Talk to me. Does this make sense as an idea, or is it really offensive?
Disclaimer : This is all just an exploration of thought, wordplay, meaning. I've tried to put it in a bit of a frame of my own experience and ambivalence about value and difference. I hope my poking around with 'equality' is not offensive to anyone, but if it is, I'd love to hear why and to discuss it. I'm not sure what I think and I think I'm open to persuasion. I'd love to hear your opinion.
"Separate but equal." Where do you stand?
Separate but equal was a policy in America that meant segregation. It was an excuse for racist treatment and discrimination.
Does this mean that acknowledging difference necessarily opens the way for inequitable treatment, hierarchies, oppression?
I'm going to move on to my own experience with gender discrimination because... I have more experience with it, and feel
more ambivalent about it. I don't think gender and race discrimination are analogous... but there you go. This is after all
a discussion about differences, equivalences and comparisons.
My twin brother and I were always brought up with the idea of 'half each'. But we were also always brought up
with the knowledge of being different from one another.
My dad is a very unusual guy. He says that he had been a feminist philosopher, before I was born, believing that
'nurture' rather than 'nature' determined feminine characteristics. When I was born, though, he says that he realised
how fundamentally different boys are from girls.
I think this tied in with his adoption of Burmese Buddhism to result in what seems like a comparatively archaic set of
gender ideas.
There are, in my father's mind, 'feminine duties'. Because my mother is sick, these fall to me. Cooking, cleaning, and so on.
On the other hand, if I can't do them, my brother is expected to - that falls under 'filial duty'.
The double standard in our house is not a hidden one. I was not allowed to go out with boys, or to invite them over
alone. 'Your reputation, Alice.... it presents a wrong appearance', was the catch cry.
On the other hand, this is a man who has always encouraged me to achieve to the best of my ability in whichever forum I choose.
Education has always been incredibly important to him, and he's never been prouder of me than when I got into
Cambridge, even though it meant that I left the family to fend for themselves for a year.
He has also encouraged me to go into academia because it's 'easier to have children'.
He has also encouraged me to go to the bar, not only because he thinks I'd make a good barrister, but also, again,
time for children.
What does this all add up to? Well, me, I suppose. But, it's not an entirely consistent set of mores, I think. There are bits
in me that don't really run on the same language. Parallel double-thinks that ought to be contradictory, but seem never
really to confront themselves, except occasionally at the thin end of the wedge, or late at night in the darkness of insomniac
ramblings.
This is a tangent to the main question, of course, which is:
Separate but equal. Is it possible?
Does equality require equivalence? Would we rather maintain difference (without sacrificing mutual respect), or insist on
equality? Is it possible to insist on equality if difference exists?
I mean, essentially, insisting on equality denies difference. Apples and oranges kind of stuff. How can you
value one over the other. Can you weigh them against some abstract fruit scale? Can an apple be a better apple than the
orange is an orange? Is it all a postmodern matter of preference? Or functionality for purpose (in this instance do you want a fruit with a protective outer shell, or one that makes your mouth feel clean?)
My feeling is that we should be looking to a conceptual framework for dealing with value in gender, race and so on that
is other than 'equality'. Maybe something like... equity. Equity balances out, and factors in. The equals sign is both parallel
and immoveable. In it, both lines are of equal length, and equidistant. 1 = 1 is all well and good, but
what if you have something like red = c sharp minor or a question like spaghetti < napping.
It seems to me that people cannot be made equal, or treated as equal. To make them so denies malleability, and the
sprawling changeable nature of human interaction and identity.
People feel so strongly about preventing discrimination that they forget its etymological double-side.
Main Entry:discriminationPart of Speech:nounDefinition:particularity in tasteSynonyms:acumen, acuteness, astucity, astuteness, bias, clearness, decision, difference, differentiation,discernment, distinction, judgment, keenness, penetration, perception, percipience,perspicacity, preference, refinement, sagacity,sense, separation, shrewdness, subtlety, taste,understandingAntonyms:indifference
Is equity a better term? Can we come up with a better conceptual framework? Or is the ideal of equality worth striving for, nonetheless.
The antonym of discrimination is indifference. Do we want indifference?
"Separate but equal." Where do you stand?
Separate but equal was a policy in America that meant segregation. It was an excuse for racist treatment and discrimination.
Does this mean that acknowledging difference necessarily opens the way for inequitable treatment, hierarchies, oppression?
I'm going to move on to my own experience with gender discrimination because... I have more experience with it, and feel
more ambivalent about it. I don't think gender and race discrimination are analogous... but there you go. This is after all
a discussion about differences, equivalences and comparisons.
My twin brother and I were always brought up with the idea of 'half each'. But we were also always brought up
with the knowledge of being different from one another.
My dad is a very unusual guy. He says that he had been a feminist philosopher, before I was born, believing that
'nurture' rather than 'nature' determined feminine characteristics. When I was born, though, he says that he realised
how fundamentally different boys are from girls.
I think this tied in with his adoption of Burmese Buddhism to result in what seems like a comparatively archaic set of
gender ideas.
There are, in my father's mind, 'feminine duties'. Because my mother is sick, these fall to me. Cooking, cleaning, and so on.
On the other hand, if I can't do them, my brother is expected to - that falls under 'filial duty'.
The double standard in our house is not a hidden one. I was not allowed to go out with boys, or to invite them over
alone. 'Your reputation, Alice.... it presents a wrong appearance', was the catch cry.
On the other hand, this is a man who has always encouraged me to achieve to the best of my ability in whichever forum I choose.
Education has always been incredibly important to him, and he's never been prouder of me than when I got into
Cambridge, even though it meant that I left the family to fend for themselves for a year.
He has also encouraged me to go into academia because it's 'easier to have children'.
He has also encouraged me to go to the bar, not only because he thinks I'd make a good barrister, but also, again,
time for children.
What does this all add up to? Well, me, I suppose. But, it's not an entirely consistent set of mores, I think. There are bits
in me that don't really run on the same language. Parallel double-thinks that ought to be contradictory, but seem never
really to confront themselves, except occasionally at the thin end of the wedge, or late at night in the darkness of insomniac
ramblings.
This is a tangent to the main question, of course, which is:
Separate but equal. Is it possible?
Does equality require equivalence? Would we rather maintain difference (without sacrificing mutual respect), or insist on
equality? Is it possible to insist on equality if difference exists?
I mean, essentially, insisting on equality denies difference. Apples and oranges kind of stuff. How can you
value one over the other. Can you weigh them against some abstract fruit scale? Can an apple be a better apple than the
orange is an orange? Is it all a postmodern matter of preference? Or functionality for purpose (in this instance do you want a fruit with a protective outer shell, or one that makes your mouth feel clean?)
My feeling is that we should be looking to a conceptual framework for dealing with value in gender, race and so on that
is other than 'equality'. Maybe something like... equity. Equity balances out, and factors in. The equals sign is both parallel
and immoveable. In it, both lines are of equal length, and equidistant. 1 = 1 is all well and good, but
what if you have something like red = c sharp minor or a question like spaghetti < napping.
It seems to me that people cannot be made equal, or treated as equal. To make them so denies malleability, and the
sprawling changeable nature of human interaction and identity.
People feel so strongly about preventing discrimination that they forget its etymological double-side.
Main Entry:discriminationPart of Speech:nounDefinition:particularity in tasteSynonyms:acumen, acuteness, astucity, astuteness, bias, clearness, decision, difference, differentiation,discernment, distinction, judgment, keenness, penetration, perception, percipience,perspicacity, preference, refinement, sagacity,sense, separation, shrewdness, subtlety, taste,understandingAntonyms:indifference
Is equity a better term? Can we come up with a better conceptual framework? Or is the ideal of equality worth striving for, nonetheless.
The antonym of discrimination is indifference. Do we want indifference?