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.