Re:Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies
by kazagistar on Thursday February 15, 2018 @10:25AM
(#16384729)
Strict equality of opportunity is a pure lottery, which is just as absurd (if not more) as strict equality of outcome. Otherwise, it is claiming that certain factors (maybe, genetics or upbringing or geographic location or whatever else) should contribute to inequality of outcome, while others should not. The whole phrase, therefore, is a thought terminating phrase, allowing a speaker to ignore the nuance of which specific inequalities they belive are just vs not just, and why.
Re:Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies
by racer-v on Friday February 16, 2018 @03:19AM
(#16390763)
You can't control every factor. Arguing for "equality of opportunity" really just means taking a laissez-faire attitude as to who succeeds. It means not making explicit exclusionary rules as to who can participate, but also not undertaking a vain attempt to equalize every conceivable variable.
Re:Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies
by pc86 on Thursday February 15, 2018 @10:57AM
(#16384993)
It's just the other side of the same absurdity coin (ooo next ICO?).
Re:Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies
by mpweiher on Thursday February 15, 2018 @12:19PM
(#16385722)
And one thing to remember is that (a) actual random distributions are lumpy, not evenly distributed and (b) there is pretty much no equality of outcome in whatever outcomes or input categories you choose. Anywhere. And very often the distributions in different places also look different (though there do seem to be some patterns).
That being said, you can't have a strict equality of opportunity without acknowledging which people didn't have that opportunity. I think it's much easier to fix this problem if you focus on the person (e.g. Sandra couldn't afford college) rather than the group (Sandra's black and statistically less likely to have been able to afford college).
The problem is people use these bullshit heuristics that happen to suit their mental model of how they want their neighborhood/workplace/world to look ("We don't have a black woman in accounting, what's wrong with that hiring manager?" or "Everyone on the database team is Indian why can't they hire a white guy?") rather than just trying to be fair while still acknowledging systemic issues people have had because of the groups they may belong to.