Why do we want or even expect equality in society?

[Devrij]

I was wondering when someone would mistake what I am saying as "master-race talk". Because this is really not what I mean, I don't care what your skin/hair colour is and nor should anyone.

We all have equal rights and opportunities but we are not all equal.

I get that.

I meant this: you used the example of race/gender to indicate physical differences can be genetic and that we aren't born equal. Are you also implying that these same categories influence intelligence or ability? If so, you are about one step away from saying "equality legislation is unnecessary because blacks/asians/whites are destined to underachieve from birth". My point is that inequality of ability is not something you can predict, and therefore legislation and the culture of equality is there to promote opportunity for everyone, which is what you are agreeing is a good thing. no one is saying we should all BE equal. I just balk at the idea of a predetermined inequality based on genetics.

??

I was agreeing with him, and actually your points about meritocracy.

I don't know what the solution is though sadly Not everyone is equal, and whilst some will strive to be better, some will just float along as they are, some will just let themselves be the lowest common denominator. It's just the way we are as humans. Ergo, we will never be identical - there will always be the alphas, betas and epsilons of society.

I was asking about the legislation you felt was wasted on slackers or idiots. I know what you meant, but the reason I asked was because I wanted to point out that it's virtually impossible to target the people that deserve the extra support to achieve what they're capable of, so you often have to throw those pearls before swine.

The sad reality is that if people are born into a group of people who are poor, who are treated differently because of their social status or skin colour, and live in a culture that developed in those conditions, they're going to become the kind of people we say "deserve it" when bad things happen to them, if only because they become that to fit in with their peer group. Only the very few exceptions make it out of that with what we'd consider a good attitude and work ethic. What I'm getting at with this is that the people we think are slackers might have turned out differently if they had been born into a reasonably well-off middle class family and had gained the social capital that society rewards. So we don't know who was born lazy/stupid, who became lazy/stupid, and who is smart and driven.

Like you, I have no idea what the solution is, but I think there might not be one. We are born to fight for resources, so as you say there are always going to be the alpha, beta and epsilon. The issue is that it isn't happening on a personal level, it's happening to huge numbers of people who don't get the chance to decide which they are going to be.

 

[Voltar]

Spot on really.

Everyone should be given the same opportunity or chances, but legislating to try and bring everybody up or down to the same level is ridiculous, it's just untenable.

Agree with you FF.

Above all in my view there should be equality before the law and people should be treated equally with equal respect and dignity.

But people are not born as equals, we are individuals with individual strengths and weaknesses, to force a square peg into a round hole by ignoring this and attempting to force everyone to be equals is total folly.

Individuality should be cherished, praised and nurtured. Having selective schools, universities or other selections made on individual talents and traits strengthens this and makes our society better. We need brilliant individuals to be discovered and pushed and nurtured. The easy argument is to beat down on public schools like Eton. What many ignoramuses do is assume that their parents invite a teacher on a fox hunt, present them with a bucket of cash and in exchange young Tarquinius will be admitted and given straight A*s in everything and will have a room reserved at Oxbridge. The privileged still have to work and strive to achieve.

Those who are willing to strive and achieve should be celebrated.
Not being willing to strive and achieve is not because of where you were born or the fact you were born unequal. Anyone can do it- it doesn't mean you have to be a doctor or lawyer or a celebrity as everyone seems to think and think that there should be equality in this an that everyone and anyone gets a shot. People should wake up and smell the coffee. If you're good enough you get there. Some people need to realise that whilst they may not be good enough to be elite, it doesn't mean they cannot achieve an work hard.

Too much new labour back slapping and hugging and being irresponsible in not managing expectations. People have been allowed to have unrealistic expectations and a sense of entitlement owing to too much banging on the equality drum.

 

[Devrij]

to force a square peg into a round hole by ignoring this and attempting to force everyone to be equals is total folly.

How do you feel this is being done? Is new labour insisting on good jobs for the mentally deficient? Has the coalition decided to award money to underachievers to bring them up to scratch? Or are the measures there to provide the lifeline to the people that need it, the ones you want to celebrate, at the cost of a lot of freeloaders?

Your post reads like someone who doesn't understand the challenges faced by people born into the lowest social strata. Yes, it must be very hard to get into Eton for a privileged person. But how much harder for an equally intelligent person who went to school that resembled the one in Dangerous Minds? Most of your language skills will be learnt from your family, and language skills are social capital.

 

[Moley]

I didn't say consultants were nurses, I said they worked within the NHS. (A caring profession) Shame my examples don't meet your exacting standard, who knows I may not be of the right race, colour or even gender of your choosing either.. It would appear you have so many prejudices I'm struggling to keep up.

The NHS is an organisation NOT a profession. It is staffed by many people of many different professions - nurses, doctors, cleaners, managers, IT staff, etc, etc. Not all of these people are 'caring' people - your sweeping generalizations of not only this but my supposed prejudices (of which you can know nothing) just go to show you are one of the brainwashed many who have bought into the 'we are all equal' hype. We're not - didn't you get the memo?

 

[JBod]

How do you feel this is being done? Is new labour insisting on good jobs for the mentally deficient? Has the coalition decided to award money to underachievers to bring them up to scratch? Or are the measures there to provide the lifeline to the people that need it, the ones you want to celebrate, at the cost of a lot of freeloaders?

Your post reads like someone who doesn't understand the challenges faced by people born into the lowest social strata. Yes, it must be very hard to get into Eton for a privileged person. But how much harder for an equally intelligent person who went to school that resembled the one in Dangerous Minds? Most of your language skills will be learnt from your family, and language skills are social capital.

Labour fostered the idea that no one can "fail" a GCSE. They were the ones attempting and in some cases succeeding in closing down those meany selective secondary schools.

They also created the culture that being unemployed is ok and you are better than that cleaning job.

 

[Haggisman]

What you're saying is dependant on "perceived or measured abilities" kids should be pushed or not pushed depending on how they perform or look?

I'll take a society that does it's best to offer equal opportunities to anyone who wants to try. Not simply cherry pick, those that are deemed acceptable or privileged enough. You talk about race and gender, boys makes good soldiers, girls make good nurses.. So Queen Boadicea was in the wrong job in your version of the world, and what of all the male consultants working for the NHS, should they be in the army?

Its actually more simple that that. Sure people aren't born with equal physiologically, but who are you to tell people what they can and cannot achieve?

In my opinion, when you get to the point where attempting to include and provide for everyone is detrimental to the majority, then it's perfectly fair to start "picking and choosing" who gets what.

A "best fit" solution does no-one any favours. You end up teaching at an average level to include everyone, and - lets use maths as an example - the kids who have a head for it get stuck at an average level because they don't get the opportunity to be pushed any higher, and the people who were rubbish at it/had no interest are still rubbish and still have no interest.

What's wrong with establishing people's talents and suiting their education to those? Yes I realise that this happens at college age, but by this point it can be too late for some.

 

[No1newts]

I don't expect equality, I would just want everyone treat equally.

Doubt we'll ever have either.

 

[Moley]

I don't expect equality, I would just want everyone treat equally.

Doubt we'll ever have either.

You can't treat everyone equally, that assumes we are all equal and we know that's not true.

We can't even give everyone equal opportunities - what's the point of offering me opportunities I can't make use of or would be incapable of fulfilling, even if I really wanted them?

That would just be pandering to my ego unnecessarily!

a lot of this 'ensuring people all have equal opportunities' is in actual fact just typical liberal guilt-driven hand-wringing. People for some reason thinking they are 'empathizing' with people who have less opportunity and because the little lambs really want the opportunities (even if they have no chance of fulfilling them) they must be given them!

I might not have explained that last bit very well, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

 

[cHk4]

Only certain types of people can switch to their boxing stance and acquire a mac10.

 

[Devrij]

Labour fostered the idea that no one can "fail" a GCSE. They were the ones attempting and in some cases succeeding in closing down those meany selective secondary schools.

They also created the culture that being unemployed is ok and you are better than that cleaning job.

While I agree with your sentiment, I believe that there is logic behind these seemingly stupid ideas. Labelling theory can be extended to education, and the concept is that by being labelled a criminal (or in this case failure) by an institution you become more likely to identify yourself as such and become a self-fulfilling prophecy, so I guess they wanted people to think they did badly, but that they aren't completely rubbish and should keep trying.

Selective secondary schools aren't always selective based on ability. I went to one, and I think there was one bloke in my year who I would have called working class, although he came from a family with money.

Fostering ambition is incredibly important to escape the cycle of poverty. It can backfire a bit when people just feel they deserve a job and aren't told to go get one.

The implementation is pants, but I don't think any of those measures are there to intentionally put people who are incapable of doing better in a position they shouldn't be in.

 

[estebanrey]

You can't treat everyone equally, that assumes we are all equal and we know that's not true.

We can't even give everyone equal opportunities - what's the point of offering me opportunities I can't make use of or would be incapable of fulfilling, even if I really wanted them?

That would just be pandering to my ego unnecessarily!

a lot of this 'ensuring people all have equal opportunities' is in actual fact just typical liberal guilt-driven hand-wringing. People for some reason thinking they are 'empathizing' with people who have less opportunity and because the little lambs really want the opportunities (even if they have no chance of fulfilling them) they must be given them!

I might not have explained that last bit very well, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

I think you are mixing up the notions of equal opportunities with equal outcomes.

For example, to use the running example in the OP. Should British Athletics impose a ban on white people trying out as sprinters? By your logic they should.

A white person should have the same chance to try out as a black man. If he loses then he doesn't get in, if he wins he does. That's what 'equal opportunity' means. It doesn't mean your running team has to consist of 1 white man, a black man and an Asian, that 'equality of outcome' which few people agree with.

 

[DampDog]

The NHS is an organisation NOT a profession. It is staffed by many people of many different professions - nurses, doctors, cleaners, managers, IT staff, etc, etc. Not all of these people are 'caring' people - your sweeping generalizations of not only this but my supposed prejudices (of which you can know nothing) just go to show you are one of the brainwashed many who have bought into the 'we are all equal' hype. We're not - didn't you get the memo?

Apologies for the prejudices comment, slipped into "keyboard warrior" mode for a moment no offence intended. Plus I don't think I was on the list for the memo.

I've obviously been painted as a pinko lefty so I'll stick with it for the moment. OP obviously wanted top provoke a discussion, so it served it's propose.

The whole "are we equal or not" I'd like to think that a system that treats everyone as an equal is the way forwards. That (realistic) opportunities are offered to all regardless of background, race, etc. I think it was used earlier the "sometimes you need to throw pearls before swine," because every now and again there is a talent that may be overlooked if you don't. Those that naturally show the intellect or sheer determination should be nurtured and pushed if necessary.

Imo if you don't offer those opportunities to all, then you will build a society you deserve with a privileged few who have all the resources invested in them and under achievers that get thrown away like chaff. And we have what we are starting to get now,a whole section of society who don't achieve even modest employment, let alone a meaningful working life. Areas where similar types are pushed together and the cycle continues, generation on generation. If nothing else we cannot afford it.

We should be trying to do better for everyone and bring the standards up for everyone, not just cherry pick the over achivers and leave the rest to their own devices.

 

[No1newts]

You can't treat everyone equally, that assumes we are all equal and we know that's not true.

We can't even give everyone equal opportunities - what's the point of offering me opportunities I can't make use of or would be incapable of fulfilling, even if I really wanted them?

That would just be pandering to my ego unnecessarily!

a lot of this 'ensuring people all have equal opportunities' is in actual fact just typical liberal guilt-driven hand-wringing. People for some reason thinking they are 'empathizing' with people who have less opportunity and because the little lambs really want the opportunities (even if they have no chance of fulfilling them) they must be given them!

I might not have explained that last bit very well, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

You misunderstand.

I'm advocating that everyone is treat the same regardless of race, gender or anything. I'm not even advocating equal opportunities merely that you look at a person regardless of anything as merely a person and judge them on their own skills or lack thereof.

Equality is bull and promotes through its own promotion discrimination to one set of people or another.

Disregard everything and take someone on their merits, I accept this will never happen but you can but dream

 

[Mitzy]

How so? I'm genuinely interested as I abhor racism.

According to OP race and gender affect abilities.

 

[elmarko]

Why do we want or even expect equality? People are simply not born equal so why do we as society waste so much time, money and energy either forcing, pretending or convincing ourselves that everyone is?

What is wrong with having schools designed to push clever kids and schools designed to provide extra support for not so clever kids? It is not fair to the children or the future of our country to pretend otherwise.

Equal does not always mean the same.

I think you are mixing up the notions of equal opportunities with equal outcomes.

For example, to use the running example in the OP. Should British Athletics impose a ban on white people trying out as sprinters? By your logic they should.

A white person should have the same chance to try out as a black man. If he loses then he doesn't get in, if he wins he does. That's what 'equal opportunity' means. It doesn't mean your running team has to consist of 1 white man, a black man and an Asian, that 'equality of outcome' which few people agree with.

Indeed.

People are pretty ignorant of the difference between equality of opportunity & equality of outcome (With the latter being completely impossible in capitalism anyway - I can't think of a single thing which has equality of outcome).

Judging my our social mobility index we don't have equality of opportunity either - any society which claims to support meritocratic values would have this (as it's pretty integral to any meritocracy)

 

[Richie]

According to OP race and gender affect abilities.

They do.

Gender: Women have the ability to give birth, Men do not


Race: A black person is far more likely to be a better sprinter than a white person (scientifically proven due to fast twitch fibres etc)

 

[Moothead2]

What a crap thread.

 

[Devrij]

They do.

Gender: Women have the ability to give birth, Men do not


Race: A black person is far more likely to be a better sprinter than a white person (scientifically proven due to fast twitch fibres etc)

certain abilities, but that isn't what this thread is about. Shall we treat the word ability in the context of ability to succeed or achieve social mobility henceforth?

 

[crinkleshoes]

People are equal and as such should be treated as equal.

Lol... people are not equal

 

[estebanrey]

They do.

Gender: Women have the ability to give birth, Men do not


Race: A black person is far more likely to be a better sprinter than a white person (scientifically proven due to fast twitch fibres etc)

So what's your point?

Numerically speaking, women are better cooks then men but the majority of the world's top chefs are men.

To use the simpleton logic you are using people like Gordon Ramsey should have been banned from doing home economics at school and told to not bother trying as women are better at it generally.

You are making the point that in certain areas, one race or gender do better than the alternatives on average which is fine but also meaningless unless you are proposing people should be restricted from even trying (which if you are is pretty stupid logic).

Lol... people are not equal

In what regard? People don't all have equal abilities sure, but that doesn't mean 'people aren't equal full stop'. I am not equal to Usain Bolt when it comes to sprinting, but I doubt Bolt is equal to me when it comes to I.T.

Unless you are saying white people are just 'better at life' than black people or men are just 'better' than women then saying "people aren't equal" doesn't actually mean anything.

I think (or hope) what you actually mean is 'People are different'. But different != unequal.

3+2 is different to 1+4 but ultimately both are equal to each other.