Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Let me just say that, in so far that equity is about rewarding/penalising people based on their group identity rather than their merits/faults as individuals, then it is discriminatory.

Then, in your terms (but NOT mine), I am discriminatory, and I aim to spread and promote this specific so-called discrimination.

But I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of helping out disadvantaged people. If, by "equity", you mean giving people grants for skills training if they are in a low income bracket (for instance), then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

By equity, I mean to refer to reparation. Putting right past wrongs, to the extent that that is practically possible and sensible. ["Sensible" in the sense of 'common sense'.] Equity, in my simplistic example, includes repaying what was denied to (i.e. stolen from) slaves. It is their due. They earned it, and it was denied to them. Equity suggests that what was stolen should be returned. With interest, if that is appropriate.

[Fried Egg]

Gender equity is more suitable as it recognizes different needs and circumstances, ensuring fair outcomes. Equality gives everyone the same, but equity gives everyone what they need to succeed.

I think everyone recognises that we have "different needs and circumstances"(or more simply; that we are different). But what separates those that pursue equality vs those that pursue equity is our conception of fairness. The former are happy for those differences to lead to unequal outcomes whereas the latter are not.

Those that aspire to equality seek only to remove the attempts to force differentiation upon us (i.e. one rule for men, another for women). If that is your goal, equity certainly isn't more "suitable". Indeed, it is actually at odds with equality. You can either treat men and women equally and allow unequal outcomes or treat them differently to achieve equal outcomes.

[Good_Egg]

By equity, I mean to refer to reparation. Putting right past wrongs, to the extent that that is practically possible and sensible.

Reparation to the wronged is practical and sensible.

Reparation to the descendents of the wronged is not. (Because it depends on the proposition that we can know that some particular level of inheritance would have taken place if the wrong had not occurred).

Reparation to those who are not even descendents of the wronged but are merely members of the same group as the wronged is even less so.

But of course this thought comes from the position that there should be one law, one rule about reparations, that applies to everyone. Those who are committed to the principle that there should be one law for those that they sympathize with and another law for everybody else will not see the relevance....

[Pattern-chaser]

Gender equity is more suitable as it recognizes different needs and circumstances, ensuring fair outcomes. Equality gives everyone the same, but equity gives everyone what they need to succeed.

I think everyone recognises that we have "different needs and circumstances"(or more simply; that we are different). But what separates those that pursue equality vs those that pursue equity is our conception of fairness. The former are happy for those differences to lead to unequal outcomes whereas the latter are not.

Those that aspire to equality seek only to remove the attempts to force differentiation upon us (i.e. one rule for men, another for women). If that is your goal, equity certainly isn't more "suitable". Indeed, it is actually at odds with equality. You can either treat men and women equally and allow unequal outcomes or treat them differently to achieve equal outcomes.

Historically, A stole $1000 from X, but B and Y were normally behaved. If X's $1000 is returned/repaid, we will see an "unequal" outcome if we compare X and Y. Because X's dollars are returned, but Y (and B, come to that) had no dollars to return in the first place. There's your "unequal" outcome. ... But it doesn't seem so "unequal" now. It looks a lot more like equity.

Equality, in contrast, might see A imprisoned. Once nobody is being burgled any more, everyone is equal, right? At this point, equality admits of no further necessary action. Except that X is still $1000 out of pocket. No reparation, because it would give rise to "unequal outcomes".

To properly compare "outcomes", don't we need to study what comes/came before? I think we do.

[Fried Egg]

Gender equity is more suitable as it recognizes different needs and circumstances, ensuring fair outcomes. Equality gives everyone the same, but equity gives everyone what they need to succeed.

I think everyone recognises that we have "different needs and circumstances"(or more simply; that we are different). But what separates those that pursue equality vs those that pursue equity is our conception of fairness. The former are happy for those differences to lead to unequal outcomes whereas the latter are not.

Those that aspire to equality seek only to remove the attempts to force differentiation upon us (i.e. one rule for men, another for women). If that is your goal, equity certainly isn't more "suitable". Indeed, it is actually at odds with equality. You can either treat men and women equally and allow unequal outcomes or treat them differently to achieve equal outcomes.

Historically, A stole $1000 from X, but B and Y were normally behaved. If X's $1000 is returned/repaid, we will see an "unequal" outcome if we compare X and Y. Because X's dollars are returned, but Y (and B, come to that) had no dollars to return in the first place. There's your "unequal" outcome. ... But it doesn't seem so "unequal" now. It looks a lot more like equity.

Equality, in contrast, might see A imprisoned. Once nobody is being burgled any more, everyone is equal, right? At this point, equality admits of no further necessary action. Except that X is still $1000 out of pocket. No reparation, because it would give rise to "unequal outcomes".

To properly compare "outcomes", don't we need to study what comes/came before? I think we do.

Sure, if we know one person took something from another, that person should be forced to repay or compensate them. That's a question of criminal justice and nothing to do with the question of equality vs equity.

If someone commits a crime, they should be treated equally under the law and not differently because of their group identity. So, this might lead to a disproportionate number of people of one ethnicity being prosecuted for theft than another. Those concerned with equity worry about that but those concerned with equality don't.

OK, you might wonder why one group are disproportionately represented in the crime statistics and that might cause you to start looking at the social/cultural problems that lead that particular group to be over represented. But you don't start letting members of that particular group get an easier time under the law in order to even up the numbers.

Bringing this back on topic, no one worries that men are over-represented in the numbers of people convicted for violent crimes. We do not assume that men are being systemically discriminated against because we know that men tend to be more violent than women and this outcome is exactly what we would expect if the law treats men and women equally.

[Good_Egg]

To properly compare "outcomes", don't we need to study what comes/came before?

Different people sometimes use words differently, but my understanding of common usage would be that "Outcome" just means how things are now and what you're talking about is "Impact".

To understand what the impact of a particular action was, we need to imagine an alternative reality in which that action didn't happen. And then compare that "counterfactual", that imagined baseline situation, with what actually happened, with the outcome.

Over a short period of time, we can imagine that counterfactual quite well, by assuming that past trends continue. Which involves looking at the period of time before the action took place. Which I think is what you're getting at here.

The longer the period of time, the less well we can imagine the counterfactual.

If A steals £1000 from B, then the next day B is £1000 worse off than he would have been.

A year later, what has B done differently in response to that loss ? Has he economised ? Reduced his standard of living so that he now has only £500 less than he would have done ? Or has he invested less in an account that gives a 5% return so that he now has £1050 less than he would have done ?

You can tell yourself whatever story feels good to you, but you cannot know. The counterfactual is unobservable.

Which is why an idea of justice based on compensating people for the impact of long-ago actions is unworkable.

(With apologies to those who see this as a tangent).

[Pattern-chaser]

Sure, if we know one person took something from another, that person should be forced to repay or compensate them. That's a question of criminal justice and nothing to do with the question of equality vs equity.

Then our understandings of "equity" are so hugely different that we cannot properly communicate here. Sorry.

[Pattern-chaser]

To properly compare "outcomes", don't we need to study what comes/came before?

Different people sometimes use words differently, but my understanding of common usage would be that "Outcome" just means how things are now and what you're talking about is "Impact".

To understand what the impact of a particular action was, we need to imagine an alternative reality in which that action didn't happen. And then compare that "counterfactual", that imagined baseline situation, with what actually happened, with the outcome.

Over a short period of time, we can imagine that counterfactual quite well, by assuming that past trends continue. Which involves looking at the period of time before the action took place. Which I think is what you're getting at here.

The longer the period of time, the less well we can imagine the counterfactual.

If A steals £1000 from B, then the next day B is £1000 worse off than he would have been.

A year later, what has B done differently in response to that loss ? Has he economised ? Reduced his standard of living so that he now has only £500 less than he would have done ? Or has he invested less in an account that gives a 5% return so that he now has £1050 less than he would have done ?

You can tell yourself whatever story feels good to you, but you cannot know. The counterfactual is unobservable.

Which is why an idea of justice based on compensating people for the impact of long-ago actions is unworkable.

(With apologies to those who see this as a tangent).

So compensation should be avoided because the harm to be compensated for, cannot be accurately enumerated? Dear Gods, we might even give them too much compensation!!!! More than they deserve!!!! Oh, the injustice of it all!!!

Yes, sarcasm. I try to avoid it most times, but here I can think of no more appropriate response. Sorry if that is a misjudgement.

[Fried Egg]

Then our understandings of "equity" are so hugely different that we cannot properly communicate here. Sorry.

Seems to be a common theme with you - using definitions / meanings of words at odds with the rest of us.

Which is why an idea of justice based on compensating people for the impact of long-ago actions is unworkable.

My problem with the idea is not merely that the actions were long ago, but that they happened to different people! That men today are to compensate women today because of the fact that many men benefited at the expense of many women long ago. Without having to establish any actual lines of benefit/cost between the individual men/women of the past to now. Simply judging them because of their gender.

And because it's so relevant and Pattern-Chaser doesn't seem to get it, I'm going to repeat LuckyR's comment (from the second post in this thread) that spells out why this concept is particularly meaningless in when it comes to gender equity:

Gender "equity" as you define it is not in the same category as racial "equity", in the sense that if blacks are say redlined out of easy home ownership in one era, their descendants will have lost out on the growth in equity that could have run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. OTOH, women who lose out on financial opportunities typically were partnered with men who didn't and had sons who didn't. Similarly, men who had financial advantages compared to their female counterparts commonly would have daughters who would suffer those inequities. Thus the gender inequality didn't get passed and compounded over generations such that women today should be compensated for inequality generations ago.

[Pattern-chaser]

Then our understandings of "equity" are so hugely different that we cannot properly communicate here. Sorry.

Seems to be a common theme with you - using definitions / meanings of words at odds with the rest of us.

I am? I thought I had taken the definitions in use in this topic? They were listed and defined not so many posts ago, not by me, and I thought I was following them. Apologies if I am mistaken.

P.S. If I knowingly use an unusual meaning for a word or phrase, I always try to offer an explicit qualifier, for clarity. Not everyone does this... I'm no saint, but I do try.

And because it's so relevant and Pattern-Chaser doesn't seem to get it, I'm going to repeat LuckyR's comment (from the second post in this thread) that spells out why this concept is particularly meaningless in when it comes to gender equity:

Gender "equity" as you define it is not in the same category as racial "equity", in the sense that if blacks are say redlined out of easy home ownership in one era, their descendants will have lost out on the growth in equity that could have run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. OTOH, women who lose out on financial opportunities typically were partnered with men who didn't and had sons who didn't. Similarly, men who had financial advantages compared to their female counterparts commonly would have daughters who would suffer those inequities. Thus the gender inequality didn't get passed and compounded over generations such that women today should be compensated for inequality generations ago.

And yet the concept of equity, as I have (perhaps wrongly) understood it, is unaffected by what's been said here.

"Equality" is setting things equal now, and from now on.
"Equity" also involves some restoration of what was lost, taken, or denied, in the past.

One involves reparation, the other does not.



As for gender equity, I agree it does not "compound", as LuckyR put it, as a monetary theft would have done. So instead of the rapid increase due to compound interest, we have a simple denial of rights/etc that has lasted millennia. Its very longevity gives rise to all kinds of secondary injustices, whereby both (all?) genders adopt unjust expectations of each others' roles. Although this is not financial, and it doesn't compound, when it is as long-term as the denial of women's rights that LuckyR mentions, I think it assumes an importance that belies its apparent simplicity.

But that's IMO. I don't doubt you see things differently.

[Fried Egg]

Then our understandings of "equity" are so hugely different that we cannot properly communicate here. Sorry.

Seems to be a common theme with you - using definitions / meanings of words at odds with the rest of us.

I am? I thought I had taken the definitions in use in this topic? They were listed and defined not so many posts ago, not by me, and I thought I was following them. Apologies if I am mistaken.

Well, I don't see it being defined anywhere (in this thread) in that way. Perhaps you could quote it again here so I can see what you're referring to.

Going back to Sushan's opening post, he quoted the following extract:

While gender equality is simply focused on providing men and women with the same equal opportunities (like making it legal for women to own land, or even attend school), gender equity works to correct the historical wrongs that have left women behind (such as societal restrictions on employment). Gender equity also means giving women the tools to succeed, like programs that offer conditional cash transfers to women. A focus on equity bridges the gaps in equality through laws and policies and gender-focused programs that don’t just level the playing field, but also work to change the culture to be more supportive of women.

So it does make reference to righting "historical wrongs" and also "conditional cash transfers to women", they aren't directly connected. Women may need cash transfers, not as reparation, but as a tool to help them succeed.

At least the above quote acknowledges that they are not looking for a level playing field, but I do wish that the advocates for equity would be clearer about how they actually measure equity. After all, we have had equal rights for a number of decades now, how do we know they do not already have equity? If I were to declare that we have equity between men and women, how would you know whether I was right or wrong? On what basis could you dispute my claim?

I think that it is equality of outcome that they are using to measure equity. Statistical disparities are used to support their claim that we don't have it and that more measures are needed to achieve it. There might be many different ways in which equity could be achieved, but this is what they mean by equity and how they judge whether we have it or not.

"Equality" is setting things equal now, and from now on.
"Equity" also involves some restoration of what was lost, taken, or denied, in the past.

One involves reparation, the other does not.

But equal rights (between men and women) is not something we have just achieved, it has been in place for decades (exactly how long might be disputed). The people who grew up in a society in which women did not have equal rights are no longer with us. Both the women who were treated unfairly and the men who unfairly benefited are long gone. How can we change the past?

I am about 50 years old I think it's fair to say that I've grown up in a society in which men and women have been treated equally. I have not benefited from a system that discriminates against women and women (my age and younger) have not suffered from such a system either. So why should I (and other men) compensate the women of today that have been denied nothing? And in what way does that right the wrongs of the past? Unless you're talking about naked vengeance (it's only fair that men today suffer for the women of yesteryear that had to suffer), I cannot see any justification for it.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am about 50 years old I think it's fair to say that I've grown up in a society in which men and women have been treated equally.

I suspect any politically-aware female might offer the opinion that women are not (yet) treated equally, but I leave it to any female present to offer their view on this. [I am a 70-year-old male.]

But your reasoning, in the words I edited away, is that equity is unnecessary because present-day women no longer suffer the effects of millennia-long discrimination. This reasoning is debunked if it should be that discrimination persists.

[Fried Egg]

I am about 50 years old I think it's fair to say that I've grown up in a society in which men and women have been treated equally.

I suspect any politically-aware female might offer the opinion that women are not (yet) treated equally, but I leave it to any female present to offer their view on this. [I am a 70-year-old male.]

But your reasoning, in the words I edited away, is that equity is unnecessary because present-day women no longer suffer the effects of millennia-long discrimination. This reasoning is debunked if it should be that discrimination persists.

No, we already know that equality and equity are not the same thing. I am saying that women have equality in law but that is not to say that women might encounter sexism on a day to day basis. Just as men may sometimes also face sexism from women. But women have not (for several decades) had to struggle against a system that was conspired against them.

So I ask you again, if women do not yet have equity (despite having equality for many years), how do we measure it know when they have it?

[Pattern-chaser]

I am about 50 years old I think it's fair to say that I've grown up in a society in which men and women have been treated equally.

I suspect any politically-aware female might offer the opinion that women are not (yet) treated equally, but I leave it to any female present to offer their view on this. [I am a 70-year-old male.]

But your reasoning, in the words I edited away, is that equity is unnecessary because present-day women no longer suffer the effects of millennia-long discrimination. This reasoning is debunked if it should be that discrimination persists.

No, we already know that equality and equity are not the same thing. I am saying that women have equality in law but that is not to say that women might encounter sexism on a day to day basis. Just as men may sometimes also face sexism from women. But women have not (for several decades) had to struggle against a system that was conspired against them.

So I ask you again, if women do not yet have equity (despite having equality for many years), how do we measure it know when they have it?

First, all I have to offer is unjustified opinion and belief ... just like you. Anyone who searches the net for stuff like this will find backetloads of stuff that agrees with you, and bucketloads that agree with me. Consensus does not a fact make, though, hence my starting comment: opinions and beliefs, unjustified.

It is my belief that women have not yet achieved equality. If nothing else, the 'system' is still hard-wired to support and nurture men more than women, as it alwaays did in the past, when women were considered largely inconsequential.

As for equity, that is less obvious than the slavery example. It seems clear that financial compensation is not required. It would not undo or repair anything, historic or otherwise. But some form(s) of support for women might be appropriate, to counterbalance the helping hand(s) that men (still) automatically get from the man-created 'system'?

[Fried Egg]

First, all I have to offer is unjustified opinion and belief ... just like you. Anyone who searches the net for stuff like this will find backetloads of stuff that agrees with you, and bucketloads that agree with me. Consensus does not a fact make, though, hence my starting comment: opinions and beliefs, unjustified.

It is my belief that women have not yet achieved equality. If nothing else, the 'system' is still hard-wired to support and nurture men more than women, as it alwaays did in the past, when women were considered largely inconsequential.

Well, equality is actually quite straight forward to observe and gauge in an objective way. We can look for discrimination between men and women in the law, or in the rules of institutions (both public and private). For instance, until 1918, women were not allowed to inherit property on the same terms that men could. Another example: Until 1975, most banks discriminated against women by not allowing them to open bank accounts or take out loans without a male signatory/guarantor.

So, it is not a straight forward yes/no question. But in order to claim that men and women do not have equality, one should be able to point to instances of sexual discrimination in the law or our institutions. If there are any such examples of systemic discrimination still remaining, they are few and far between.

And I simply hold the position that men and women do now, broadly speaking, have equality. But if we find instances where this isn't the case, we should rectify that.

But the premise of this thread is not that we still don't have equality between men and women. It is that we do not have equity. That having equality is not enough and equity is about filling in the gaps to achieve things that merely having equality does not. But before we even talk about what measures are needed to help equity, we must have some way of measuring it, of knowing when (and for how long) they are needed.

I think it is obvious, but I want to hear you say it. Equity is about equality of outcome. And it is measured statistically by comparing the rates of employment and remuneration between men and women. But if you disagree with that, kindly spell out what equity is and how we can measure it so that we can move the discussion on.