What is 'equality'?

Watch
Poll: What is 'equality'?
Yes, it is possible to be racist towards a white person. (7)
24.14%
No, it's not possible to be racist towards a white person. (0)
0%
All cultures should be subjected to the same monolithic value system, even if it conflicts with a minority value system. (5)
17.24%
Minority groups should be free to live by their own value system, even if it conflicts with the majority value system. (0)
0%
The morality 'people should be free to marry whoever they choose' should be extended to all individuals in society. (3)
10.34%
The morality 'people should be free to marry whoever they choose' should only be extended to certain groups in society (heterosexuals and homosexuals). (2)
6.9%
Unequal distributions between identities (men and women, black people and white people) should be addressed in all industries and all contexts. (1)
3.45%
Unequal distributions between identities (men and women, black people and white people, etc.) should only be addressed in certain contexts, ie, where the unequal distribution FAVOURS white men, or men. (1)
3.45%
Unequal distributions are irrelevant. I believe everyone has every legal right everyone else has and full equality of opportunity. Positive action is discrimination. (4)
13.79%
Yes, the definition of rape should be extended to instances where the female is the perpetrator and the male is the victim, ie, 'sex while drunk' with a man should legally be classified as 'rape.' (4)
13.79%
No, the definition of rape shouldn't be extended to instances where the female is the perpetrator and the male is the victim, ie, 'sex while drunk' with a man should not legally be classified as 'rape' in the context of 'female perpetrator/male victim.' (2)
6.9%
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Please ignore the other thread. I screwed up the poll.

It seems that while many people agree 'everyone should be treated equally', there's a rupture at the heart of British society in terms of what is defined as 'equal' treatment.Some people subscribe to an absolute application of equality and morality, while others subscribe to morality and equality being applied inconsistently and only to certain groups or identities.

For me, equality is pretty simple: if we apply equality, or a morality, in one context, it should be applied in all contexts, irrespective of the person's identity, ethnicity, gender or sexuality.

For others, 'equality' is something only certain identities, ethnicities, sexualities or one gender requires. Almost all national institutions - higher education institutions, local authorities, the primary and secondary education systems, etc. - subscribe to the latter version of 'equality.'

Listed below are some situations.

Provide your answers in the poll above.

Situation 1:Is it possible to be racist towards a white person?

Many feminists disagree. They deem 'racism is a structural issue and as white people hold all the power, it's impossible to be racist towards a white person.'

This is reflected in articles in the Independent like 'white men should never hold elected position in British Universities again', Goldsmith University's recent decision to ban white men from attending diversity events, or the notion of 'white privilege', which meets the dictionary definition of 'racism.'

Definition of racism:the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Situation 2:Should all cultures be subjected to the same monolithic value system, ie, gender segregation is wrong, racism is wrong, polygamy is wrong, forced marriage is wrong, FGM is wrong, etc., or should we opt for a situation whereby the majority value system is undermined by minority values for the sake of multiculturalism?

To give you one of thousands of examples of the latter, Harriet Harman recently determined 'it would be rude to interfere with a Labour Party even segregated along gender lines to appeal to Muslim voters.'

Situation 3:Should the morality 'people should be free to marry whoever they choose' be applied at the level of groups (heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, etc.), or should it be applied to all individuals, irrespective of identity, sexuality, ethnicity or gender? ie, incestuous and polyandrous couples should be allowed to marry.

The example is obvious. We've taken the morality 'people should be free to marry whoever they choose' and placed it within the context of SSM and we've declared all opposition is 'bigoted' or 'homophobic.'

Yet, we have no problem when opposition is expressed to incestuous marriage, despite it being the precise equivalent morality. Groups have been afforded rights, not individuals.

Situation 4:Should an unequal distribution be of concern in all groups and all industries in society, or merely some groups (women, minority groups, etc.) and some industries in society, or no groups and no industries in society?

To give you an example. Intel recently spent $300 million on diversity to encourage more women and minority groups into their workplace. Brunel University, and many other Universities, offer grants and funds specifically to female STEM students.

Yet, males are 20% of primary school teachers, 40% of all University applicants, 40% of all medical students and minorities in HR, social work, nursing, psychology, the charity sector, professional service departments at Universities, etc.

Further, there are far wider unequal distributions of men and women at the bottom of society:

Truck Drivers - 99% men.
Refuse collectors - 99.8% men.
Power line installers - 99% men.
Sewage workers - 99% men.
Plumbers - 95% men.
Plasterers - 95% men.
Builders - 96% men.
Oil rigs - 96.7% men.
Road workers - 99% men.

There is very little in the way of positive action in working class industries.

Situation 5:Should 'sex while drunk', where it is demonstrated the man is intoxicated to the point he was unable to consent, be legally classified as rape within the context 'female perpetrator/male victim'?

Currently it would be regarded as 'sexual assault.' While this may incur a similar penalty, the societal connotations in reference to 'rape' do not extend where the male is the victim and the female is the perpetrator.

1.1% of women surveyed in America report being raped in the last 12 months and 1.1% of males reported being 'made to penetrate', with 79% of those forcing them to penetrate being women.
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePreventio...port2010-a.pdf

I could have gone on with the examples, however I think this is enough for the time being.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
1) Yes, you dirty white thing.

2) Yes they should both in the UK and abroad. Our values (those of the west in general) are superior to most others.

3) At the level of groups. Incest is moral perversion which damages the fabric of society, polygamy i agree with in principal but in practice it would never work in tandem with our divorce laws ect..

4) Inequality of outcome is not really concern, the important thing is equality under the law

5) No but then i'd not prosecute men if the woman can't prove rape (i.e. we assume she's drunk and invited him)
0
reply
TheCitizenAct
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by Rakas21)
1) Yes, you dirty white thing.

2) Yes they should both in the UK and abroad. Our values (those of the west in general) are superior to most others.

3) At the level of groups. Incest is moral perversion which damages the fabric of society, polygamy i agree with in principal but in practice it would never work in tandem with our divorce laws ect..

4) Inequality of outcome is not really concern, the important thing is equality under the law

5) No but then i'd not prosecute men if the woman can't prove rape (i.e. we assume she's drunk and invited him)
3) I'm pretty sure people were saying the same thing about homosexuality 40 years ago (and sex outside of wedlock before that)!

Would you accept, therefore, that our inability to apply the morality 'people should be free to marry whoever they choose' to all individuals in society is a form of bigotry? Or do you feel that, in this instance, 'equality' shouldn't be extended to all individuals and it's an acceptable hypocrisy?

Otherwise, I agree with you (except for point 5).
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
3) I'm pretty sure people were saying the same thing about homosexuality 40 years ago (and sex outside of wedlock before that)!

Would you accept, therefore, that our inability to apply the morality 'people should be free to marry whoever they choose' to all individuals in society is a form of bigotry? Or do you feel that, in this instance, 'equality' shouldn't be extended to all individuals and it's an acceptable hypocrisy?

Otherwise, I agree with you (except for point 5).
An acceptable hypocrisy.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (59)
4.63%
Uncertainty around my education (195)
15.29%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (141)
11.06%
Lack of purpose or motivation (181)
14.2%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (57)
4.47%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (72)
5.65%
Loneliness (112)
8.78%
Financial worries (45)
3.53%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (58)
4.55%
Exposure to negative news/social media (58)
4.55%
Lack of real life entertainment (68)
5.33%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (112)
8.78%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (117)
9.18%

Watched Threads

View All