Real Equality.

Post Reply New Topic

That doesn't happen in the UK.

What used to happen was the opposite. In the eleven plus exams, they'd boost boys' grades with the understanding that they'd make it up and become smarter later.

Fortunately most places don't have eleven plus anymore and those that do don't do that. But there's still a prevailing attitude that 'boys mature slower' which lets boys be kids for longer.

There will always be those so focused on what's given over what's needed that they will whine about "well how come people WITHOUT diabetes don't also get free insulin?! That's not equal, if they get free insulin I want free insulin too!" while completely ignoring the fact that they don't have diabetes, and don't need it to live, where as the diabetic does. Even when one does things "mathematically", someone will still call the math into question. As soon as you start quantifying things with numbers, someone inevitably always wants their number to be bigger, based on the idea that they're "more deserving", usually justified by some other number which is also bigger.

And to some people, usually the ones it benefits, most of those situations are generally labeled "fair". Many times, that's what people mean by "freedom". The logic goes along the lines of "I am stronger than you, therefore I deserve to take what I want - if you were strong, you'd be "free" to take what you want, too. If you deserved those things, you'd be strong enough to keep them, but since I can take them, clearly I deserve them" - or "It's perfectly fair if I have more money than you, because if I have more money than you it's cos I worked more than you, therefore whatever you do (or don't) have, is entirely your choice / fault for choosing to have not earned it".

Also, many businesses are offering maternity leave to men now - but then you get people that want it even though they're not married or in an relationship and have no kids, like taking medical leave when you're not injured "I just want it cos he got it to!"

As for schools, free college for everyone.

Life isn't fair. Life is so unfair, it can't even be MADE fair. But we can at least try to balance some of that unfairness. We may not be able to elevate everyone to the same height, but we can at least try to keep anyone from getting lost at the bottom. It may be unrealistic to make a world where everyone lives like royalty, but it would be nice to at least try to make it where people don't die from starvation in a world with an overabundance of food. Nobody should have to starve when there's as much food to waste as there is. Or perhaps a world where people don't die from homelessness or easily preventable diseases. But people get overly obsessed with what others "deserve" or "earn". Usually from the mouths of those who conveniently already have their needs met.

The hidden caveat behind the expression "all lives matter" is that they don't have to matter EQUALLY in order for the statement to be true. As soon as the discussion turns to explaining why one person is "worth more" than another person (and by proxy that other person is "worth less" compared to the first person), it starts leading to justification as to why it's ok to give priority to one "type" of person over another, and why it's ok to treat those people differently. That same reasoning has been behind most bigotry of most types throughout history.

Even if you choose to do things alphabetically, the Zeigler in the group will still complain about how unfair it is, while the Abernathy will be perfectly content with things. Even if you alternate A-Z, Z-A, the Morgans are gonna be like "ok, how does this change anything?! And it's not until you do something like a daily rolling alphabet where each day you star with the next letter of the alphabet - but then someone goes "why is this so complicated?! Now you're just over-complicating things for NO REASON!" - so you can't win the "make people happy" game, really.

But in the end, the idea is to make it FAIR, or at leas less unfair - not to have people be HAPPY with it. Liking the situation is not a requirement for things to be "fair".

True in the case I had in mind when writing it.

Yes, it is patronizing sexism that embraces the concept of quotas for ornamental reasons.
Over this, I prefer just clear criteria applying to everyone, period - I find it less harmful.

Thinking of "real equality"... Women in my faculty (like me) drop from grad school to raise children. Men in my faculty drop from grad school to earn more money for their families. Local reality is - you start a family, you make sacrifices. Equality would be something great to afford, but when you have to survive, you just use the resources you have.