How do we reach equality?

Long-Chair-7825 · 2020-10-06T21:54:57+00:00

This wasn't mentioned in the slides, but it is relevant: Many Feminists aren't really for either. Anywhere where women are advantaged(i.e. teaching) they don't care. Anywhere men are advantaged, they sometimes want equality of opportunity, and sometimes outcome, depending on which one benefits women more.

YooGeOh · 2020-10-06T23:10:28+00:00

Great analogy

spudmix · 2020-10-07T01:36:30+00:00

I found this one to be a bit weaker than your usual offerings. I really liked many of your previous presentations, but this one betrays a bit of (what looks like) a shallow understanding of the issues. Nearly nobody argues for "equality of outcome" as presented here. The division normally lies either in whether arguments are made for formal equality of opportunity or substantive equality of opportunity - or secondarily, in the extent to which the former implies the latter, or the extent to which the former might justifiably be violated to promote the latter.

The things that people usually rail against as being "equality of outcome" measures - diversity efforts in university admissions or hiring quotas, for example - are not so. You can disagree that they are good or effective attempts at equality of opportunity, but the fact remains that they are attempts at substantive equality of opportunity. While a college admission or a job is indeed an outcome if you choose to view it that way, and prioritising the marginalised in admissions or selections is indeed a violation of formal equality, it is done in pursuit of subsequent substantive opportunity.

Actual "equality of outcome" measures would look more like Communism (although Marx himself rejected "equality" outright), perhaps like the redistribution of assets on death (no inheritance). Yesterday's outcome is, of course, tomorrow's opportunity. The only serious discussion about actual equality of outcome in colloquial discourse is when people talk about wealth inequality - and even then, it's usually in the sense that inequality of outcome is a net-negative for society.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a pretty good section on substantive equality of opportunity if you'd like to read more.

BrickDaddyShark · 2020-10-06T23:49:12+00:00

Yo its the tin man pog

ziul1234 · 2020-10-07T04:38:29+00:00

I disagree with forced diversity, but this "free choice" stuff sounds very capitalist. Capitalists paint contracts between employees and employers as a free choice, when in reality, the employees are being coerced. Similarly, people can be coerced into not taking the opportunity.

However, the answer to this is socialism, not feminism. Policies like socialized childcare, for example.

TheTinMenBlog · 2020-10-06T18:46:04+00:00

I’ve been trying to explain these two concepts in simple terms for a while, but I still don’t think I’ve done it. Anyone got a better way of doing this?

2020-10-07T01:31:12+00:00

the problem is femintsts seem to think that until certain fields are minimum 50% women there is not equality of opportunity there.

in their mind if there was equality of opportunity all these luxurious fields must surely have more women

matrixislife · 2020-10-07T03:11:42+00:00

I'm not sure this is the best of the tinman slides, I understand the differences between equality of opportunity and outcome yet it was none too clear even then.

There's a Stephen Donaldson short story called Mythological Creature in the collection Daughter of Regals which has equity as a dystopia, which might spring you some ideas. Simply, equity is great if you have unlimited resources, but if you are limited in what you can give out then instead of boosting some people to equality you have to limit the most talented to make everyone even. Think horse racing and handicaps, but for human beings.

DMP1391 · 2020-10-07T01:18:31+00:00

We already have equality. Unless women are legally barred from certain activities or jobs, our society is already equal.

Equality does not mean you have a right to success.

If you don't like the way your life influences your career outcomes, then change your life. Nobody is forcing you to be feminine or like girly things. If these things stop you from succeeding in your aspiring field, then it's easier for you to change to suit the field than to demand the field changes to suit you.

Kreeps_United · 2020-10-08T18:25:06+00:00

You do realize equality is a lot more complicated than this, right? One can use this same analogy to defend Seperate but Equal which we all know didn't result in equality.

FightHateWithLove · 2020-10-07T01:13:21+00:00

This framing always struck me as a false dichotomy that's meant to handwave away injustices.

Equality of opportunity isn't always apparent. Disparate impact is a thing. If you gave everyone medium size shoes, that would appear to be equality on the surface. But only people with medium size feet would get shoes that fit.

This sort of framing was used to justify marriage inequality because technically gay people could also get married as long as it was to people of the opposite sex. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY!

Inequality of outcome is often a very good indicator that there isn't equality of opportunity.

Also, I do value a certain level of equality of outcome. Otherwise, what's the point? "Well, there's unnecessary suffering around us, but at least we can say we tried."

Title	How do we reach equality?
Author	TheTinMenBlog
Upvotes	52
Comments	23
Date	October 6, 2020 6:45 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/j6auvy/how_do_we_reach_equality/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/how-do-we-reach-equality.1062701 https://theredarchive.com/post/1062701

Comments