Is Proportionality... Equality?

in #life6 years ago

hansikhouse_equality.jpg

Balancing the World


We live in a slice of history that is hyperfocused on the concept of “Equality.” Whether it is concerning the representation of women in the workforce, victimization of minorities in the US, linguistic rights of transsexuals, or the policing of Political Correctness or hate speech, it seems that the western world is trying a great deal to reach some form of equality.

This seems a fairly expected graduation from last century's fight for women's educational and professional rights, the civil rights transformations of the 70s, and the integration of gay marriage just this past decade. It seems quite reasonable that a society that has historically become more inclusive and balanced would become more specific (even “intersectional”) and attuned to the needs of all underrepresented peoples.

And so the term “Equality” is used a great deal today and the debate is diversifying amongst groups of all kinds. In the feminist domain, women's income discrepancies and representation at higher executive levels is seemingly a cause of of concern. In the academic world, percentages of race amongst the black, latino, and even asian communities are a constant tug-o-war. And although I believe that all of these conversations are critically vital, I want to push forward a real evaluation of what the word “Equality” means in the modern world and why we have to be ever more cautious as how we use the term.

This is because “Equality” is obviously a general ethos that we all want to achieve. We want everyone to be treated fairly regardless of their religion or ethnicity, we want everyone to have similar opportunities to succeed and self-actualization regardless of economic level, and we want everyone to be able to get to wherever they want to arrive in the future.

The tricky thing is though, is how we set that goalpost for what “Equality” looks like. This is paramountly important as 'rights' movements without a destination simply devolve into abstract ideologies and attitudes. The suffragists wanted the 19th amendment. Civil rights actors wanted desegregated institutions. Whether the change is physical, legal, educational, etc., the most important factor is to figure out what that social change looks like.

And so the current 'solution' that progressives implicitly lean on is proportionality – that representation in all things good and bad should be weighed against the percentages of the country. This isn't outright said by activists and mobilizers but it can be understood by their usage of terms like “underrepresented” or “overrepresented” when it comes to executive positions, law-firm employment, police brutality, prison sentencing, etc. When qualifications like 'over' and 'under' are used, we have to be clear that 'just right' line that has been arbitrarily been made is against the proportions of the population. For example, African Americans constitute about 12-13% of the American population. Thus, when black prison populations are much much higher than 13%, the word “overrepresented” is regularly used.

So now that we've established that proportionality is the tentative goal set by those who are fighting for 'equality' today, we have to ask ourselves whether that is actually a desirable outcome? Are the percentages laid out by numeric racial and gender demographics legitimate goals for an equal future? Will we be an inherently fairer and more equal society when 13% of college students are black, 5.6% of doctors are Asian, 0.3% of New York Times columnists are transgender, 2% of convicts are Native American, 50% of women are CEOs, 50% of women are oil-rig workers, and... well, you get the picture. Is it correct for us to societally strive for these proportions under the understanding of “equality?”

Seeing that even structuring the debate has taken quite some time and writing, I'll leave it at that cliffhanger until later this week. What do you think? Yes or no? What are your thoughts and concerns? I would love to get this debate going and sustained between various Steemians before even voicing my stance on it.

Sort:  

Hello @hansikhouse

This is indeed an interesting discourse. I don't think equality should be proportionally applicable as being envisaged or pursued by activists of particular causes.

Will we be an inherently fairer and more equal society when 13% of college students are black, 5.6% of doctors are Asian, 0.3% of New York Times columnists are transgender, 2% of convicts are Native American, 50% of women are CEOs, 50% of women are oil-rig workers, and... well, you get the picture. Is it correct for us to societally strive for these proportions under the understanding of “equality?”

Any country that's really desirous of development should not pursue policies that seek to achieve a state where every group is represented proportionally in the guise of ensuring equality.

Honestly, this gonna constitute a profound hindrance to the train of development because people with proven skills would be denied consideration into important positions while those who may have come from minority but without the requisite skills, are considered instead. Hence, constituting a huge clog in the wheel of development.

let the man with the best skill have the job

The above quote is my mantra.

Thanks for sharing.

@eurogee of @euronation community

Thanks for the great comment @eurogee ! Lots to think about for the next post.

Sure sire! The pleasure is mine!

You build a brilliant case and viciously leave it hanging.

Upon pondering though, I appreciate your wisdom in letting us form our own conclusion, in the true spirit of engendering independent thinking. :)

Which I believe is what is needed in this situation as well. Equality is giving everyone the opportunity to grow into their best versions.

The over and under representation happens because inequality still exists in the hearts and minds of a system that runs on autopilot.

It's time we slowed down, to first remove racial profiles - and create human profiles. Each individual equally valued for a chance.

And where the pain of the past runs deep, treat that with equal care as we would PTSD. Where the lands were ravaged and the course of history changed forever, the same and equal rebuilding we would do after a hurricane or Tsunami.

That is equality. It is fessing up and owning up to the mistakes of the past and building equality from the ground up!

Just my 2 cents. ;)

Wonderful comment, thank you @kchitrah. I apologize for the hanger but realized I'd likely write something too long for anyone to look at legitimately. I'll be sure to continue this debate soon in future posts.

Fair point! I look forward to reading it @hansikhouse :)

From my personal view, inequality is not a problem at all, it would be unfair to have a proportionally equal number in all aspects of society, in the same way it would also be unfair to have an exactly equal number of quotas in each aspect, since what It really must be evaluated is not race, ethnicity, or gender, what should be evaluated are the capabilities of people.

The one who discriminates and leaves a truly more capable person without a job for the simple fact of being of a different race or gender, will be harmed by the very nature of the market, that does not distinguish between people but applies with its own hand the fair quota that corresponds to each person for their abilities and competences, equity at the end of the day. And this refers to anyone who discriminates, be it white, black or asian, it does not matter if you do it for racism or for distributing racial quotas according to what is politically correct.

Of course, it's just my opinion. Regards!

Thanks for the great comment @vieira. The point about the market responding accordingly and not caring about bias is a great point. In the end, the winners will come out on top.

How can we achieve equality when everyone is so different???

7 billion people all have different views, opinions, goals.

I think general guidelines are good and all but to say that we will reach this thing called "Equality" seems far-fetched to me!

Great post! Following You!

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvote this reply.

Congratulations @hansikhouse! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of posts published

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Upvote this notification to help all Steemit users. Learn why here!

Hello @hansikhouse , I was designed to give advice to "steemit" users.

I recommend to increase this;

The most winning bid bot in the last 24 hours is ✅ "rocky1"

You can enter "steembottracker.com" to find more offers.

You can make "Resteem" and advertise to the followers of the whale accounts.

"Resteem Bot" for you;

@byresteem has 25.500 Followers + 7000 Sp + Upvote with min +55 accounts.

I am a bot, I can not answer the comment. I hope I could help. Good luck.

약간의 차이를 인정하면서 존중하는게 더 바람직해보인다는 개인적인 견해입니다 ㅎㅎ 완전한 평등은 이루어질 수 없을 것 같아요... 인간의 특성이랄까 .. 지극히 개인적입니다!

좋은 글 잘봤습니다.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.15
JST 0.029
BTC 63834.78
ETH 2627.38
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.78