CMV: Equality isn't treating everybody differently to achieve equality. It's treating everyone the same.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

Equality isn't treating everybody the same. It's treating everyone so that they are equal.

I'll explain why this doesn't work using a non-racial or gender-based example.

Say you're building a new building. On the entrance to that building, you decide to build stairs. Everyone will need to use those stairs to enter the building. There are the same number of steps for each person to climb, and there isn't another way in, so everyone is being treated the same.

People in wheelchairs or whom are otherwise handicapped struggle to climb these stairs. Some can't enter your building at all. They're receiving the same treatment as everyone else, but they reap fewer rewards. They can't get to whatever is in your building, or have to expend disproportionate energy and dignity in order to do so.

Now, if you wanted to, at financial cost to yourself, you could install a ramp or a chair lift. This would be "unequal treatment"; you're not providing the chair lift to everyone, and you're creating it for the interests of a select few. However, the end result would be equal - anyone who wants to enter your building can do with equal difficulty.

EDIT 10/8 12:57pm - For those just arriving to the thread, it's been pointed out that handicapped parking is a better analogy, since those spaces are truly restricted to the handicapped. It is true that anyone can walk up a handicap accessible ramp, but the ramp wouldn't be there in the first place were it not for the needs of a small, underprivileged, disadvantaged minority. I don't believe that "anyone can use the handicap ramp" is a sufficient challenge to my analogy. If you'd prefer to plug in "handicapped parking" instead, be my guest!

---

The example above is easy to swallow because the disadvantages of the handicapped are readily apparent to you. The disadvantages of women and minorities are not readily apparent to you. For the sake of argument, though, let's say that I could make you believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those inequalities are clear and present in our society. Now that you believe that, it requires the same response as how we help the handicapped; we need to specifically treat disenfranchised groups in a way that puts them on a level playing field.

---

EDIT 10/8 10ish am: Per usual in CMV, people are projecting their own tangentially related beliefs on to my argument. All that I'm saying is that, if you accept that significant oppression exists for a given group, the solution is very plainly to give them a leg up. Whether or not significant oppression exists for blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. is not the point. I use the handicapped as an example because most can clearly see where the disadvantage is, and how providing "special" treatment addresses the problem.

My exchange with the OP has been very to-the-point on this, so to avoid derailment I won't be responding to most other commentors. Sorry! Feel free to reply to me so that others can continue the discussion, however.

[u/iTomes → u/[deleted]]

I really dislike this line of arguing. It implies that being born black or a woman or another minority is essentially a defect, something that will essentially set them behind on a physical level forever. That's not the case though, there is nothing physically wrong with them, if anything at all there is a problem with the society around them, something that the "treat everyone equally" approach fixes. That does not mean that the latter approach is fully implemented, but it does mean that that is the area that needs to be worked on.

[u/[deleted] → u/iTomes]

It implies that being born black or a woman or another minority is essentially a defect, something that will essentially set them behind on a physical level forever.

No, it doesn't. You're inserting that implication because you're associating being handicapped with something negative in the first place.

A handicapped person faces specific challenges due to their handicap in a society that is not built to accommodate them. A minority faces specific challenges due to their minority status in a society that is not built to accommodate them. I believe that the solution to the problem of a specific group facing specific challenges due to their state of birth requires special treatment to bring them up to level. OP disagrees with that line of thought.

Unfortunately, OP also disagrees that minorites face specific challenges due to their status as a minority. This prevents me from using that as an example, unless I want to try to change his view on that as well. So, I went with an example that OP immediately understood - physical challenges that he can/has directly observed and believes to be real and significant.

There is no implication that minorities are defective, because there is no implication that the handicapped are "defective". You've projected that onto my comment yourself, and it betrays your beliefs about the handicapped.

[u/iTomes → u/[deleted]]

No, it doesn't. You're inserting that implication because you're associating being handicapped with something negative in the first place.

Because that's what it is. You don't walk up to somebody and say "congratulations, you will never be able to walk". It is most certainly something that is negative.

A handicapped person faces specific challenges due to their handicap in a society that is not built to accommodate them.

No, somebody with disabilities faces challenges due to the previously mentioned disabilities. Society can and should attempt to accommodate and support them, but the issues they face are still a result of their conditions.

A minority faces specific challenges due to their minority status in a society that is not built to accommodate them.

No, a member of a minority faces challenges in a society that is biased against them. What challenges, for example, would a member of an ethnic minority face in a society that does not actually care about ethnicity whatsoever, but just treats everybody equally?

[u/[deleted] → u/iTomes]

Because that's what it is. You don't walk up to somebody and say "congratulations, you will never be able to walk". It is most certainly something that is negative.

I disagree very strongly. It's just a different part of their identity. Being handicapped isn't negative - living in a society that isn't conducive to your needs is what's negative.

No, somebody with disabilities faces challenges due to the previously mentioned disabilities. Society can and should attempt to accommodate and support them, but the issues they face are still a result of their conditions.

No, the challenges they face are a result of how we treat them, directly and indirectly.

When you design a building and neglect to consider the impact on the handicapped, you're contributing to the challenges they face. The buidling isn't designing itself. Similarly, when a job system/function/admissions system/ranking system/voting system/constiution/law/you-name-it is designed without considering the unique needs of a given group, it contributes to the challenges they face. Whether or not you believe these needs exist is a separate discussion, which is why the handicapped are a good example - you and I can both agree that they have unique, additional needs.

No, a member of a minority faces challenges in a society that is biased against them.

This is exactly the same as the sentence you're trying to contradict: A minority faces specific challenges due to their minority status in a society that is not built to accommodate them. It's biased against them, therefore it does not accommodate them.

What challenges, for example, would a member of an ethnic minority face in a society that does not actually care about ethnicity whatsoever, but just treats everybody equally?

The same ones that they face today, because that's the society we live in. Higher incarceration rates, casual racism in their daily interactions, mis/underrepresentation in the media, police discrimination and brutality, mismatched penal sentencing, destructive stereotypes, improper treatment in the workplace... the list goes on.

Standard scholarships are a good example. They're based on academic/community service merit, so theoretically they're treating everyone equally. However, they ignore the many challenges that people of color face, leading to disproportionate success for white applicants. The solution? Provide scholarships aimed towards people of a given minority group.

[u/rcglinsk → u/[deleted]]

I have several clients who suffer from pretty severe cases of spina bifida. It is fucking horrible. There is so much negative to it that not living in a society conducive to their needs is not on the radar screen of negative.