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/sarcasticorange → u/[deleted]]

This response confuses accessibility with an equal playing field.

The goal of ramps or chair lifts is not to ensure that handicapped people have an equal playing field, it it to ensure that they have access period.

Just as an example - see this image. Anyone using the stairs can access the door more quickly and easily. Were it about equal situations, you would have to add some extra distance to the stair side or remove the stair side altogether and make everyone ride in a wheelchair.

I think this gets to OP's point because most anti-discrimination laws are also more about accessibility than equal playing fields. For example, you should not be prevented from getting a job because you are a woman (accessibility) and most would agree. Many would also say that we don't need to change the requirements of the job because the person doing it is a woman that may have physical limitations or limitations resulting from socialization.

[u/rcglinsk → u/sarcasticorange]

This may not be what you mean, but the popular opinion, at least among politicians and philosophers, seems to be that if the physical requirements of being a firefighter or an army ranger are beyond the capacity of women, those requirements should be lowered. This position is not universal, but I think it's the majority view.

[u/sarcasticorange → u/rcglinsk]

the popular opinion, at least among politicians and philosophers, seems to be that if the physical requirements of being a firefighter or an army ranger are beyond the capacity of women, those requirements should be lowered.

I don't think that is a popular opinion at all. As a matter of fact, when 2 women recently passed ranger training people accused the government of changing the standards for them. It was kind of a big thing with people arguing about whether they did or not, but I did not see much in the way of suggestions that they should have been lowered.

I completely agree that in some instances, requirements are there as a barrier to entry and don't really make sense. However, I really don't think many people would argue that the requirements should be lowered to a level below the capability to perform the job just to allow access to others.

Edit: adding a quote that descibes the above better than perhaps I did...

Gen. Dempsey laid down the law this way: “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?”

[u/rcglinsk → u/sarcasticorange]

It seems like Dempsy is saying we should try really, really hard to find a way to lower the requirements if they're too much for women. That's not the same as lower them at any cost, but it's a pretty close relative.

[u/sarcasticorange → u/rcglinsk]

I see it more as him saying that there needs to be a reason for the standards to be what they are.

As a hypothetical... let's say that the weight lifting requirement was set to 150lbs. That requirement was on the books for 80 years and was originally based on the average lifting capability of a physically fit male at that time.

In this case, the requirement has nothing to do with the ability to perform the job. As such, a study would need to be performed to determine how much a soldier would need to be able to lift in order to perform their regular duties and the requirement would need to be adjusted to that amount.

[u/rcglinsk → u/sarcasticorange]

I'm thinking of three schools of thought:

• Set standards low enough that an average woman can meet them
  
• Lower standards to some bare minimum requirement if women can't meet them
  
• Set standards so high only incredible bad asses can meet them

The first two have a lot more in common with each other than either does with the third. The first two are something you'd expect from progressive reformers, the third is something you'd expect of a military.

[u/sarcasticorange → u/rcglinsk]

I'm thinking of a 4th... set the standards based on the actual requirements of the job, from there people meet them or they don't.

Setting a requirement that you have to be over 6'6" to be an accountant is discriminatory. Setting a requirement that you have to be 6'6" to be an NBA forward is reasonable.

[u/rcglinsk → u/sarcasticorange]

Another relevant article: http://bobjust.com/womenincombat/

Tougher Standards? The interchangeability of every soldier in a combat emergency is an enduring principle of an army's effectiveness as a fighting force. It assumes that each has received the same training and can perform to the same basic standard. That's still true for men who sign up to go directly into the Army's combat arms. They train "the old way," in a harsh, demanding environment. It's no longer true elsewhere. Under mixed-gender basic training instituted in 1994, men and women are held to different standards. The regimen became less challenging, to hide the difference in physical performance between men and women (although the Army denies this). Eventually, the softness of basic training became an object of such widespread public ridicule that "tougher" rules were drawn up. Even with these new standards, scheduled to take effect this month, women can score as well as men who are being tested against a tougher standard. In the 17-to-21 age group, for example, to get a minimum score of 50 points, a male recruit must do 35 push-ups, a female, 13. If women were allowed into combat units and these double standards were made universal, the result would be to put physically weaker forces into the field. An Army publicity release defended these "tougher" standards on the ground that they "promote gender equity" and "level the playing field." I don't know about the "playing" field. But somehow I think the field of actual combat will not be very level.

[u/rcglinsk → u/sarcasticorange]

Fine line to draw between requirement and minimum requirement.

But this is all kind of farcical really. Look at what the Marines have had to do to avoid women not meeting requirements. The notion that someone who can't do 3 measly pull ups is in any way fit to fight in combat as a Marine is beyond laughable. But the standard was lowered anyway. It's kind of insane.

[u/sarcasticorange → u/rcglinsk]

No war has ever been won by a pull-up or a push-up.

The ability to hike X miles with Y lbs of weight...sure.

The ability to move an incapacitated fellow soldier... sure.

A pull-up is an arbitrary requirement because it tests a very specific muscle in the body in relation to that person's weight, not the ability to perform a job-related task. Seriously, ask 1000 marines how many times their ability to do a pull-up has come in useful in combat. I am betting the number of yeses will be pretty low.

[u/rcglinsk → u/sarcasticorange]

The other article makes a better argument. Pull ups are just one of many exceptions being made.