On the fairness and practicality of "substantive equality..."?

Question

There is a certain feminist on this board who loves to speak of "substantive equality." She seems to use it to refer to "standards." Her argument tends to hold that because women and minorities have been excluded from upper strata of society (particularly decision making), they should be allowed to make their own rules and regulations that are SEPARATE from the current standards and regulations.

She gives a certain example in which cultural questions on a test which had nothing to do with the material were removed because minorities were not familiar with the culture. This is obviously fair, as the test is an aptitude test, but this feminist also advocates different military standards for different groups. (I am not truly certain of the extent of this inane system, however- you will have to ask her yourself if when she replies if you want more information.)

My question: Is this not a completely ludicrous concept? Standards ensure quality and competence.

If we all have different standards, where will the cohesion necessary to run a society come from? How could productivity increase, or at least remain constant?

How could anyone justify such supposed "equality" in light of the many destructive outcomes it would result in?

Hehehehe... I know what an LSAT is, Dierdre- more than you do. The point is I didn't want to bother spending time on typing out the exact test or its purposes, because that was NOT RELEVANT to my point.

Yaggy, who rattled your cage? If you don't have something constructive to say, then get out.

Answer 1

The standards were made for a reason. Take Police Officers for example. They need to be above a certain strength, endurance and speed to catch the criminals. You need to be physically strong, endurant, and fast for such a task, they need to be able to overpower their opponents. The criminal is not going to go easy on you just because you're a woman. What is the woman going to do when she faces a much more powerful opponent?

Making separate standards for women is only going to endanger them. If you don't have the requirements for the job, then don't apply for it. If you wanted to become an engineer, they are not going to lower the standards just because you do not have the required degrees. Of course, no feminist is going to complain about this because women can easily make it into the field, but when something requires physical strength such as Police Officer, they will complain about it because not many women make it into the field.

In the military, the standards are also there for a reason. The standards make sure you are strong enough to carry your arm, backpack and an injured teammate. Lowering the standards would not be a good thing because you would not be able to do all those things.

EDIT1

I'd also like to add that I think the requirements were made more for men in general, not especially for white men. A lot of black men are Police Officers so the standards were more made for men. Color has nothing to do with it. Also, even though the standards were geared more towards men, they are necessary, as I stated in my above answer.

EDIT2

''There are minorities and females and disabled and elderly. Do they not deserve to be treated in a fair and equitable way.'' (should be a question mark at the end)

Yes, Deirdre, they do deserve to be treated fairly and in an equitable way but not at the cost of endangering others. Do you honestly think the disabled belong in the military or Police Force? Or any other field where the standards matter (construction worker, firefighter, doctor, scientist, etc..)? If someone is in a wheelchair do you HONESTLY think they are going to be of any use catching criminals? If someone is blind, how are they going to be of any use as a optician? If someone is deaf, why would they ever try to become a lawyer? Minorities such as blacks have no problems with the standards set by white men, so it's not a color thing (even though they may encounter some discrimination). You talk about Law School, but should a mentally challenged person have special standards just for them so they can pass? What use are they going to be as a lawyer if they are mentally challenged? No one will hire them anyway, they will hire the ones with more expertise.

EDIT3

So are you just said retards should be allowed to be doctors? That means everyone should be able to do whatever they want! Awesome! I'm going to quit my job and become Prime Minister of Canada! Then I'll become President of the United States of America! Oh wait you need to have lived a certain amount of time in the U.S to become President? Oh who cares? I'm making my own standards! Haha I'm taking over the world with rules like this!

EDIT4

I see Klan came to thumb me down and thumb up their own members.

PS: Baba Yaga: are you illiterate? Can't you see my nickname is Ominous?

EDIT5

Mandy M, I have heard of Stephen Hawking but as far as I'm concerned he wasn't a cop, a soldier or a fireman. He did something that required his brains not his braws, so really he had no problems trying to do what he wanted to do.

Answer 2

There are already very strong powerful women in the upper strata of society that make "the call" (decisions) everyday.
Current standards and regulations are put in place to ensure yes, quality, competence and the best....freedom of choice, voice and the pursuit of happiness!
You cannot effectively change certain "military standards" to better suit gender. Military teaches "how to kill", "how to survive, "how to protect" those that cannot protect themselves...the list goes on.
Minor standards could be changed as with any standard, law, racism etc.. but it comes down to..if women want the military they must look at all the standards set forth before joining. If a woman wanted to be a heavy duty mechanic, more power to her, I'd say "right on" however, she better be able to do her job.
All the strong powerful women in the upper strata of society already know that we are not men, will never be men,don't want to be men (no offence) and because we are different we still hold high powered stations (even above men).
Remember men & women make decissions and work together to upgrade standards, revise regulations and change laws for everyone, everyday.

Answer 3

All ;this question is about is your chance to bash the people that answer. For you information substantive equality is recognized by many governments but since you seem to think you know more than everyone else in the world you wouldn't bother to worry about that would you. You are so pretentious I can't imagine you having very many people in high school that would want to bother with you. That explains why you have to be the geek who is on answers all the time taking your frustrations out on others. I feel sorry for you and if you mom has any sense she will take you to a good child shrink and take away your computer priveledges. I have a brother your age and if he acted like you I would be all over him. You need to get a life. This isn't a ludircrous concept because there are a lot of people that benefit from this. By the way Narcotics have you never heard of Stephen Hawking, genius? There have been many cases where people benefit from this not just women. Freak.
Substantive equality equals antidiscrimination happy jerk.

Answer 4

Soooooo, who gets to decide which standards apply to whom? When is it fair and when is it discrimination? Who can objectively make such subjective decisions?

What about a white male from a poor, disadvantaged family as compared to a rich white female from a highly privileged family? Who should get the leg up then?

How does substantive equality account for the myriad of variables?

Does this apply to everything in life? If not, who gets to decide which things it applies to?

EDIT:

To be clear, affirmative action programs where it is clear that SUBJECTIVE decisions lead to discriminatory practices are appropriate and fair. Or, when clearly in the interests of the "greater good."

For example, programs that grow small businesses are in the best interests of everyone. Programs that ensure that cronyism in selecting vendors to serve large and government institutions is minimized is good business and works to ensure fairness.

Without such programs, smaller businesses would not be able to compete equally with large, well connected companies. This yields better quality work, more innovation, more competition, and more jobs. Now, that makes sense.

Answer 5

We live in an interesting time. While women and minorities do have equality under the law - that is, they cannot legally be excluded from anything - we are, as a society, still recovering from thousands of years of systematic and systemic discrimination, and the complete domination by one group over others. That does have real consequences for women and minorities - consequences that still live on to this day (though I would argue moreso for minorities). I'm not sure how I feel about what you are saying, but I do know that it's important to recognize that rules and regulations were created by and for white men, and think of ways to address any problems which may arise from this. I realize I didn't quite answer your question, but I just wanted to make the point that it is irresponsible not to at least consider different methods of gaining true equality.

Answer 6

In the USA this is a frequent question in regards to Affirmative Action. A book neither pro nor con is "The Color Blind - California's Battle To End Affirmative Action" by Lydia Chavez, winning the 1997 Leonard Silk Foundation Award. This is an intense must read for anyone interested in the subject that chronicals the journey that will influence the future of the nation.

(The first chapter begins with a quote by Glynn Custred co-author of CCRI- the California Civil Rights Initiative-which can be Googled. The quote: "As an anthropologist, I know that when you've got diversity, you've got a problem, which means that you've got to come up with ways to deal with it in the most realistic way possible.")

I will not condense the book, in hopes of encouraging you to research this complex issue for yourself by reading the book and using the web to research CCRI. The book is unbaised ... I admit I still have some bias, believing equality still in the developmental stages.

The 1st point: Standardized IQ tests are useful, but biased based on familiarity with the testing & education/cultural exposure and are limited in the scope of types of intelligence measured. The bias holds true for all in some sense, but for some more than others; therefore, is discriminatory.

As for Military drafts: for women, it will not happen in the USA. The decision based in part instinctually (part culturally) in re: human resources. In general for biological reasons: One man has the ability to repopulate greater than one woman. War kills. Not all male soldiers go to front lines. Women wishing to do so that can met the standards required should not face discrimination. Males have traditionally started and fought in the wars they have created. Historically, war is still a man's game. Why any woman would want a piece of that is beyond me, but it is not for me to judge.

Your question on this topic is not ludicrous. Many ask it. The reality is standards do not always ensure quality and competence equally. All human resources of any nation must be developed to the best of its potential for the benefit of the Nation and its people. Those in political power may choose criteria to benefit their rule and not completely for the good of the nation or its people. I'm one that believes Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. Laws must be put into place to protect us sometimes from our own human nature.

I am impressed that as a High School Student, you would choose to spend your time in this type of forum with these types of questions. Choose to be a thinker and always question. It will serve you well in life. Much Success to You.

Answer 7

What I referred to was substantive equality and for being a ridiculous idea there is much talk of it. Why should only males decide what standards should be in place. Your strawperson argument is not working in this venue my little man. In the constitution there is supposed to be fairness and justice. How can you say that basing all standards on white males is fair. There are minorities and females and disabled and elderly. Do they not deserve to be treated in a fair and equitable way. The tests I was referring to were the LSATS which mean since you are obviously ignorant of what they mean Law School Admittance Exams.
Because of sexism, stereotypes and myths and teh varied multiple and compound inequalities to which women are subject no single model of equality could possibly work exclusively either in the interest of women or minorities for that matter. Are you also against hearing or sight impaired people having an education because the standards would have to be amended to deal with their differences?
Equality if a strategy that has to encompass all peoples backgrounds and abilities. Where did these standards initiate from and who do they benefit.
Now, the courts and many equality seekers have a broader view of equality, one that is often called "substantive equality". A substantive equality approach recognizes that patterns of disadvantage and oppression exist in society and requires that law makers and government officials take this into account in their actions. It examines the impact of law within its surrounding social context to make sure that laws and policies promote full participation in society by everyone, regardless of personal characteristics or group membership. Substantive equality requires challenging common stereotypes about group characteristics that may underlie law or government action as well as ensuring that important differences in life experience, as viewed by the equality seeker, are taken into account. The Supreme Court of Canada recently affirmed its commitment to a substantive approach to equality in its unanimous decision in Law v. Canada.

Answer 8

I call myself a feminst. In my books feminisim = equality of BOTH genders...no exceptions. Neither gender is above the other nor below the other. To run a harmonious global society we have to start there: equal opportunities/standards for both.

Answer 9

This is one of the few times I agree with you. I believe in having the same standards for everyone, even if it means raising them for women, or lowering them for men.

Answer 10

Dude... have you just realized that women don't want equality, they want a double standard... they don't want to truly be equal, yet they want to be treated equal. They don't want to have to do the hard work, yet they want to be credited for it.

If a feminist wanted TRUE equality they would hold THEMSELVES up to the same standards that we have enforced for men. Now I have zero proof for this, because there has been no study to prove this, so this is just my own personal feeling, but if we were to remove the double standards, and expect women to meet the same requirements that men have had to for years 90% of the women who are in the fire department would lose their jobs, 70% of the women in the Army and Marines would be gone.... and so on.

But again... TRUE equality doesn't exist, and it doesn't matter what I or someone else, or a group of people may WANT... equality is an illusion, its a group of people trying to change millions of years of evolution, just because they don't like it.