Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Is Equality Between the Two Genders Fair? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Is Equality Fair?
    Yes!
    19
    51.35%
    No!
    13
    35.14%
    Other...
    5
    13.51%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANM775)
    This has put me off feminism even more tbh........
    This is nothing....this just touches the surface of the destructive, hate-filled ideology that is feminism and its influence on the minds of its followers. If people knew feminism for what it is they'd be more than put off by it....they'd rise up in arms against it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cat_mac)
    Attachment 726214

    This sums it up pretty well.
    Or they should have bought tickets.

    I've never really liked this picture, as it is often used to advocate that we treat certain groups of people differently, and that we make assumptions about people's backgrounds and abilities based on group identity, which really we shouldn't.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    +1

    I'm going to throw a thought at you Chief in the form of a question...Is allowing women and men the same opportunities fair?

    Allowing men and women the same opportunities is a form of equality. Is this form of equality fair? Lets apply it to real life....

    A world that allows both men and women the same opportunities in life is one that allows men and women the same opportunities in abortion, the same right to refuse or allow an abortion. Is this fair? Is it fair to allow man an equal opportunity in a matter that does not pose him the same risk nor present him with the same responsibilities as a woman? Of course the answer is no.

    Let me throw another example of equal opportunity at you in the form of another question. Is it fair to allow men and women equal opportunity in a job like firefighting, a physically demanding job that comes with dangers? Men are physically superior so this profession puts them at greeter risk and presents them with greater responsibility. Is it fair to allow women and men an equal opportunity in this job? This job where your physical strength can mean the difference between being able to save a life and not being able to save a life? Should men and women be allowed the same opportunities in this kind of profession when their strengths and limitations make for such a huge difference? Of course the answer is, again, no.

    Equality, that marxist, communist concept, is flawed in all its forms.

    These are just thoughts I wanted to throw in your direction.
    You're still confusing equal opportunity and equal outcome.

    Equal opportunity is allowing women to undergo the same physical training and tests that would be required of a man to become a firefighter, if they cannot keep up with the men, then they cannot do the job. Equal outcome would be something like lowering the standard of physical strength required from the women entering just so that there's women in the profession, this is not the route we should be going down, we should however give women the chance to become firefighters, even if most of them fail in the end.

    Also, men don't have equal responsibility over the child? I beg to differ. The situation involves both parents and it should be a joint decision, it's his child too, regardless of whom it happens to be growing inside of.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hajima)
    You're still confusing equal opportunity and equal outcome.

    Equal opportunity is allowing women to undergo the same physical training and tests that would be required of a man to become a firefighter, if they cannot keep up with the men, then they cannot do the job. Equal outcome would be something like lowering the standard of physical strength required from the women entering just so that there's women in the profession, this is not the route we should be going down, we should however give women the chance to become firefighters, even if most of them fail in the end.

    Also, men don't have equal responsibility over the child? I beg to differ. The situation involves both parents and it should be a joint decision, it's his child too, regardless of whom it happens to be growing inside of.
    I see your point.

    I somewhat agree with most of what you wrote but I'm still unconvinced by equality of opportunity. Why am I still unconvinced by this concept?

    Equality of opportunity is blind to our differences. It does not recognise them. It does not take into account our different strengths and limitations. It does not take our different needs into account...It not taking these needs, these differences, into account puts us at an unfair disadvantage to others...firefighting is perhaps a bad example...assume i'm a diabetic sitting an exam. i need breaks during the exam to measure my blood glucose levels so as to ensure I carry on functioning effectively. So I need extra time. In a world run by a system of equal opportunities I would not be allowed that extra time...this would put me in an unfair disadvantage to everyone else...the problem with equality in all its forms is that it treats us all the same and treating different people identically is unfair.

    ...Now, equitable treatment on the other hand takes our differences into account. It is very similar to the equality of opportunity concept but it is not blind to our different strengths and limitations and needs. Equity would allow me my extra time in the exam...equality of opportunity would not.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    I see your point.

    I somewhat agree with most of what you wrote but I'm still unconvinced by equality of opportunity. Why am I still unconvinced by this concept?

    Equality of opportunity is blind to our differences. It does not recognise them. It does not take into account our strengths and limitations. It does not take our different needs into account...It not taking these needs, these differences, into account puts us at an unfair disadvantage to others...firefighting is perhaps a bad example...assume i'm a diabetic sitting an exam. i need breaks during the exam to measure my blood glucose levels so as to ensure I carry on functioning effectively. So I need extra time. In a world run by a system of equal opportunities I would not be allowed that extra time...this would put me in an unfair disadvantage to everyone else...the problem with equality in all its forms is that it treats us all the same and treating different people identically is unfair.
    You've made it quite clear that you prefer equity over equality (of opportunity) but I'd like to ask you this.

    When women return to work after being on maternity leave and as a result have lower pay or fewer opportunities than their counterparts, is this equality or equity? Say raises or promotions are based predominantly on recent performance, is it not equality of opportunity that says 'You decided to get pregnant and as a result, the performance of your colleagues have surpassed yours'? Conversely, wouldn't 'equitable treatment' mean that women with families need extra help to get back on track?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    This idealistic and virtuous notion of equality between men and women bumps into a wall when it comes to sports, at least the most physical ones. Not sure about golf but the driving power might generate some inequality. Still, no feminist would campaign for gender-neutral football or boxing so it is true that there are some differences between the sexes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    When women return to work after being on maternity leave and as a result have lower pay or fewer opportunities than their counterparts, is this equality or equity?
    This is an outcome and equality of opportunity does not concern itself with outcomes. This perhaps exposes another flaw in this concept of equal opportunities in that it does not in any way factor in outcomes in a society and how can you judge whether something is fair or not without considering how that something will effect a person?

    So the answer to your question is, this is equity.

    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    Conversely, wouldn't 'equitable treatment' mean that women with families need extra help to get back on track?
    This is an interesting question...equality of opportunity would say 'no', equality of outcome would say 'yes' and equity would consider it, weighing whether or not it would be fair.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hajima)
    ...Equal opportunity is allowing women to undergo the same physical training and tests that would be required of a man to become a firefighter...
    As opposed to 'equal opportunity' I would propose 'equitable opportunity'. It's not really fair to set the physical standards required of a firefighter based on male capacities and then treat that as the norm which women also have to accomplish or fail against. Strength and fitness capabilities between men and women are inherently different by virtue of physiology. Surely the equitable thing is to have minimum standard according to male potentials and a different minimum standard according to female potentials. We should as far as possible be allowed to contribute according to standards that are realistic for us. Otherwise, 'equality' in the physical domain at least is always going to be set against a standard determined by male capabilities.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    I see your point.

    I somewhat agree with most of what you wrote but I'm still unconvinced by equality of opportunity. Why am I still unconvinced by this concept?

    Equality of opportunity is blind to our differences. It does not recognise them. It does not take into account our strengths and limitations. It does not take our different needs into account...It not taking these needs, these differences, into account puts us at an unfair disadvantage to others...firefighting is perhaps a bad example...assume i'm a diabetic sitting an exam. i need breaks during the exam to measure my blood glucose levels so as to ensure I carry on functioning effectively. So I need extra time. In a world run by a system of equal opportunities I would not be allowed that extra time...this would put me in an unfair disadvantage to everyone else...the problem with equality in all its forms is that it treats us all the same and treating different people identically is unfair.

    ...Now, equitable treatment on the other hand takes our differences into account. It is very similar to the equality of opportunity concept but it is not blind to our different strengths and limitations and needs. Equity would allow me my extra time in the exam...equality of opportunity would not.
    Equal opportunity is not blind to our differences. It also doesn't disadvantage others. When we talk about equal opportunity we can't be so utterly literal: exact to the name of the concept, like you imply in your example.

    "Equal opportunity arises from the similar treatment of all people, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences, except when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified."

    We have to have a predefined set of criteria when determining what is and what isn't fair. Going by equal opportunity, in the case of the diabetic it's clear that they would not be allowed extra time, but time to have the shot and return to their exam in order to finish it (although this would be done before the exam to prevent this anyway).

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity

    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    As opposed to 'equal opportunity' I would propose 'equitable opportunity'. It's not really fair to set the physical standards required of a firefighter based on male capacities and then treat that as the norm which women also have to accomplish or fail against. Strength and fitness capabilities between men and women are inherently different by virtue of physiology. Surely the equitable thing is to have minimum standard according to male potentials and a different minimum standard according to female potentials. We should as far as possible be allowed to contribute according to standards that are realistic for us. Otherwise, 'equality' in the physical domain at least is always going to be set against a standard determined by male capabilities.
    The physical standards have been set to where they are because they work, they should not be lowered under any circumstances so as to provide women an easier time. It's simply not safe for women to be firefighters if they cannot hit the standard currently held. If you can prove that lowering the standards for women would not endanger the lives of others, then I would absolutely agree, but I doubt you could for the aforementioned reasons.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    As opposed to 'equal opportunity' I would propose 'equitable opportunity'. It's not really fair to set the physical standards required of a firefighter based on male capacities and then treat that as the norm which women also have to accomplish or fail against. Strength and fitness capabilities between men and women are inherently different by virtue of physiology. Surely the equitable thing is to have minimum standard according to male potentials and a different minimum standard according to female potentials. We should as far as possible be allowed to contribute according to standards that are realistic for us. Otherwise, 'equality' in the physical domain at least is always going to be set against a standard determined by male capabilities.
    hmmm....but is it fair on men to lower the standards of entry for women? I mean, those women will go on to earn the same salary as men in firefighting for doing less because they are physically inferior and this is a job that is entirely physical.....If we were to tailor entry requirements to take into account the physical strengths and limitations of both women and men then we have to apply this same concept to the salary...as in tailor it to take into account their physical ability.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasicMistake)
    You've made it quite clear that you prefer equity over equality (of opportunity) but I'd like to ask you this.

    When women return to work after being on maternity leave and as a result have lower pay or fewer opportunities than their counterparts, is this equality or equity? Say raises or promotions are based predominantly on recent performance, is it not equality of opportunity that says 'You decided to get pregnant and as a result, the performance of your colleagues have surpassed yours'? Conversely, wouldn't 'equitable treatment' mean that women with families need extra help to get back on track?
    Equity simply means being fair and impartial.

    By giving the woman special help for a choice that she knowingly made that has negatively impacted her career, would be neither fair or impartial.

    If that women had been raped, for example, and had a baby as a result, then equity is in order.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    As opposed to 'equal opportunity' I would propose 'equitable opportunity'. It's not really fair to set the physical standards required of a firefighter based on male capacities and then treat that as the norm which women also have to accomplish or fail against. Strength and fitness capabilities between men and women are inherently different by virtue of physiology. Surely the equitable thing is to have minimum standard according to male potentials and a different minimum standard according to female potentials. We should as far as possible be allowed to contribute according to standards that are realistic for us. Otherwise, 'equality' in the physical domain at least is always going to be set against a standard determined by male capabilities.
    You're mistaken.

    The test you need to pass as a firefighter is not based on whether you're a female or male.

    The test you need to pass in a minimum to become a firefighter. If you don't pass, you're not good enough to be a firefighter.

    By lowering the standard for women, you're inherently allowing unqualified firefighters to become firefighters. Nobody wants someone unqualified, especially in an emergency profession, trying to save their life.

    It wouldn't be fair or impartial, it would be outrigut stupid to lower to minimum requirements for women.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    You're mistaken.

    The test you need to pass as a firefighter is not based on whether you're a female or male.

    The test you need to pass in a minimum to become a firefighter. If you don't pass, you're not good enough to be a firefighter.

    By lowering the standard for women, you're inherently allowing unqualified firefighters to become firefighters. Nobody wants someone unqualified, especially in an emergency profession, trying to save their life.

    It wouldn't be fair or impartial, it would be outrigut stupid to lower to minimum requirements for women.
    ^^^
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Equity simply means being fair and impartial.

    By giving the woman special help for a choice that she knowingly made that has negatively impacted her career, would be neither fair or impartial.

    If that women had been raped, for example, and had a baby as a result, then equity is in order.
    I don't particularly like that definition of 'equity' since it runs into issues over what is considered 'fair'.

    Defining 'equality' as treating everyone exactly the same is unambiguous. I feel there needs to be an equally concrete definition of equity if we are to evaluate these kind of situations.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    hmmm....but is it fair on men to lower the standards of entry for women? I mean, those women will go on to earn the same salary as men in firefighting for doing less because they are physically inferior and this is a job that is entirely physical.....If we were to tailor entry requirements to take into account the physical strengths and limitations of both women and men then we have to apply this same concept to the salary...as in tailor it to take into account their physical ability.
    If we are genuinely invested in the concept of equity then people should be rewarded according to their level of contribution as measured against their actual ability/potential. If you and I work equally as hard (and let's assume with equal competency) then on the basis of equity we should be equally rewarded, even if our individual limitations mean our productivity levels are different. Rewarding people equally specifically on the basis of equal productivity is less 'equitable' in the fullest sense of the term.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hajima)
    Equal opportunity is not blind to our differences. It also doesn't disadvantage others. When we talk about equal opportunity we can't be so utterly literal: exact to the name of the concept, like you imply in your example.

    "Equal opportunity arises from the similar treatment of all people, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences, except when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified."
    This is a great example of an oxymoron.

    The moment you consider justified distinctions you turn equality of opportunity into equity. You can no longer call it equality as treating people differently contradicts the concept of equality...

    You cannot have two contradictory ideas existing within the same concept as accepting one means rejecting the other....accepting the idea that we should be treated differently based on our differences is rejecting the idea that we should be treated the same i.e. given EQUAL opportunities....

    (Original post by hajima)
    We have to have a predefined set of criteria when determining what is and what isn't fair. Going by equal opportunity, in the case of the diabetic it's clear that they would not be allowed extra time, but time to have the shot and return to their exam in order to finish it (although this would be done before the exam to prevent this anyway).
    I wasn't referring to injections in my example of the diabetic but them having to measure their blood glucose levels. Diabetics have to regularly measure their blood glucose levels particularly when undergoing strenuous tasks. A diabetic with an above normal blood glucose level will not have sufficient supply of glucose to the brain. Similarly, when their blood glucose drops below normal their brain will become starved of glucose. So they become unable to function effectively. They need the extra time to measure and control their blood glucose levels so as to be able to function effectively. Equality of opportunity denies such people a fair chance at the exam. It puts them at a disadvantage to others who have full control of their brain throughout the exam. Do you see the problem that we have with equality of opportunity?
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hajima)
    ...The physical standards have been set to where they are because they work, they should not be lowered under any circumstances so as to provide women an easier time....
    The standards have been set to reflect male abilities because standard setting has historically been determined be males, to that extent it is entirely arbitrary to suggest anything short of what males can do is unacceptable. You miss my point entirely if you think I'm suggesting women should benefit from 'an easier time', far from it, I'm suggesting that women should be measured against a standard which reflects their potentials as men are measured against a standard which reflects their potentials.

    Would you expect a short person to be able to jump over a hurdle of a certain height with the same ease as a tall person where they were otherwise of the same fitness level?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    If we are genuinely invested in the concept of equity then people should be rewarded according to their level of contribution as measured against their actual ability/potential. If you and I work equally as hard (and let's assume with equal competency) then on the basis of equity we should be equally rewarded, even if our individual limitations mean our productivity levels are different. Rewarding people equality specifically on the basis of equal productivity is less 'equitable' in the fullest sense of the term.

    Come on...how is paying people equal amounts of money for different levels of productivity fair?

    When we perform work we consume energy. Energy costs money. If they work equally as hard as one another a man that harvests 2 acres of corn in a day consumes far more energy than a woman who harvests half an acre of corn in a day...its not fair to pay him an equal amount to a woman for consuming far more energy....

    Don't take this personally good sir but you can never justify communism.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    The standards have been set to reflect male abilities because standard setting has historically been determined be males, to that extent it is entirely arbitrary to suggest anything short of what males can do is unacceptable. You miss my point entirely if you think I'm suggesting women should benefit from 'an easier time', far from it, I'm suggesting that women should be measured against a standard which reflects their potentials as men are measured against a standard which reflects their potentials.

    Would you expect a short person to be able to jump over a hurdle of a certain height with the same ease as a tall person where they were otherwise of the same fitness level?
    Argument no longer relevant.

    EDIT: apparently they did lower the standard required :/
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hajima)
    the standard stays the same. .
    Sadly, that was the case until very recently when standards here in the UK were lowered to allow female "firemen" to join the force.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...efighters.html
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.