Re:Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds
by yummyfajitas on Sunday July 13, 2008 @11:29AM
(#245158)
There is a moral statement to be made about sexual equality, but it is not the same statement that is made about income or intelligence. Various political groups find it useful to conflate the following types of equality:
1. Equality under the law/Equal rights as humans -- the law should treat men and women equally. "It is wrong to punish men more severely for crimes than women."
2. "Societal" equality -- the attitudes and viewpoints of mainstream society should consider men and women to be equal. "It is wrong to believe that women should have children."
3. Statistical equality -- men and women must be statistically identical for a politically useful class of statistics (e.g., intelligence). "Anyone who speculates that women are not as smart as/have different variance/etc is a sexist."
4. Equality of outcome -- men and women should achieve the same outcomes, for a politically useful class of endeavors. "Professors in every field should be 50% male, 50% female."
#1 and #2 are moral questions, #3 is a scientific one. #4 is a consequence of #1,#2 and #3. The moral statements are hardly rubbish, they are perfectly legitimate moral claims (I even agree with #1). The bullshit is trying to claim that 1 == 2 == 3 == 4.
1. Equality under the law/Equal rights as humans -- the law should treat men and women equally. "It is wrong to punish men more severely for crimes than women."
2. "Societal" equality -- the attitudes and viewpoints of mainstream society should consider men and women to be equal. "It is wrong to believe that women should have children."
3. Statistical equality -- men and women must be statistically identical for a politically useful class of statistics (e.g., intelligence). "Anyone who speculates that women are not as smart as/have different variance/etc is a sexist."
4. Equality of outcome -- men and women should achieve the same outcomes, for a politically useful class of endeavors. "Professors in every field should be 50% male, 50% female."
#1 and #2 are moral questions, #3 is a scientific one. #4 is a consequence of #1,#2 and #3. The moral statements are hardly rubbish, they are perfectly legitimate moral claims (I even agree with #1). The bullshit is trying to claim that 1 == 2 == 3 == 4.