| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 666.1 | Dynamic Equality = Hard Work | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Fri Jan 22 1988 20:00 | 40 |
| Equality is a concept. In the Modern era the concept
has been used by various groups such as NOW to have women
viewed and treated by men as equals. For racial differences
to not matter. For people to treat and respect one another
as dignified human beings. Valueing differences irrespective
of the vast differences that human beings have with respect
to one another.
In some cases, the notion of equality has spread into
areas of business. Affirmative action. The idea that women,
for some reason, have been discriminated against (by men -
or male dominated business structures).
Equality then, it seems, involves an expanded definition.
Namely that of correcting previous (supposed) 'wrongs' that
one group of people (or one sex) has committed AGAINST another
(group or sex). Such corrective measures are considered fair
by groups such as NOW to equalize 'wrongs' committed in the
past. Sometimes the reality of Affirmative Action ('minority
hiring') gets a counter viewpoint. That of 'Reverse discrim-
ination. This view holds that a group of people or sex (ie Men)
do not have an 'equal' chance at a job when competing against
a similarly qualified 'minority' applicant (competitor). That
a current generation is not responsible for a previous wrongs
that may have been made. The issue of what is fair comes in.
That aside I see equality as treating another human being
the way I would like to be treated. Treating another person
well. With dignity and respect. Often enough.... even when such
respect is not merited (deserved).
That attitude has worked well for me. I treat a $ 5 hr worker
the same way I do a $200,000 V.P. If anything, I am more sensitive
( tuned in & emphatic) to the common people.
I cannot say that such respect for another involves admiration,
but I try to reach that point with people that care.
It is a precious manifestation to be able to share with another
human being the reality of mutual respect & admiration. Really
liking another person - and being liked for everything that
both people are & are not.
That Bob, is equality to me. It has to be worked at - earned.
And there are no lunch breaks.
Russ
|
| 666.2 | twice as hard | 3D::CHABOT | Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9 | Fri Jan 22 1988 23:32 | 10 |
| This isn't my opinion, but it's the opinion of someone I know:
he: Why do you want to be a man!
she: I don't want to be a man, I want to be equal.
he: That's the same thing, isn't it!
Oh, and having been denied jobs and job interviews on the basis
of my gender, I'm a vocal supporter of Affirmative Action. Wrongs
committed in the past, my eye.
|
| 666.3 | | SEDJAR::THIBAULT | Storybook ending in progress | Mon Jan 25 1988 12:12 | 7 |
| Equality in the job market:
The hiring manager has a bunch of resumes with everything that may indicate
sex,race etc. removed. S/he interviews applicants via something like vax phone.
S/he then hires whomever is the most qualified based on resumes and interviews.
Jenna
|
| 666.4 | Good 'un | HANDY::MALLETT | Situation hopeless but not serious | Mon Jan 25 1988 12:58 | 33 |
| I like the topic, Bob. A part of me feels that answering this
one publicly should be "mandatory" for those of us who write to
this conference. I say this because I believe that we'd find
that people have lots of differing denotations and connotations
connected to the word "equality". And maybe seeing the frame
of reference that others are using (i.e. their view of "equality")
might help us understand how and where other discussions sometimes
have problems with semantics. Getting clarity around words like
"equality" strikes me as a good place to start.
BTW - I'm *not* in fact suggesting that answering Bob's questions
be made "mandatory" (probably impossible anyway). What I *am*
suggesting is that it wouldn't hurt to spend some time looking
at how our different views will lead us to differing opinions of
whether a particular event or situation is "equal" or "unequal".
So what is "equality"? Danged if *I* know, but some of what Russ
said works for me, too (the "do unto others" part). I have trouble
because while mathematical equality is a precise thing (at least
for those of us who don't dabble in the mysteries of theoretical
math), equality in human interaction is a different thing.
When I consider human "equality", words like "fairness" and "justice"
seem to want to creep into the definition, and those concepts are
often defined by the situation; and though I know what "equal pay"
is, I'm not at all certain what "equal (or equivalent) work" is.
Gotta think about this one for a while. Sheesh, next thing you
know, someone will want to define stuff like love, respect,
intimidation, etc.
Steve
|
| 666.5 | a rarified answer | GNUVAX::BOBBITT | Do I *look* like a Corporate Tool? | Tue Jan 26 1988 15:59 | 11 |
| basically, and very simply...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women
are created equal: that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable rights: that among these are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.....
-Jody
|
| 666.6 | Equal opportunity is more equal than strict equality | YODA::BARANSKI | Im here for an argument, not Abuse! | Wed Jan 27 1988 16:33 | 20 |
| RE: .1
"That aside I see equality as treating another human being the way I would like
to be treated."
I think that a lot of times this causes problems, because people may *prefer*
not to be treated the way I might like to be treated.
What then? Should I treate them as they wish to be treated, assuming that doing
such does not discriminate against anyone else? How confusing!
RE: .4
"I have trouble because while mathematical equality is a precise thing (at least
for those of us who don't dabble in the mysteries of theoretical math), equality
in human interaction is a different thing."
Equal opportunity is more equal than strict equality.
Jim.
|
| 666.7 | Interesting | MORGAN::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Wed Jan 27 1988 17:45 | 6 |
|
I find it interesting that this note has been here for almost
a week now and has a total (including this) of 7 replys.
To paraphrase Churchill, never have so many, had so little to say,
about something they talk so much about.
|
| 666.8 | A <> B | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Wed Jan 27 1988 22:02 | 29 |
| In mathematics, two values are considered equal when the relationship
of the first to the second is the same as that of the second to
the first.
How would we do this in a social context? How about conducting
a poll and see if answers change depending on the gender of the
hypothetical people asked about?
Let's try this: One hundred managers are given a choice of two
people to hire. One is Jane Doe, who has been with the company
for a long time, and is familiar with the department. The other
is John Roe, who is just out of college, where he did well.
About three-quarters of the managers decide to hire John Roe,
claiming that youth and enthusiasm are the more important factors.
Another one hundred managers are given a choice of two people to
hire. One is John Doe, who has been with the company for a long
time, and is familiar with the department. The other is Jane Roe,
who is just out of college, where she did well.
About three-quarters of the managers decide to hire John Doe,
claiming that loyalty and experience are the more important factors.
Guess what! This experiment is real!
Ann B.
|
| 666.9 | a noter moves a topic note | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Wed Jan 27 1988 22:43 | 21 |
| Gresham's Law: The principle stating that of 2 forms of currency
of equal face value but unequal exchange, the less
valuable form tends to drive the other from circu-
lation, owing to the hoarding of the preferred form.
Realms: 1. A Kingdom or Domain.
2. The scope or range of any power or influence.
IE the *realm* of imagination.
3. A primary zoogeographical division of the globe.
Ann, if desired you may elaborate on these ideas (from 478.205).
The first paragraph over there rather distracted me from your
true intent which must involve the 'cooperative' necessity of
human beings to get along. IE Cooperate in peace. Peace being
tied to equally. And so I transfer the ideas of cooperative
equality to this topic.
Certainly Eisler is for this and I think that this topic can
deal with the ideas of dynamic equality and the need for coop-
eration between all people.
Russ
|
| 666.10 | thoughts on equality -- no answers | VIA::RANDALL | | Thu Jan 28 1988 08:33 | 27 |
| "Equality" and "valuing differences" (mentioned in .1 and throughout
the notesfile) are not the same thing.
When two items (call them A and B) are equal in mathematics, one
can be substituted for the other without changing the result of
the equation. (If A=B, then A+C=D is the same as B+C=D.) If these
two equations represent a work setting, it should make no difference
to the result of the work (the productivity of the company, for
example) whether person A or Person B fills the job. (I'm stretching
the mathematical analogy here, but what the heck.)
"Valuing differences," on the other hand, implies that if Person
A is, say, a lesbian mother in a long-term relationship and Person B
is a young black woman just out of Harvard Business School, we should
look to see how their differing experiences change our perspectives
and how those different perspectives can enrich our work
environment, change or improve the way we do business, clarify our
personal relations, and so on.
The danger of equality is that we all get treated the same, like
numbers or boxes. The danger of valuing differences is that since
we are all singled out as individuals, someone who does not approve
of an individual's particular differences can punish her or him
for those differences. If we're all treated as though our differences
are irrelevant, at least none of us will be penalized.
--bonnie
|
| 666.11 | | SUPER::HENDRICKS | The only way out is through | Thu Jan 28 1988 08:38 | 4 |
| oh, Bonnie, it's good to have you and your clear style of
thinking/writing back in the file!
Holly
|
| 666.12 | how do you have both | YODA::BARANSKI | Im here for an argument, not Abuse! | Thu Jan 28 1988 09:31 | 10 |
| RE: .8 Ann
So what are you saying about Equality?
RE: .10
You are right, valuing differences is not the same as equality. But I still
don't have a clear idea of the difference between them, or how to have both.
Jim.
|
| 666.13 | a mistaken notion | XCELR8::POLLITZ | | Fri Jan 29 1988 00:00 | 22 |
| Re .10 I agree. I am interested in better knowing the potential
benefits of equality and valuing differences. The stated
dangers of the 2 ideas are well said.
I found the following recently from a New Republic review
by Doris Grumbach on a book called 'Root of Bitterness'.
This '72 book is about American women and their personal
experiences. "This superior collection contains documents
of witchcraft trials, 18th- and 19th-century diaries, pieces
from books of morality, marriage manuals, letters and early
20th-century health and sex texts, as well as selections
from Jane Addams, Kate Chopin, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman.
"The origin of the title is of interest. It comes from a letter
written by Sarah Grimke' in 1838 who said that:
'there is a root of bitterness continually springing up in
families... I believe it is the *mistaken notion* of the
inequality of the sexes.'
Russ
|
| 666.14 | not everything can be measured in $$$ | JENVAX::RANDALL | back in the notes life again | Fri Jan 29 1988 08:28 | 47 |
| re .13:
I think valuing differences has to mean that you appreciate qualities
that cannot be translated into $$$ -- things that do not directly add
to the bottom line or improve productivity.
My parents' marriage certainly illustrates the quote you supplied.
(That sounds like an interesting book, by the way. Have you actually
read it, or have you only seen the review?) While their marriage was
traditional in every sense of the word, neither of them ever thought
that my father was superior merely because he earned the family money.
The division of labor within the family was gender-based. They both
had to work hard, but there were jobs that were my mother's territory
and jobs that were my father's. (I don't think he knew how to cook an
egg until he was over 40.) However, my mother never felt this was
inequal because she knew, as we all knew, my father valued her
nonmonetary contribution to the family as much as he valued his own
monetary one. Bringing in money did not make him better than the rest
of us.
(I suppose I'd better add a disclaimer here that I'm not presenting
their marriage as a model for the rest of us or even claiming they're
ideally happy -- I'm just trying to explore some different attitudes
toward equality.)
Th economic conditions surrounding us were not good -- jobs were scarce
and there wasn't much hope of more. But on the plus side, if you could
get a job of any kind, you could earn enough to support a family.
Having even one job in the family made us better off than many of our
friends and neighbors. Of those families that had a job, it was as
likely to be a waitress or nurse's job for the woman as it was to be
bucking hay or pumping gas for the man. When there's only just enough
money to go around, questions of whose money it is become considerably
less relevant.
And when it came time to spend money, my mother's vote counted for
as much as, or often more than, my father's. They regarded the
income as sort of family property, not as 'his' income.
I suppose you could say they enjoyed, and still enjoy, an emotional
equality that, for them, cancelled out a lot of institutionalized
inequalities.
--bonnie
|
| 666.15 | | HANDY::MALLETT | Situation hopeless but not serious | Fri Jan 29 1988 12:19 | 23 |
| re: several, including Jim B's (paraphrase here) uncertainty
about the relationship between equality and Valuing Differences.
The DEC Valuing Differences program has a number of different
aspects and meanings, some of which are (intentionally) evolving
as the program evolves. One major principle of Val. Diff. (well,
what was I gonna do? abbreviate it V.D.??) is that, in a multi-
cultral society, a supportive multi-cutural work environment
is more productive (in $$ terms). One implied "equality" then,
is giving equal value to various cultural norms and traditions
in a celebratory manner. To me it's basically a variation of
the theme of "As I learn of the culture of others, I begin
to let go of my prejudices." - or, "Prejudice often has roots
in ignorance; therefore, to educate addresses the root problem".
Steve
P.S. If it's any consolation, Jim (et al), I don't clearly understand
all aspects of the Val. Diff. program and it's relationship to
equality or equal opportunity. . .and I work in Personnel (no
wise cracks, people; it used to be worse - I spent 10 years in
Materials)
|
| 666.16 | sounds good to me | YODA::BARANSKI | Im here for an argument, not Abuse! | Fri Jan 29 1988 20:08 | 8 |
| RE: .14 Bonnie
"I suppose you could say they enjoyed, and still enjoy, an emotional equality
that, for them, cancelled out a lot of institutionalized inequalities."
Isn't that what counts?
Jim.
|
| 666.17 | Equality...Sci Fi anyone? | PAGAN::VALENTINE | | Tue Feb 02 1988 10:42 | 61 |
|
How do you define equality?...........um........
How can one define equality in a patriarchal language? A
language that has been under male control and male redefinition
for hundreds of years. For example, in Old English 'wif' meant
female human being and 'wer' referred to male human being. At
about the same time man, which had previously been a true generic
referring to people, became male-specific, 'war' became obsolete
(except for werewolf) and 'wif' narrowed in it's reference to
mean only a female legally bound to a man. How would one begin
to define such a concept as equality?
I can define what is not equality. Why I am bombarded by
inequality every day of my life. As any child there is school...
..American history.....the only women mentioned through the years
was Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in connection
with the vote for women. Only after I finished school did I
read books that revealed Susan B. Anthony as a conservative and
I was able to find other women's names who were involved, such
as Matalide J. Gage. The vote for women was only one aspect
of the women's movement in the 1800's and 1900's. Where were
the women in history class? I was bombarded with men's actions,
names and deeds and no women role models. English class.......
lots of men and VERY few women. The impression of women writers
....spinsters, old, ill, and somwhow lacking. Math and science..
....covered Madam Curie who died due to her research not for her
research. I was bombarded throughout school with examples of
great people: all male.
I am bombarded everyday with inequality (substitute sexism). I
turn to the newspaper...the business section hold no to few
women's names...the front page contains pictures and names of men.
Women are described by their dress, men by their body posture.
I turn on the radio....rock music blares out that women are good
for sex or a punching bag. Successful women are "like a virgin".
I change the station to country, at least there are more women's
voices. Women singing about their breaking hearts, waiting for
their men to come home. Proud of "being a coal miner's daughter".
I turn to classical....where are the women composers? I turn the
TV on....women are protrayed as controlling b*tches, Dynasty, or
unable to live, rather than be murdered, without help of the
highest order, Beauty and the Beast. An advertisement shows a
woman diving for a piece of cake falling unto a carpet as though
the carpet is the woman's responsibility,....her skin, regardless
of bruises, is worth avoiding a spill. Women are objectivied...
legs for stokings, hair for conditioners, etc. I am bombarded.
On a business trip I go out to eat at a restaurant alone. I am
the only woman eating alone, there are perhaps five men eating
alone. I am asked if everything is OK, and whether I am alone.
When I reply yes I am shown to the farthurest corner in the
restaurant. I am bombarded. I go to the grocery store and a
male cashier quickly checks out my things. I am surprised. As
I walk out I realize that I don't see many, if any, male cashiers.
That he was fast came as a shock. I realize that the bombardment
is also within me. So how can one define, much less conceptualize
what equality would be?
Sarah
|
| 666.18 | Thank you. | NEXUS::CONLON | | Tue Feb 02 1988 10:52 | 4 |
| RE: .17
Beautifully written!
|
| 666.19 | what about alienable rights ??? | MONSTR::PHILPOTT_DW | The Colonel | Fri Feb 05 1988 13:06 | 32 |
|
The statement in .5 is an interesting philosophical posture, and sounds
excellent: after all we all know what it means, right? And we all agree
with it, right?
However were it proposed as a constitutional amendment to the US
constitution I believe the lawyers on the review committees would change
it. If they didn't then I suspect the Supreme Court would find endless
basis for future decisions...
The phrase "... that all men and women are created equal ..." has numerous
possible interpretations, of which the following are a few...
o " all men and all women are equal to each other in respect of the
inalienable rights mentioned"
o " all men are equal to all other men, and all women are equal to all
other women, with respect to the inalienable rights mentioned." This
interpretation however leaves open the question of whether all men are
equal to all women in this respect.
o " all men and all women are equal at the moment of birth, with respect
to the rights mentioned". However the equality ceases at that point
in time and differentiation on sexual grounds is a time variant quantity
thereafter.
It is also true of course that the list mentions certain inalienable
rights " ... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... ", it doesn't
provide an exhaustive list, nor does it preclude the possibility of
alienable rights (property, career, self-determination ... ?)
/. Ian .\
|