Why do we want or even expect equality in society?

estebanrey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good try at twisting my argument.

I replied to the poster that implied that gender or race does not affect abilities. They failed to say explain properly therefore I gave 2 examples that show how these differences CAN affect abilities both of which are based in physiological terms.

Someone else brought up the same argument (child bearing) earlier and no one lambasted that poster for it.... Far from it, people actually stated it was a good point.

Why you brought up cooking as a counter-argument is beyond me.


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).
Click to expand...

Another attempt at twisting things. I did not at any point state that people should be restricted from trying things. Doesn't mean they will succeed.


(which if you are is pretty stupid logic).
Click to expand...

A bit like your post but then it's par for the course with you....
 
Richie said:
Good try at twisting my argument.

I replied to the poster that implied that gender or race does not affect abilities. They failed to say explain properly therefore I gave 2 examples that show how these differences CAN affect abilities both of which are based in physiological terms.

Someone else brought up the same argument (child bearing) earlier and no one lambasted that poster for it.... Far from it, people actually stated it was a good point.

Why you brought up cooking as a counter-argument is beyond me.



Another attempt at twisting things. I did not at any point state that people should be restricted from trying things. Doesn't mean they will succeed.




A bit like your post but then it's par for the course with you....
Click to expand...

You are confusing biological differences with gender stereotypes.

There's no biological reason for why a woman would be a better chef than a man, or a man a better chef than a woman.

There's a biological reason why women give birth and men don't.
 
Moses said:
It's a practical necessity, to identify the cream without loads of subjective teacher assessment... and they can't fail it, people who don't get in are just weaker than their friends :shrug:. If you flip it round... why hold back the bright kids, just because you don't want the average kids to feel bad? Why stifle the development of the bright kids? Obviously back in the day in the day the kids who didn't get into a grammar may have ended up in a technical school (read: education scrapheap) and that period is lamentable... but we shouldn't let those scars stop us considering grammar schools in their current guise. If I'd 'failed' I'd've ended up at my local comprehensive (where literally all my friends went)... but it was/is a very good school, where I could still have done well.

The sleepless night the evening before the results came out isn't something which has scarred me for life... but then I was good enough, so meh! ;)
Click to expand...
I disagree, moreso we need to reassess by what we meant by the cream.

Some people are better at tests at different life stages, judging a person's intellectual ability & potentially streaming them down one path seems pretty narrow-minded.

Ken Robinson puts it's better than I can,

 
Moses said:
Parents understand their local schools/which are better than others... it's just well known. They'll definitely know grammars are better. Then a teacher giving their assessment is all that's needed to prod them into applying. I'd wager the percentage of parents who actually don't care about their kid's upbringing is ridiculously low... there will of course be some who don't care, but the vast, vast, vast majority will.

I don't know what you're saying about a correction policy - care to elaborate? What's wrong with grammar schools and the 11+ as a social mobility device? You're saying the grammar school option as a correction policy's bad, and your proposal would be better? And of course we're a product of our family and environment, but it's not the case that I got into grammar school because of an idyllic home life (90%+ of my peers would've had a better, more stable one!)
Click to expand...
I think you very optimistic regarding the nature of some parents :p

Regarding correction policy, I was simply saying that no answer will be perfect.
 
Moses said:
What are you on about? Please try to be coherent.



Yes, I understand all that. It depends on what level of social engineering you think is justified, though.

I was raised in a rubbish council estate (after spending time in a women's refuge at an early age), but was lucky enough to be in the catchment area of a good grammar school and have a mother who was willing to get a few practice test papers from WH Smiths.

I realise grammar schools don't guarantee social mobility, because you need decent primary schools and parents to get the kids to the level required to get in (not a set level, of course... they just have to be in the top x%)... but the only way you could ensure social mobility, and not rely on home life, would be to have kids taken away from their homes and to be given the same level of care/education/etc by the state - I'd say that'd be social engineering going too far, though.

Rather than that level of social engineering, I think all you can do at that level/in childhood is to have good primary schools all over, then comprehensives and grammar schools (with an 11+ to get in :eek:). Then have practice papers provided by the schools for people to have at home, and give every child some tuition in the basics (just to familiarise them with the sorts of questions, not to coach them to answer them).
Click to expand...

And here we're in agreement. Social mobility can only be affected so much when the parents have such an impact. I'm not averse to a government trying to help where it can.
 
Richie said:
Good try at twisting my argument.....
Click to expand...

I don't know what your 'argument' is!

Certain races or genders are generally better at things than others isn't an argument, it's a statement of observation.

So what is the point or debate you are trying to make? What is the conclusion of that statement for society in your view.
 
Richie said:
Good try at twisting my argument.....
Click to expand...

I don't know what your 'argument' is!

Certain races or genders are generally better at things than others isn't an argument, it's a statement of observation. You might as well start a thread saying "Cheetahs are usually faster than lions".

So what is the point or debate you are trying to make? What is the conclusion of that statement for society in your view.
 
Equality and equity are often muddled up but they are very different.

Equality would be a person in a wheelchair in a 100m race against Usain Bolt; its equal as they are racing the same 100m.

Equity would mean giving the wheelchair a considerable headstart so that they stood a fair chance of winning.

In other words equity means giving people what they require to metaphorically stand on their own two feet whereas equality is treat everyone the same no matter what.
 
Tummy said:
You said people aren't born equal, they are. Everyone should be treated equally as we are all the same, in essence.

Re; you're school for smart and stupid children, what makes a smart child smart? Is it because they're good at an academic class? Would people that are very talented artists be put with the stupid people because they're not very good at English, Math or science?

Hilariously terrible idea.
Click to expand...

You think all schools are equal?
Kids already are separated on grounds of intellect.
Look around you at the actual world.

Why do you think 'celebrity' culture is so popular, its a get rich quick pyramid scheme, promoted by smart people praying on stupid people through the medium of reality tv, and 'talent' contests.
 
Treat people fairly. Not equally. Take grammar schools: In a comprehensive, a child gets an A in a mock. School says 'Well done'. In a grammar schools, the teacher knows that the child wasn't trying and does something about it, calls his parents (true story). You don't need to treat people equally, but fairly. Do what's best for each person and help them reach their full potential. Hell, if all people are equal, remove the establishments that help those with special educational needs as that's saying 'you're different' (Also a grammar school can challenge people more because you get all the people who can in one place so you can plan challenging lessons, whereas a teacher wouldn't be able to push one person whilst teaching one class and then pushing someone even more clever more etc.)

Ok, schools aren't everything, but that can be applied. In life, people get promoted to better jobs if they perform better (or get bonuses or get headhunted etc.) right?
 
Last edited:
Haggisman said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you'd have read/quoted the rest of my post you'd have found that I said the same thing. There is nothing wrong with allowing people to push ahead based on their talent. There is everything wrong with you locking them out based on their sex or race.

Just like the examples given, most of the fasest sprinters in the world may be black, but that doesn't mean every black man can sprint faster than every white man. You are better picking your sprinters based on ability rather than colour.

Equality is all about juding people on an equal basis. Equality is not about letting female fire fighters have an easier exam to even up the numbers. Anyone who thinks the latter is hindrance to true equality and only ends up repressing the majority.
 
Last edited:
Haggisman said:
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.
Click to expand...

That ^
 
Some of you are missing the whole Equality & Diversity thing.
We are not equal, that is the whole point of diversity, we are all different.
Equality is trying to level the playing field so somebody with a disability could do the same job as an abled body person.
Of course this can't always happen but where possible it should be tried IF THE PERSON IS THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB.
 
I advocate against institutionalised equality because equality is inherently discriminatory. It is basically giving one group of people based on specific criteria an artificial advantage over other people.

I read an article today in the newspaper or online don't remember, it was moaning about the academies and how they will be selecting pupils in spite of the strict government regulations on equality that force the schools to take people based on arbitrary criteria in the name of equality.

In my opinion this violates the rights of the (almost) owners of the schools in the whilst claiming to defend the rights of the individuals that the schools are forced to accept as pupils.

The mantra of the equality fanatics is that they don't mind holding back people in order to give other individuals the illusion that they are equal.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
The problem is the confusion over what is meant by equality, and successive governments, lobbyists and so on seem to share in that confusion. It shouldn't be about making everyone the same or equal, but about offering and ensuring everyone is given equal provision in society....that provision may not be the same for everyone, Men and Women for example have different needs, Ethnic groups have different needs, different social classes, different regions and even different families and so on all have different needs..it is foolish to simply make legislation try to fit everyone...what we need to try to ensure that each group gets what it needs to progress in society, and we need to ensure that individually we all have equal provision to opportunity, education, welfare and so on as assessed by our individual needs.
Click to expand...

When a person defines people in terms of groups and makes absolute statements about how those groups are innately different and have different abilities and needs, that person is clearly contradicting the idea of ensuring anything on an individual basis. That will make whatever stereotypes they favour something of a self-fulfilling prophecy and will make it far harder for any individual who doesn't fit them to be themself.

I'll illustrate with an example from this country (and others).

Not so very long ago, "everyone knew" that women weren't any good at maths above a basic level. So there was no need to teach maths to girls, since men and women have different abilities and different needs. Unsurprisingly, this combination put most female people of any age off studying more advanced maths anyway, even if they could have bought the opportunity to do so - why would they want to be so masculine? So the results of the stereotyping "proved" the stereotyping true.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom