There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staffโwe 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 ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Equality
Surely there are one or two more appealing categories which fit this article, other than just category:politics? 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.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds perfect.
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]
๐ก๐ผ๐๐ฒ & ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ง๐ผ ๐ฅ๐ช ๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ (๐๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐๐๐ต๐ผ๐ฟ ๐๐ณ ๐ข๐ป๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ฒ) 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.
๐ฆ๐๐บ๐บ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฎ: ๐'๐ฑ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฝ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐น๐ ๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ฐ ๐ฏ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ณ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ ๐ถ๐ป ๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ถ๐ ๐ก๐ผ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ด๐ผ ๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ผ๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฎ๐น ๐ณ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐พ๐๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ผ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ถ๐๐๐๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐ป๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ผ๐น๐๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ป๐ฑ ๐ถ๐. ๐ช๐ต๐ฎ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐พ๐๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐๐ฎ๐น๐ ๐๐ต๐ผ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ ๐๐? ๐ข๐ฟ ๐ด๐ฎ๐ ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป? ๐๐๐ฒ๐ป ๐ถ๐ณ ๐๐ผ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ผ ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฏ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ ๐๐ผ๐น๐ฒ๐น๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป, ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ถ๐ ๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ถ๐ป ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ถ๐๐ ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ฝ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฎ ๐บ๐๐น๐๐ถ๐๐๐ฑ๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐. ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฒ๐บ๐ ๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฎ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ต๐ผ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ด๐ต๐น๐ ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ฝ ๐ฐ๐น๐ฎ๐ถ๐บ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฐ๐ต-๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ.
I get the impression that argument under the ๐๐ฒ๐บ๐ถ๐ป๐ถ๐๐บ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ด๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐พ๐๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ 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 candidatesโregardless of genderโto ensure they are fit for duty in sensitive environments like female prisons. For this, ๐'๐ฑ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐ป ๐๐ฝ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ ๐ฏ๐ ๐ฒ๐ถ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ผ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ผ๐ป๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ผ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ถ๐น๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ผ ๐๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ถ๐บ๐ฒ.
๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐ ๐ช๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด: 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, ๐'๐ฑ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ฎ๐ป ๐๐ฝ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฏ๐ผ๐๐๐ผ๐บ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐พ๐๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ. I really do think that the philosophical Underpinnings of the concept of equality are something we should explore.
JiminyCricket (talk), 24 February 2025