Why do we want or even expect equality in society?

[Angilion]

[..] 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.

This, exactly. Everything should always be based on relevant ability at an individual level, not on whatever group-based stereotyping has the most power at the time. If that leads to an unrepresentative grouping on the basis of any irrelevant factor that's considered important in that society at that time (sex, "race", whatever), then it's a good idea to check that the selection process actually is based on relevant ability at an individual level. It might be because there genuinely is a correlation. Or it might be because there is unfair discrimination at some point. Maybe not at the selection process itself - e.g. a university that based entry to maths degrees on relevant ability 100 years ago would have ended up with almost all men. The unfair discrimination would have come long before the university's selection process.

 

[ThePirateHulk]

Animal Farm talked about equality and that ended up with freaky pigs wearing clothes and drinking brandy. Do you really want that to happen?

All animals are equal.

Some are more equal than others.

I think you misunderstood the central premise of Animal Farm. It's not about equality, it's about the fact that power corrupts.

 

[ThePirateHulk]

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.

Of course, entry to schools like Eton are based entirely on merit, aren't they?

 

[Castiel]

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.

Err.......I gave examples of general differences between people and how that affects their needs as individuals, for example women have different needs than men in a general sense, this doesn't mean applying a stereotype, it means assessing the individual using a base of criteria in addition to their individual requirements, this enables a reasonable provision of services and the ability to apply legislation. Hence the use of words such as 'everyone' and 'individual' and 'equal provision' and not the simple 'group stereotype' that you seem to think.

There is no contradiction in assessing individual people across multiple criteria, including their social, ethnic and individual needs, it is necessary to know as much about a person in order to tailor their access to provision accurately and to ensure it offers them the best fit......

 

[Angilion]

Err.......I gave examples of general differences between people and how that affects their needs as individuals, for example women have different needs than men in a general sense, this doesn't mean applying a stereotype, it means assessing the individual using a base of criteria in addition to their individual requirements, this enables a reasonable provision of services and the ability to apply legislation. Hence the use of words such as 'everyone' and 'individual' and 'equal provision' and not the simple 'group stereotype' that you seem to think.

There is no contradiction in assessing individual people across multiple criteria, including their social, ethnic and individual needs, it is necessary to know as much about a person in order to tailor their access to provision accurately and to ensure it offers them the best fit......

The contradiction is between assessing individual people and assessing groups.

"Assessing individual people across multiple criteria" is the former.

"women have different needs to men" is the latter, as is "assessing the individual using a base of criteria in addition to their individual requirements".

When you're assessing an individual on whatever criteria that is not their individual requirements and that you consider to me important enough (sex, "race", whatever), you're not assessing an individual. You're assessing a group - the group of whatever criteria you consider to be important enough. Unless you are a truly remarkable person, that will be stereotyping. Even if you are such a person, very few other people are and so the result of a policy of assessing people on the basis of their sex, "race" or whatever group criteria you consider to be important enough will be stereotyping and a wholesale restriction of people due to the pressure to conform. The example I've already used - maths and women in the relatively near past - still applies. Assessing individuals 100 years ago on the criterion of sex (i.e. not really assessing any individuals) had a huge effect on education in maths. Not just on what opportunities were available but on what opportunities the large majority of people wanted.

 

[player]

We live in a hierarchical society and I am quite at ease with that.

I probably sit somewhere between the very top and the very bottom.

 

[Castiel]

The contradiction is between assessing individual people and assessing groups.

"Assessing individual people across multiple criteria" is the former.

"women have different needs to men" is the latter, as is "assessing the individual using a base of criteria in addition to their individual requirements".

When you're assessing an individual on whatever criteria that is not their individual requirements and that you consider to me important enough (sex, "race", whatever), you're not assessing an individual. You're assessing a group - the group of whatever criteria you consider to be important enough. Unless you are a truly remarkable person, that will be stereotyping. Even if you are such a person, very few other people are and so the result of a policy of assessing people on the basis of their sex, "race" or whatever group criteria you consider to be important enough will be stereotyping and a wholesale restriction of people due to the pressure to conform. The example I've already used - maths and women in the relatively near past - still applies. Assessing individuals 100 years ago on the criterion of sex (i.e. not really assessing any individuals) had a huge effect on education in maths. Not just on what opportunities were available but on what opportunities the large majority of people wanted.

There isn't a contradiction....the groups into which people associate themselves or innately fall into (such as their religion or their gender) form part of their individuality. To ignore such criteria would be to ignore part of what makes them who they are.

Your example is flawed as you are only assessing the women on their gender in isolation and attributing broad values associated (flawed as they are) with the group and you are not considering the individual before you at all...that is not what I said at all...the gender of the individual is just one variable you need to consider in assessing an individual, it is not the only variable you use. You cannot objectively assess the needs of an individual without fully considering all the variables associated with that individual, that includes such things (but not limited to) as gender, religion, ethnicity, language, social class, education, as well as their individual needs such as ability, potential, interests, experience, expectations, medical and social history and so on. It is about gaining as much information as possible, not about applying a singular broad spectrum assessment as you are doing.

 

[Castiel]

Of course, entry to schools like Eton are based entirely on merit, aren't they?

Eton offer a substantial amount of Scholarships and funded places.

http://www.etoncollege.com/Scholarships.aspx
http://www.etoncollege.com/fundedplaces.aspx

 

[Deleted member 77746]

OP not sure if you understand equality.

.... status, rights, and opportunities.

 

[The Funktopus]

I recall being rather bemused by seeing an item on the BBC news about a report being published somewhere bemoaning the lack of people from different ethnic backgrounds visiting our national parks, and recommending various schemes of how to increase the number of people from ethnic minorities visiting them.

It struck me as a rather odd thing to be concerned, perhaps even indignant about. Is it so wrong that for perhaps cultural reasons that people from ethnic minorities simply don't find national parks interesting? And what are we supposed to do, heard these people into coaches and then forcibly diversify our national parks visitor's simply for the sake of it? Utterly absurd in my opinion.

 

[Angilion]

There isn't a contradiction....the groups into which people associate themselves or innately fall into (such as their religion or their gender) form part of their individuality. To ignore such criteria would be to ignore part of what makes them who they are.

Your example is flawed as you are only assessing the women on their gender in isolation and attributing broad values associated (flawed as they are) with the group and you are not considering the individual before you at all...that is not what I said at all...the gender of the individual is just one variable you need to consider in assessing an individual, it is not the only variable you use. You cannot objectively assess the needs of an individual without fully considering all the variables associated with that individual, that includes such things (but not limited to) as gender, religion, ethnicity, language, social class, education, as well as their individual needs such as ability, potential, interests, experience, expectations, medical and social history and so on. It is about gaining as much information as possible, not about applying a singular broad spectrum assessment as you are doing.

I disagree, unsurprisingly.

If you're assessing a person as an individual, you don't need to be assessing them as a representative of a group at all. Doing so inevitably means assessing them on the basis of whatever collection of stereotypes you apply to that group unless you are restricting your assessment solely to the criteria that define the group. So, for example, you can fairly make the assessment that being a man means not needing a smear test for cervical cancer. But that would be picked up by assessing an individual as an individual anyway, as would everything else.

Assessing people as representatives of groups for things that aren't part of the defining criteria for that group is much easier to do than assessing people as individuals. It might (or might not) be a reasonably close match for a majority of individuals, especially if you also partially assess them as individuals. It might be the most effective use of limited resources. But it isn't assessing them as individuals.

EDIT:

For the sake of clarification: I wasn't assessing the women on the basis of their sex or on gender. I was giving an example in the real world of assessment based on group identity and the results of doing so. I was (and am) arguing against assessing people as groups rather than as individuals.

 

[Mickie]

What ideas? There are no ideas, for the most part they are simply statements of facts.

The idea being, people shouldn't be treated as equal..

 

[PwnDirect]

 

[Castiel]

I disagree, unsurprisingly.

If you're assessing a person as an individual, you don't need to be assessing them as a representative of a group at all. Doing so inevitably means assessing them on the basis of whatever collection of stereotypes you apply to that group unless you are restricting your assessment solely to the criteria that define the group. So, for example, you can fairly make the assessment that being a man means not needing a smear test for cervical cancer. But that would be picked up by assessing an individual as an individual anyway, as would everything else.

Assessing people as representatives of groups for things that aren't part of the defining criteria for that group is much easier to do than assessing people as individuals. It might (or might not) be a reasonably close match for a majority of individuals, especially if you also partially assess them as individuals. It might be the most effective use of limited resources. But it isn't assessing them as individuals.

EDIT:

For the sake of clarification: I wasn't assessing the women on the basis of their sex or on gender. I was giving an example in the real world of assessment based on group identity and the results of doing so. I was (and am) arguing against assessing people as groups rather than as individuals.

So you think a woman's gender, or a child's age, or a persons beliefs, an individuals language, social class or an individuals culture or religion or any number of criteria they may share with someone else has nothing whatsoever to do with what makes them who they are or how they define themselves? There is absolutely no contradiction in using multiple variables in assessing the needs of an individual, in fact the more variables you use the more accurate and targeted the assessment is likely to be, to ignore or dismiss things simply because they may have a shared heritage or be applicable to a wider group than simply the individual under assessment is pretty foolhardy and you might disagree, but you are still wrong. I am not assessing someone on the basis that they are a woman, or a Christian, or are black or white, or Chinese or speaks Urdu, I am assessing them on who they are as individuals, all those things are simply variables to consider within that assessment, depending on the individual and/or the criteria the assessment is being applied to, they may have a greater or lesser significance to that individual, but they are still relevant to the individual. They help form the sum total of the characteristics that combine to form someone's individuality, variables like Gender Identity, Behavioural Associations and Social Interactions of any individual help to define that individual. To ignore them is to ignore a great part of what makes us who we are.

You keep talking about stereotypes and using a group identity when that has pretty much nothing to do with anything I have said, and it seems despite attempts to explain this, you continue to see the same flawed and incorrect conclusion as to what is actually being said as your edit illustrates.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
You keep talking about stereotypes and using a group identity when that has pretty much nothing to do with anything I have said, and it seems despite attempts to explain this, you continue to see the same flawed and incorrect conclusion as to what is actually being said as your edit illustrates.

That has a great deal to do with everything you have said. You think that group-based assessments are a way of increasing the accuracy of assessing individuals as individuals. I have no idea why you think that - you haven't said. I think that group-based assessments are less accurate than assessing individuals as individuals, so I think that mixing group-based assessment in with assessment on an individual basis will reduce the accuracy of the assessment of individuals, not increase it. I have explained why I think that. Several times, with examples from the real world.

I'm not disputing that numerous factors are involved in any particular person's life, circumstances and needs and that many of those factors are not unique to that person. The assumption contained in your question:

So you think a woman's gender, or a child's age, or a persons beliefs, an individuals language, social class or an individuals culture or religion or any number of criteria they may share with someone else has nothing whatsoever to do with what makes them who they are or how they define themselves?

is silly and completely irrelevant to me or anything I have said. It's your question and your assumption.

What I am disputing is the idea that assessing an individual as an individual is a less accurate way of accounting for how those factors affect that individual than assessing at a group level and adding that assessment to individuals.

So, for example, a person's sex will have some effect on who they are, but it won't be the same effect for every person of that sex at every time. If you assess on an individual basis only, you will be assessing that particular individual, including whatever effect their sex, age or anything else has on them personally. If you add any assesment on a group basis, you are not making the assessment more accurate to that individual. You are making it less accurate to that individual. Using gender is even worse, since everyone's gender is different to everyone else's gender.

 

[Angilion]

We live in a hierarchical society and I am quite at ease with that.

I probably sit somewhere between the very top and the very bottom.

It's not having a hierarchy that makes me somewhat uneasy. It's the basis for the hierarchy. A completely fair basis for the hierarchy in a hierarchical society is probably impossible. It would require everyone to have equal opportunity in every way and for everyone's position in the hierarchy to be determined by ability and effort alone. I think that's impossible outside of some hierarchies with a very limited scope, nowhere near the level of scale and complexity of an entire society. You could, for example, have a completely fair hierarchy in a game.

I think the hierarchy we currently have in the UK isn't terrible and could be far worse, but there's plenty of scope for improvement.

 

[Angilion]

I recall being rather bemused by seeing an item on the BBC news about a report being published somewhere bemoaning the lack of people from different ethnic backgrounds visiting our national parks, and recommending various schemes of how to increase the number of people from ethnic minorities visiting them.

It struck me as a rather odd thing to be concerned, perhaps even indignant about. Is it so wrong that for perhaps cultural reasons that people from ethnic minorities simply don't find national parks interesting?

I can see a sensible idea that might be behind it - integration. If there's a very large difference in the proportion of people from different ethnic background choosing to do any particular cultural thing, it implies a lower amount of integration.

And what are we supposed to do, heard these people into coaches and then forcibly diversify our national parks visitor's simply for the sake of it? Utterly absurd in my opinion.

That would be an absurd response, but that doesn't mean that the concerns are absurd.

 

[Castiel]

That has a great deal to do with everything you have said. You think that group-based assessments are away of increasing the accuracy of assessing individuals as individuals.

I'll stop you right there as you clearly have no understanding of what I said, even though I have explained it several times. You even go on to contradict yourself and actually repeat what I have said, even though you have spent several days disagreeing with it. You also go on to make assumptions that have nothing to do with anything I have actually said, again illustrating your lack of understanding of what I have actually said.

The fact remains, whether you accept it or not, that a persons gender, social class, creed, language, and other shared attributes do influence a persons individual needs, and they are important variables in assessing anyone individually, to ignore them is to ignore a large part of what makes people who they are.

Just to remind you, the final part of my original statement, with the relevant part highlighted:

[..]..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.

 

[Twirlywoos]

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.

Race and gender have a direct bearing on certain abilities. It is a simple fact of life, but modern society dictates we are not allowed to talk about it or point it out.

There are physiological reasons that a black guy always wins at sprinting and a white guy always wins at swimming.

There are reasons that men are more prone to be in the armed services while women are more likely to be in the health profession.

It's not about equality, it's more about giving people their rights according to the laws of the land.

There is a massive difference la.

 

[Trifid]

Wrong thread!