Real Equality.

Page 5 of 7 [ 99 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

03 Nov 2020, 2:32 pm

Equality of result always has been and always will be a bad idea.

_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,912
Location: Stendec

03 Nov 2020, 2:44 pm

"Equal" versus "Fair"

Which is which?

_________________

No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.

magz
Forum Moderator

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

03 Nov 2020, 2:52 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:

The main thing that interferes with equality of result is jealousy and greed. People tend to get their feelings ruffled when they think someone else got more than them, especially if they don't "deserve" it. In practice it's pretty easy. Give people what they need. Bam. Done.

As for the shoe metaphor, that's kinda exactly my point. It's "equal" if I give everyone the same exact pair of shoes, but it doesn't help everyone equally, cos everyone is different. The solution is, as you said, let everyone pick their own shoes - but then you get people whining about "how come he got better shoes than me?!" or "but what if everyone picks $200 jordans?!" or "his shoes cost twice as much as mine, I should get TWO pairs!" instead of just being happy that everyone has shoes.

Fulfilling the need is easy. Satisfying the EGO is the hard part. You can give 2 kids literally the exact same toy, and they'll still fight over which one is "better". Adults do this too.

While I can understand how you could take STEM incentives personally, that's still you taking it personally - It's there because they recognize that *some* women may need help getting into stem, for reasons unrelated to an "inability" to do it, and this puts a system in place to be able to help them - it doesn't mean they think YOU, or ALL women NEED it. It's recognizing that some women may be behind in sciences and maths due to having been discouraged from taking it in primary school in favor of things like home-economics, band, or typing - or one of many other reasons - but not because they CAN'T do it, but simply to help them offset other / previous inequalities of opportunity.

It's like how, just cos a school offers services for the disabled, that doesn't mean they think I PERSONALLY CAN'T do school on my own, simply that SOME people MAY need help for legit reasons, and this makes it available.

I'm all for accommodations when someone needs them - like, all the extra time I had at uni because of my health.
However, favouring a group because it's statistically disadvantaged instead of undersatnding and removing reasons of the disadvantage, does not, to my exprience, make things better.

_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>

uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,213

03 Nov 2020, 3:17 pm

Fnord wrote:

"Equal" versus "Fair"

Which is which?

This is EXACTLY what I'm getting at. On the left, they all have the same box. What they've been given is "equal". At least one of them is still in the same situation, so what's the point, thanks for nothing. On the right, they can all see, and they can all see equally well. But "How come he got a box and I didn't! Why does he have TWO boxes?! I want two boxes, too! What makes THEM so special?!"

Sure, the BOXES are "unequal", but the opportunity it affords them, is NOT unequal.

Now sure, if you take "equality of result" to mean "everyone is a winner!", then sure, that can be bad - but this is meant as "everyone can PARTICIPATE". It doesn't mean you automatically make the team, it just means that at least everyone gets a chance to try out.

Its hard to remove the underlying reasons for certain groups being disadvantaged, when many people seem to think those disadvantages don't even exist in the first place, or that those disadvantages aren't really disadvantages, but merely a reflection of that group, rather than a systemic problem with society. For example, it's hard to undo racial inequality in 'Murica when there are people that believe racism doesn't even exist any more in 'Murica. I agree it would, in theory, be a better way, but in the meantime, at least this way *is* ONE way to do at least SOMEthing about it. People will gripe about it either way.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,912
Location: Stendec

03 Nov 2020, 3:29 pm

↑ Another case in point: Every so often, I encounter a person seeking employment who has no technical qualifications for the position whatsoever. Such a person will demand to be trained for the position, citing "Equal Opportunity" laws. Should I give this person a free education so he can have equal opportunity to qualify for the position, or should I offer the position only to those who already qualify equally?

On the one hand, some would say that to be completely fair, I should offer the free training.

On the other hand, some would say that offering the free training would be unfair to those who had to pay for their training.

On the gripping hand, I need to fill the position right now, and not four years from now.

Opportunity (a.k.a., "Luck") favors those who are prepared to receive it.

_________________

No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.

Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

03 Nov 2020, 3:44 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:

Fnord wrote:

"Equal" versus "Fair"

Which is which?

The problem with "doing something" is if you do the wrong thing you can make things worse.

Specifically focusing on the problem of racism. If you try to correct racism by providing disadvantaged races with special programs you reinforce the belief that race is a determining factor for people. This has all kinds of nasty bad effects. Now some programs may have enough of a positive effect to offset this enough to justify their existence, but too many pretend this effect doesn't exist. Also if you want to eliminate racism you must also eventually eliminate these programs.

_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."

uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,213

03 Nov 2020, 6:37 pm

These policies aren't meant to *correct* racism. They're just meant to minimize the existing effects of racism, until racism is corrected / gone. It's not meant to be the solution - it's meant to alleviate things until the solution can be affected. Much like Fnord needs an employee NOW, and not 4 years from now, equality is necessary NOW, and not at some indeterminate point in the future. The disenfranchised are always expected to be patient for the hollow promise that the world will come around eventually - in the end positive social change has typically happened because the greater portion of society made it happen, even if some people "didn't like it".

magz
Forum Moderator

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

04 Nov 2020, 2:46 am

uncommondenominator wrote:

These policies aren't meant to *correct* racism. They're just meant to minimize the existing effects of racism, until racism is corrected / gone.

Relating it to my personal experiences as a STEM woman:
While I understand importance of the cause, I doubt efficacy of the approach.

_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>

Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

04 Nov 2020, 2:48 am

uncommondenominator wrote:

Fnord wrote:

"Equal" versus "Fair"

Which is which?

For a bit I was thinking that you attributing the left picture to Leftwing politics and the right picture to rightwing politics, and it was kind of confusing me. The picture is a good analogy for something like taxation and public social services. The ones who are well off are going to just fine being taxed more in being able to see (be able to live comfortably), while the ones really struggling will require a good deal more to be able to even able to participate.

The often rightwing position is to just promise the little guy that one day if he tries hard enough he will be able to see, with the fact he can't now is some failing on their part. Or saying that because the tall guy is do so well it will trickle down and lift up the others, when really they would like to use their height to get all the boxes they can.

_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall

uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,213

04 Nov 2020, 6:22 am

magz wrote:

uncommondenominator wrote:

These policies aren't meant to *correct* racism. They're just meant to minimize the existing effects of racism, until racism is corrected / gone.

Relating it to my personal experiences as a STEM woman:
While I understand importance of the cause, I doubt efficacy of the approach.

And while your experiences are real, true, and valid - they are also from the lens and perspective of a person who feels that those programs are unnecessary, and didn't need to utilize them, from the sound of it. You may have found them insulting, but to others they can be a godsend.

Unfortunately, we don't know how to "switch off" racism and sexism, partly because it's been going on for thousands of years now, so in the meantime, the best we've got is at least making it harder TO BE racist, or minimizing the consequences OF racism. Bigotry is still too deeply rooted in society to just "undo" it.

Really, I feel like the biggest "problem" with programs like these, is people don't really understand how they work. Many people seem to think it means the individuals in question get a free pass without needing to actually meet any of the standards involved. Or that opportunities are being arbitrarily deprived from deserving individuals, merely to give away as a handout. It seems like, in people's imaginations, colleges are going "Hey, we need 100 minority students, now! I don't care how poorly they score! Kick 100 excellent applicants out and replace them with the first 100 minority students that walk past!", or "We need to meet our minority quotas! Find 50 minority students and pass / graduate them no matter how bad they do!" or maybe even "Hey we need to give these poor saps a shot, lets lower the bar for them so we can let them "win" for once" - when that's absolutely not how that works at all.

magz
Forum Moderator

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

04 Nov 2020, 6:45 am

I don't know, I live in a different country. For me, giving additional points on exams for being in some group works exactly the way you describe.

If you claim the programs don't work like that - how do they work?

_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

04 Nov 2020, 9:23 am

magz wrote:

Are these points enought that if you did poorly on the test that it would put you over a man who did well?

I'm in the U.S., and Affirmitive Action dictates that, when presented with two EQUALLY QUALIFIED canidates, the employer give extra consideration to a canidate if they are a woman/minority.

Besides, I'm not in STEM, but I have primarily worked in male dominated enviroments. I've learned that bitter white men are going to be bitter white men, no matter what. Even if AA was completely abolished, they'd still find ways to discredit the success of a woman/minority if said woman/minority was promoted over them.

_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

04 Nov 2020, 9:40 am

The only way to have more women in STEM is to have more women willing to go for STEM fields. No matter how much you impose anti-discrimination laws, if there are no enough girls studying STEM then there will be not much women in STEM.

I am not convinced that it’s much less than 50% in the West due to gender discrimination; nor I am convinced it’s due to natural inclinations.

Most Arab/Muslim countries have more than 50% women in STEM and STEM graduates; and they aren’t gender-egalitarian countries... at all!

https://www.studyinternational.com/news ... rab-world/

Quote:

In certain countries in the Middle East, things are the opposite. In fact, contrary to stereotypes and propaganda, women in STEM in Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates test better and feel more comfortable in mathematics than men, and are not intimidated to say they like science-based subjects.

According to UNESCO, 34-57 percent of STEM graduates in Arab countries are women – a figure much higher than that seen in universities across the US or Europe.

^ The above phenomena is not new*, the women-STEM issue was so alien to me personally (it is true probably only for Software development here; but not for any other STEM field I can think of), I’ve only learned it exists from western media.

The only explanation is that the cultures in West don’t view women in STEM very highly and encourage them to go for other fields? it is really a paradoxe.

* Back in school, I recall the common stereotype was: that girls were generally better than boys in mathematics (the top 3 often were girls), boys generally better than girls in physics, and girls generally *way* better than boys in literature subjects especially in foreign languages.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 04 Nov 2020, 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

magz
Forum Moderator

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

04 Nov 2020, 9:57 am

XFilesGeek wrote:

magz wrote:

Are these points enought that if you did poorly on the test that it would put you over a man who did well?

The example that caused outrage in Poland was about 5%.

XFilesGeek wrote:

I'm in the U.S., and Affirmitive Action dictates that, when presented with two EQUALLY QUALIFIED canidates, the employer give extra consideration to a canidate if they are a woman/minority.

Here, it comes kind of naturally - people seem to like diversity, female ITs are just as welcome as male elementary school teachers.
Still, both are in obvious minority - but is it really that wrong?

XFilesGeek wrote:

Besides, I'm not in STEM, but I have primarily worked in male dominated enviroments. I've learned that bitter white men are going to be bitter white men, no matter what. Even if AA was completely abolished, they'd still find ways to discredit the success of a woman/minority if said woman/minority was promoted over them.

Working and living in masculine environments, I've encountered only individual cases of this - rare enough to blame these particular guys, not guys in general.

Maybe Poland has it better than US, at least on the level of some cultural norms? Or just the science-education circles are more welcoming than others?

_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,890
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

04 Nov 2020, 10:14 am

magz wrote:

XFilesGeek wrote:

magz wrote:

Are these points enought that if you did poorly on the test that it would put you over a man who did well?

The example that caused outrage in Poland was about 5%.

XFilesGeek wrote:

I'm in the U.S., and Affirmitive Action dictates that, when presented with two EQUALLY QUALIFIED canidates, the employer give extra consideration to a canidate if they are a woman/minority.

Here, it comes kind of naturally - people seem to like diversity, female ITs are just as welcome as male elementary school teachers.
Still, both are in obvious minority - but is it really that wrong?

XFilesGeek wrote:

Working and living in masculine environments, I've encountered only individual cases of this - rare enough to blame these particular guys, not guys in general.

Maybe Poland has it better than US, at least on the level of some cultural norms?
Or maybe educated social circles, while not the same as "rich" in Eastern Europe, have these things better everywhere?

Probably the East (check my above post too) provide less options for a good living than the West; hence why more men and women in East join STEM for a better living.

Saying “probably” with great doubt tho; because the women I knew in STEM fields do LOVE their fields, I haven’t came across any who regretted it.

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

04 Nov 2020, 10:16 am

magz wrote:

XFilesGeek wrote:

magz wrote:

Are these points enought that if you did poorly on the test that it would put you over a man who did well?

The example that caused outrage in Poland was about 5%.

XFilesGeek wrote:

I'm in the U.S., and Affirmitive Action dictates that, when presented with two EQUALLY QUALIFIED canidates, the employer give extra consideration to a canidate if they are a woman/minority.

Here, it comes kind of naturally - people seem to like diversity, female ITs are just as welcome as male elementary school teachers.
Still, both are in obvious minority - but is it really that wrong?

XFilesGeek wrote:

I meant "bitter white men" as specifically talking about bitter white men, not white guys in general. Sorry for not being clearer.

And 5% on a test score doesn't seem like enough to push an unqualified canidate over a qualified one.

Page 5 of 7 [ 99 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

Real Equality. Post Reply New Topic

Real Equality.