2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staffโ€”we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $8765.50Goal: $10000

Talk:Equality

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Surely there are one or two more appealing categories which fit this article, other than just category:politics? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How about social science? The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 05:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
That sounds perfect. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Affirmative action[edit]

  • These two conceptions of equality (while using the same term) make discussions of AA very difficult and contentious, and in the case that its goals will be ultimately achieved it's likely that it'll disappear from the system.

It tends not to work that way. First, because these things generate lobbies because of their disparate impact. It works the same way as the emu subsidy. It's an important part of the livelihood of emu farmers, and costs the average voter a pittance. You have an intensely interested minority who will move heaven and earth making sure the emu subsidy stays in place. Second, the goal is inherently vague and chimerical. Equality of outcome might be measurable along a selected and imperfect set of metrics, and will remain utterly unachievable anyways. Equality of opportunity -- how do you even measure that? The argument for affirmative action in essence goes that formal equality before the law fails to deliver even that, because life is irreducibly complicated. - Smerdis of Tlรถn, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Emu farmers are an oppressed group like African Americans, and receive affirmative action to promote equal representation throughout society, especially in well-paying jobs? Ooookay. --91.7.10.25 (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Herculean article expansion & Marxian concept of equality[edit]

First off, impressive work. This stuff can be very arcane but your take on it is comprehensibly written. Upon reading I one question came to mind though: in the communism section you state that Marx advocated equality of outcome. Is there a quote one can find affirming this? I thought I recalled Marx rejecting much of the concept of equality (of outcome) since it was, on one hand, practically unattainable and, on the other hand, only a thought experiment for capitalist societies anyway which he, of course, wanted to overcome by giving everyone free access to resources, means of productions & welfare ("...to each according to his need.") instead. Are you interpreting/extrapolating here? Anyway, lots of food for thought in here, cheers. EauDeCologne (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

[Untitled][edit]

๐—ก๐—ผ๐˜๐—ฒ & ๐—ฅ๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ง๐—ผ ๐—ฅ๐—ช ๐—˜๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜€ (๐—”๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—”๐˜‚๐˜๐—ต๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—œ๐—ณ ๐—ข๐—ป๐—น๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฒ) New user here, so I apologize if I'm not doing this right. I was reading through this article page of Equality, and you certainly make some good points on using the terms "equitably" rather than "equally", in terms of accommodations. I also came across the point viewing equal hiring opportunities for guards in prisons as an accidental fallacy, specifically your generalized view on barring male guards from women's detention, which seems to lack thorough research on biology being the sole cause of such incidences. It appears to be speculation based on personality traits, and lacks any studies to support this claim. Thus, I do not believe this situation to be a valid example of Accidental Fallacy pertaining to Feminism and Equality.

๐—ฆ๐˜‚๐—บ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜‡๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—œ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ: ๐—œ'๐—ฑ ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐˜† ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐˜‚๐˜€๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ฝ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—น๐˜† ๐—ด๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ฐ ๐—ฏ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—ด๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—ก๐—ผ๐˜ ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—ฐ๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ ๐˜„๐—ฎ๐˜† ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ด๐—ผ ๐—ฎ๐—ฏ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐˜ ๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—ฒ๐˜…๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฝ๐—น๐—ฒ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—ณ๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐˜† ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—˜๐—พ๐˜‚๐—ฎ๐—น๐—ถ๐˜๐˜† ๐˜„๐—ถ๐˜๐—ต๐—ผ๐˜‚๐˜ ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—ป๐˜€๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ผ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ถ๐˜€๐˜€๐˜‚๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐˜ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ผ๐—น๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ถ๐˜. ๐—ช๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—พ๐˜‚๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐˜‚๐—ฎ๐—น๐˜€ ๐˜„๐—ต๐—ผ ๐˜„๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ ๐—”๐— ๐—”๐—•? ๐—ข๐—ฟ ๐—ด๐—ฎ๐˜† ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป? ๐—˜๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ป ๐—ถ๐—ณ ๐˜†๐—ผ๐˜‚ ๐˜„๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ฟ๐˜†๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ฎ๐˜๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฏ๐˜‚๐˜๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐˜€๐—ผ๐—น๐—ฒ๐—น๐˜† ๐˜๐—ผ ๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป, ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ ๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐˜‚๐—ฎ๐—น ๐˜ƒ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—น๐—ถ๐˜๐˜† ๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐˜๐˜€ ๐—ฏ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐˜‚๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ฎ ๐—บ๐˜‚๐—น๐˜๐—ถ๐˜๐˜‚๐—ฑ๐—ฒ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐—ณ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜€. ๐—œ๐˜ ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐˜€ ๐—ด๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—น๐—ถ๐˜‡๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜ ๐—ฎ ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐˜๐—ต๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ด๐—ต๐—น๐˜† ๐—ฏ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ธ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐˜‚๐—ฝ ๐—ฐ๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—บ ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฐ๐—ต-๐˜„๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ฒ.


I get the impression that argument under the ๐—™๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ถ๐˜€๐—บ ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ด๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—˜๐—พ๐˜‚๐—ฎ๐—น๐—ถ๐˜๐˜† ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—น๐—ฒ regarding what you claim to be an accidental fallacy regarding prison hiring equality reduces complex human behavior to simplistic biological determinism. Human actions are influenced by a multitude of factors beyond biology, including socialization, individual morality, and institutional culture. By attributing potential misconduct solely to evolutionary traits, this perspective ignores the significant role of environmental factors and personal choice.

Discriminating against potential genders of candidates based on generalized assumptions about their behavior undermines principles of merit, which you speak of possibly being ignored in your essay. All individuals could be evaluated on their own merits rather than generalizations associated with their gender.

A more effective approach could involve rigorous screening processes for all candidatesโ€”regardless of genderโ€”to ensure they are fit for duty in sensitive environments like female prisons. For this, ๐—œ'๐—ฑ ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐˜‚๐—ฝ๐—ฑ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—น๐—ฒ ๐—ฏ๐˜† ๐—ฒ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐˜†๐—ผ๐˜‚ ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐˜†๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฒ ๐˜„๐—ต๐—ผ ๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐˜„๐—ถ๐—น๐—น๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐˜๐—ผ ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ถ๐—บ๐—ฒ.


๐— ๐˜† ๐— ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜€๐˜† ๐—ช๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด: While I certainly see your point regarding once again the equitably vs equally situation, I'd have to respectfully disagree with having male guards in female prisons to be the only problem within itself. While it has indeed been true that sexual assault from male guards has been a problem, I wouldn't go as far to say that this is purely due to biological brain differences in sexual behaviors between the sexes.

While there can be some biological influence affecting certain predisposed tendencies, I feel as though this neglects the psychosocial influences and overall societal and socialized attitudes that also result in such exhibited behaviors. While US prison itself may have its issues with sexual assault, particulalry from guards, I'm not sure I'd attribute this solely on a such behaviors being set. There have been some instances of female guards also displaying such activity on male inmates, but this is besides my point.

While I don't agree that not barring male guards from being employed to female prisons is the problem, I do agree that the issue in itself may still support your idea of equitably vs equally, as guards who undergo better training and and are thoroughly vetted on their conduct prior to hiring could be seen as one possible solution to this problem, and that wouldn't be equal par se since these male guards might still need training and evaluation specific to them to prevent such occurrences. However, in fairness, this is ONLY considering if US prisons so choose to implement such programs (Unfortunately, the problem in itself may be US Prisons, as they have their fair share of human rights issues: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/12/prisons-menstrual-pads-humiliate-women-violate-rights]).

I really do like the rest of the article on Equality, as it makes some Very good points on the fallacies of equitably vs equally and who gets to be considered eligible to be seen as equal. This topic on prisons was the only particular section that I'd say might be generalizing genders based solely upon biopsychological factors and thus failing to consider the implications of socialization combined with biology, variations in behavior, training and thorough vetting in the hiring process, so while the problem you present still stands since socialization still does happen, biology may still affect those who are not socialized in ways that negate or reduce such behaviors, and training and vetting is not necessarily implemented in every US Prison due to their human rights issues, I disagree that using purely genetic brain differences in gender is a very clear way to go about providing an example of this accidental fallacy in Equality without considering the other possible issues that connect and revolve around it.

This is, of course, not even going into the issues that transgender inmates face in US Prisons as a result of human rights issues. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-zoukis/promoting-prison-rape-sho_b_7554208.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sandy-brown-transgender-inmate-legal-victory_us_5603160be4b0fde8b0d12518).

Of course, there is the possibility I may have misinterpreted what you were trying to say. If I didn't misinterpret this, ๐—œ'๐—ฑ ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐˜‚๐—ฝ๐—ฑ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฏ๐—ผ๐˜๐˜๐—ผ๐—บ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—˜๐—พ๐˜‚๐—ฎ๐—น๐—ถ๐˜๐˜† ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—น๐—ฒ. I really do think that the philosophical Underpinnings of the concept of equality are something we should explore.

JiminyCricket (talk), 24 February 2025