Inequality is Bad therefore Equality is Good!?

Inequality is Bad therefore Equality is Good!?

Just to be clear, I’m not stating a fact
in the title — I’m asking a question. If inequality is bad, which many commentators
would say that it is, does that automatically mean that equality is good? In this video, I conclude that, no, it’s
not. The extreme of any situation is not good for
society. So first of all, what do we mean by inequality? Obviously, the dictionary would define it
as “the state of being unequal”. But that could be applied to anything. This triangle and square are unequal. One has three sides. The other has four. This girl is tall. The one is short. They are unequal. But of course, that’s not what we’re referring
to in a social context. Inequality has to come to mean “unequal
opportunity or treatment”. If a woman is denied a job because she is
a woman, then yes, that could be described as inequality. Only a bit over 50 years ago in Australia,
married women were not allowed to work in many professions. Obviously, that’s something that we got
rid of, and rightly so. Similarly, if a man from Asia is denied a
job in Australia simply because he is from Asia, then yes, that could be labelled as
inequality as well. However, in modern Western society, we have
taken it one step further. Because we see large wealth disparity in society,
or certain jobs that are dominated by men, or vice versa, we’ve decided that providing
equal opportunity is simply not enough. We’ve decided that we want an equal outcome
for all. That is, we’ve decided that we want 50%
men and 50% women in every kind of job, even if common sense would dictate otherwise. This blind pursuit of equality has started
to have adverse effects on our society. For example, if we decide that a person can’t
be denied a job because of their place of birth, which is a rule we currently have right
now, but then go on to say that people of a particular ethnicity MUST be represented
in every line of work, then this can lead to a lot of issues. Take the Asian man I mentioned before. We could say that because 15% of the Australian
population is Asian, we must therefore make sure that 15% of the police force are Asian,
15% of the military are Asian, 15% of TV reporters are Asian, and 15% of Asian chefs are Asian. We could easily run ourselves into some trouble. How do we enforce such quotas? Should we enforce that 85% of Asian chefs
are not Asian? Where do we stop? Even if we somehow achieved such quotas, Asian
people might pipe up and say, “Yeah okay, you’ve allowed Asian people to work in all
sectors of society, but you’ve lumped us all into one basket. I’m Korean, not Vietnamese. Most restaurant owners in this city are Vietnamese. I’m not being fairly represented!”. Another Asian person might say, “I’m Chinese,
but there are only Japanese and Korean people working at this particular company. That’s not fair and equitable!”. I mean, how far do we take it? We’re actually seeing quotas being enforced
right now — not necessarily with Asian people, but certainly with gender. My university literally enforced that a woman
be elected to the Academic Board. This is the actual start of the email that
was sent off to all staff members: “Results for the election to elect one (1) female academic
staff member from non-faculty organisational units, …, are now finalised”. This is a direct quote. They literally dictated that the academic
staff member must be female. They even put that section in bold. My wife looked at it and said that’s ridiculous. What ever happened to electing the best candidate? What does it matter if they are male or female? As I said, it’s a blind pursuit for equality
of outcome. Our society demands that women have fair
representation in the workforce, and it seems like we are willing to
enforce it, but where do we stop? Should we enforce quotas for every gender? A sex survey conducted by researchers at the
Queensland University of Technology have included a total of 33 genders in their survey. These include, but are not limited to: woman,
man, transgender man, transgender woman, transsexual, cisgender, cis female, cis male,
gender non-conforming, none gender, non-binary, demigender, agender, intersex,
pangender, omnigender, … the list goes on. They also provided some clarification on what
these terms mean. For example, a cis male is a male who was
born a male and who identifies as a man. What does that even mean? A male who identifies as a man? Isn’t that pretty much every bloody man?! Facebook has gone even further and provided
71 gender options. So, to be consistent as a society, surely
we must enforce all gender quotas! Just enforcing men and women ratios is being
sexist, is it not? Surely, we must also enforce all lifestyle
and personal preferences, all religions and belief systems, all ethnicities and countries
of origin! The next Academic Board elections email might
go something like this “Results for the election to elect one (1) cisgender, Cambodian,
Muslim, flexitarian vegan, Tasmanian, who identifies as Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander, …, are now finalised”. There was actual only one candidate, because
nobody else could meet the bloody requirements. Yes, I’m being facetious. Of course we shouldn’t enforce quotas of
any kind. If we start saying that all jobs must be fairly
represented by all combinations of gender, ethnicity, and religion, then we’ll forever
be reorganising the workforce to suit every arbitrary combination. To be fair, I’m not trying to bash any particular
gender, or religion, or lifestyle choice. You are who you are. However, there is no need for a quota system. Surely equality of opportunity is enough. Everybody should be allowed to apply for a
job and should be treated fairly when doing so. This shouldn’t translate to choosing only
female candidates because the company’s ratios are down. The best person for the job should be selected. There are certain jobs that certain genders,
or certain religions simply don’t want, or cannot do. I presume people who don’t drink alcohol
for religious reasons would make terrible professional wine tasters. Most kindergarten teachers are female. Actually, I don’t think I’ve ever seen
a male kindergarten teacher. Does that mean we should be forcing men into
the profession? I think we should almost move away from using
the word “equality”. It’s starting to confuse us all about what
is and isn’t equal. Surely we should use the word “fairness”
instead. I think that’s what we ultimately mean,
anyway. If you’re an omnigender Muslim and you’re
really good at computer programming, then yes, you should be hired as the new software
developer for the company. If you’re a Caucasian Australian male and
you’re the best at playing cricket, then yes, you should be selected for the Australian
national cricket team. It shouldn’t matter if you’re white or
black, Muslim or Atheist, Vegan or Carnivore — if you’re good at playing cricket, you
should be chosen. And that’s my conclusion on equality. Treat everybody fairly. Don’t enforce arbitrary quotas. Select the best person for the job. Pretty simple stuff. Common sense should prevail. But just one final point — let’s not let
this get out of control. If we start denying men jobs in favour of
women, simply because the company already have enough men, then that’s discriminatory
I’m afraid. That’s going against everything that we
have fought for. That’s not equality. That’s bullshit.

Author: Kennedi Daugherty

4 thoughts on “Inequality is Bad therefore Equality is Good!?

  1. Well, just to nitpick, wine tasters are unreliable.

    Q.I. (UK tv show), did a segment on wine tasting and how results and grading is very inconsistent. Just fyi. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *