would not prosecute the entire group for the crime. Individuals would have to be found culpable, the extent to which they were complicit in the crime determined and they would be prosecuted on that basis. Merely being a member of that group is not sufficient to show that they share in the blame.

By declaring collective responsibility you are denying individual responsibility.

And yes, a solution to a problem like equity might well prove unfair to a few individuals, and that is an unfortunate consequence of this particular issue being treated as a group issue; but it is a group issue. That a few individuals suffer is undesirable, but not a good reason not to implement a solution that is otherwise fair and just. Sometimes it is not possible to be fair and just to everyone, everywhere, simultaneously. So we settle for doing the best we can, for as many as possible. How else could it be?

You keep stating that this is a "group" issue, but only because proponents of equity have defined it as such. Take my brick laying example (in my previous post). They have gone out and found that only 30% of brick layers are women and then declared that this is a problem. They assume that this statistical disparity is evidence of institutional discrimination in favour of men and at the expense of women. The outcome they desire is a 50-50 split between male and female brick layers so it is logical to reverse discrimination the other way until that is achieved. But the outcome the proponents of equality desire is and end to institutional discrimination. If that is eliminated, it does not matter what proportion of brick layers are women and men.

For "equality", the crime is discrimination and the goal is eliminating discrimination. For "equity", the crime is statistical disparities between groups and the goal to eliminate those differences. This is only a "group issue" if you accept the aims of "equity".

All that aside, even if we accept your definition of this as a "group issue", I'm not sure I share your idea that it is okay to make some individuals suffer so long as it is for the greater good. We should strive to be "fair and just" to everyone, even if we inevitably fail in some cases. The end does not always justify the means. And I certainly don't believe that using discrimination to eliminate statistical disparities is an end that justifies the means.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't think it is immoral or illogical to consider two groups, that have historically acted as groups, and been treated as groups, as groups. Equity is such a case. If women, as a group, have been denied XYZ by men, also acting as a group, it seems reasonable to consider the problem in terms of those two groups. No-one's individuality is denied, it just isn't especially relevant to the particular problem in hand.

Perhaps a problem here is you consider groups capable of acting...

I think it would be more accurate to say that humans are capable of acting in and as groups, and as individuals, and as any mixture of the two. I do not assert that humans are any of these things, but only that we can and do act as though we are.

By declaring collective responsibility you are denying individual responsibility.

I would assign the responsibility to humans. If you act individually, or as a member of a group, you retain responsibility for your actions. How could it be otherwise? And if a group act in a particular way, the group is also responsible for its actions. Note that I wrote "also", for group responsibility does not take away, or substitute for, individual responsibility. Both can co-exist, IMO, in such circumstances as we are discussing.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the October 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches by John N. (Jake) Ferris

"Our protest is not against men. Our protest is against the system which men are born into." -Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall-

Gender equality has been a topic which has been discussed with positive, negative, and neutral reactions from the society for ages. But it has not been achieved in many parts of the world.

What we have been doing is making rules and laws to ensure equal opportunities to both sexes. But it is obvious that none of these laws can change the traditional mindsets that are set to give priority to boys over girls. This is where the word 'equity' comes into play.

While gender equality is simply focused on providing men and women with the same equal opportunities (like making it legal for women to own land, or even attend school), gender equity works to correct the historical wrongs that have left women behind (such as societal restrictions on employment). Gender equity also means giving women the tools to succeed, like programs that offer conditional cash transfers to women. A focus on equity bridges the gaps in equality through laws and policies and gender-focused programs that don’t just level the playing field, but also work to change the culture to be more supportive of women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.co ... ation/amp/

What are your opinions on this thought? What is more suitable? Or in other words, what is more achievable, sustainable, as well as practically applicable?

Please note that, even If you are against gender equality, your posts are welcome in this forum. Thank you

Gender "equity" as you define it is not in the same category as racial "equity", in the sense that if blacks are say redlined out of easy home ownership in one era, their descendants will have lost out on the growth in equity that could have run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. OTOH, women who lose out on financial opportunities typically were partnered with men who didn't and had sons who didn't. Similarly, men who had financial advantages compared to their female counterparts commonly would have daughters who would suffer those inequities. Thus the gender inequality didn't get passed and compounded over generations such that women today should be compensated for inequality generations ago.

I think that is not what the author of this document to which I referred to have intended to say. We cannot correct what has happened in the past and we cannot compensate those who lived in the past. What we can do is learn from the past, understand when and where the females were treated unfairly, and address those issues. So the present and the future generations will have the benefits of gender equity.

[Fried Egg]

This is quite pertinent:

https://quillette.com/2022/10/20/anti-m ... the-nhmrc/

The NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council) has just announced that it is introducing quotas next year for mid level and senior research funding applications to ensure that 50% goes to female (or non-binary) applicants.

The above article argues that the imbalance in the numbers of senior researchers merely reflects the institutional discrimination that existed in the system until a few decades ago, as is evidenced by the fact that there are as many, if not more, female researchers at a junior level than there are male. The funding award split at all levels roughly reflects the demographic split already so why does anything as drastic as quotas need to be implemented?

Of course, those advocating for "equity" reason backwards, starting from the apparent disparity in funding awards at senior level, and conclude that forcing this funding to be awarded 50/50 will help re-dress the under-representation of women at the senior level. Sure, maybe it will attract more women to go on to become senior researchers as they know now that they will find it far easier to get funding than men will. But I agree with the article above in the notion that if the funding split already reflects the demographic split, that's good enough reason to conclude that "equality" has already been achieved. Those advocating for "equity" always want to go well beyond that.

[Gertie]

This topic is about the October 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches by John N. (Jake) Ferris

"Our protest is not against men. Our protest is against the system which men are born into." -Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall-

Gender equality has been a topic which has been discussed with positive, negative, and neutral reactions from the society for ages. But it has not been achieved in many parts of the world.

What we have been doing is making rules and laws to ensure equal opportunities to both sexes. But it is obvious that none of these laws can change the traditional mindsets that are set to give priority to boys over girls. This is where the word 'equity' comes into play.

While gender equality is simply focused on providing men and women with the same equal opportunities (like making it legal for women to own land, or even attend school), gender equity works to correct the historical wrongs that have left women behind (such as societal restrictions on employment). Gender equity also means giving women the tools to succeed, like programs that offer conditional cash transfers to women. A focus on equity bridges the gaps in equality through laws and policies and gender-focused programs that don’t just level the playing field, but also work to change the culture to be more supportive of women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.co ... ation/amp/

What are your opinions on this thought? What is more suitable? Or in other words, what is more achievable, sustainable, as well as practically applicable?

Please note that, even If you are against gender equality, your posts are welcome in this forum. Thank you

Outcomes are what matter in the end here. If you have equal opportunities on an unequal playing field, you haven't gone deeply enough into the problem.

Is achievable to change the playing field? Sure, where I live we now have have childcare, parental leave and pay, flexible working. We have laws which outlaw rape in marriage, domestic violence shelters, benefits for carers, the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, etc. These soon become normalised and give women many more options for living independant lives and freedom to choose how they live, in ways men have taken for granted. And I'd say everybody's the better for it. Not perfect, but the progressive trend has transformed the lives of millions.

Lets hope it continues in the light of the backlash from the conservative Right, and Theocracies abroad.

[Fried Egg]

Outcomes are what matter in the end here.

Well, actually that is exactly what is under dispute here. Is it equal outcomes or equal opportunity that really matters?

If you have equal opportunities on an unequal playing field, you haven't gone deeply enough into the problem.

I would say that if you don't have an equal playing field (i.e. an absence of institutional discrimination) then you don't have equal opportunities. Equal opportunities implies a level playing field. It is not a matter that equality does not go far enough, it is that equity is at odds with equality. They are incompatible.

Lets hope it continues in the light of the backlash from the conservative Right, and Theocracies abroad.

It's funny you see it like that because historically, it was the liberal, progressive left that advocated for equal opportunities and the social conservatives that tried to maintain the status quo of institutional discrimination. Nowadays, those who argue for the very same thing (equal opportunities) are accused of being conservatives.

In reality, it is not merely social conservatives who are your enemy, it is also the traditional progressives who you are fighting against (and yes, they do exist). And in your pursuit for "equity" you are alienating normal people as your policies violate their intuitive sense of justice.

Here's hoping that the pendulum is beginning to swing back and people are starting to see sense.

[LuckyR]

This topic is about the October 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches by John N. (Jake) Ferris

"Our protest is not against men. Our protest is against the system which men are born into." -Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall-

Gender equality has been a topic which has been discussed with positive, negative, and neutral reactions from the society for ages. But it has not been achieved in many parts of the world.

What we have been doing is making rules and laws to ensure equal opportunities to both sexes. But it is obvious that none of these laws can change the traditional mindsets that are set to give priority to boys over girls. This is where the word 'equity' comes into play.

While gender equality is simply focused on providing men and women with the same equal opportunities (like making it legal for women to own land, or even attend school), gender equity works to correct the historical wrongs that have left women behind (such as societal restrictions on employment). Gender equity also means giving women the tools to succeed, like programs that offer conditional cash transfers to women. A focus on equity bridges the gaps in equality through laws and policies and gender-focused programs that don’t just level the playing field, but also work to change the culture to be more supportive of women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.co ... ation/amp/

What are your opinions on this thought? What is more suitable? Or in other words, what is more achievable, sustainable, as well as practically applicable?

Please note that, even If you are against gender equality, your posts are welcome in this forum. Thank you

Gender "equity" as you define it is not in the same category as racial "equity", in the sense that if blacks are say redlined out of easy home ownership in one era, their descendants will have lost out on the growth in equity that could have run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. OTOH, women who lose out on financial opportunities typically were partnered with men who didn't and had sons who didn't. Similarly, men who had financial advantages compared to their female counterparts commonly would have daughters who would suffer those inequities. Thus the gender inequality didn't get passed and compounded over generations such that women today should be compensated for inequality generations ago.

I think that is not what the author of this document to which I referred to have intended to say. We cannot correct what has happened in the past and we cannot compensate those who lived in the past. What we can do is learn from the past, understand when and where the females were treated unfairly, and address those issues. So the present and the future generations will have the benefits of gender equity.

Well, there is a robust conversation on the potential role of current actions to address past injustices and their compounded effects on present day citizens. This does not exist for gender injustice.

[heracleitos]

As far as I am concerned, women can do whatever they want.

The feminist government only gets interested when men start behaving in the same way, and also stop giving a flying fart about other people. However, these "strong and independent" women apparently still count on men to do the heavy lifting for them. The answer to that is: No, sorry, do it by yourself.

Noticing that we lo longer give a flying fart, the feminist State increasingly seeks to coerce men into giving up their freedom, "for the greater good", since a growing number of men no longer care in the least.

The feminist State then resorts to using men to coerce other men.

Since there is no such thing as a free lunch, men who want to coerce other men, must be made to prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.

The Afghan hill tribes did a great job in attacking and destroying NATO personnel, equipment, and facilities, but unfortunately, there is still a lot of work to be done.

It infuriates the hell out of me that the traitors of NATO have managed to escape alive from Kabul Airport. Men who do the bidding of the feminist State must be decisively terminated.

Hopefully, we can now count on Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation to finish off the job where the Afghan hill tribes left off.

Just like Zelensky, I am totally opposed to negotiations or to any peace deal. We do not negotiate with traitors, who must instead be eradicated.

If even Putin does not finish the job, then Ji Xing Ping (JXP) and the Chinese People's Republic will. If even JXP doesn't do it, then I will start looking for ways to do it by myself.

[PearlWall8855]

I couldn't read the whole thread of responses so I'll respond to the main topic. I think gender equity sounds really nice, but it is essentially affirmative action. Why stop there? Why shouldn't society then look at my suboptimal parents, and "recalibrate" me with a little cash? Well this obvious extreme is simply, it's really hard to value for my individual circumstance.

That being said I strongly empathize with women. I feel like when you have a boy and a girl that is 8 years old they are essentially the same. The boy get a suite of "identities" and "success trajectories" to choose from while women are for lack of a softer/better term either "sexualized" and or "raised softly, raised to be too meek", whereas men are trained to be cowboys who take risks that is particularly suitable for the harsh environment we live in.

The inequity upsets me, but I'm skeptical of leaving things like this to the government to decide. After they took this step, the things you can socialize are unlimited. But there are not unlimited resources.

[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.