FabSwingers.com forum: The inclusive society paradox

By *irthandgirth OP Man
over a year ago

Camberley occasionally doncaster

Based on a discussion during some HR training last week.

Pretty much everyone agrees that you shouldn't hold conscious bias against anyone, and certainly not act upon it. Everyone needs to be treated the same. This is right.

However if you look at almost any official form it asks for race, gender(or sex), family circumstance and on some forms it can be more intrusive than these basic facts. My point is that you are forcing people to pigeon hole themselves. So instead of just British, you could have mixed Asian British of Indian descent (first example that popped in my head)

So my question is, apart from keeping people employed in tracking stats for this, if it was all taken away, would we appear a more inclusive society? Is there any need to put stats on these grounds for everything if everyone is to be given the same opportunities?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

The stats matter. When you count it you can see who is being disadvantaged. It provides some evidence (not conclusive, in all cases) to make a change.

Homogenising hides these problems.

Just a few things:

1) See the latest Frankie Boyle with the video of the soap dispenser;

2) See the Criado-Perez book (or just read the press articles) on gender bias.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I’ve always had the “everyone should be treated the same” problem within diversity generally. I remember having a discussion about it with a diversity officer at my last job. Identity politics is problematic in this context, and this ties in to diversity and inclusivity agenda. We are encouraged too often to think of ourselves in simple stereotypes, and we graft them into other people. It can sometimes make us aware of those things when, in all honesty, we don’t need to be.

But collecting the stats is useful, in an aggregate way as it does indeed show where there are still issues

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

I don't talk about equality anymore because people automatically default to 'understanding' it as treating everyone the same. That doesn't work.

I talk about equity. Different approaches to get to equitable outcomes.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *aucy tiggerWoman
over a year ago

Back where I belong

Treating everyone the same does not take into account those with disabilities. Some adjustments have to be made to ensure everyone is included

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ummmmm...

Yes, it's for stats obv, and it never bothers me... Its there to help ensure the minorities are not overlooked, so nobody should really have a complaint imho...

Mostly it's not simply a "word" label, ppl are what they are and it's visible or soon discovered in a short conversation. You look at a woman or man and usually it's clear that they're a woman or man, you see a white or black guy and he's a white or black guy, you talk to a lesbian and she tells you about her partner or the date she's going on etc.....

Quite often ppl are genuinely different too with unique properties, culturally and emotionally etc, so why not celebrate that? Why not think what a ppl can bring rather than worry about the offence you think they might take? Everyone seems to take offence these days when none is given so don't worry, be happy..... Peace...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I leave this discussion to the grown ups

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I leave this discussion to the grown ups

Admin?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *irthandgirth OP Man
over a year ago

Camberley occasionally doncaster

"Treating everyone the same does not take into account those with disabilities. Some adjustments have to be made to ensure everyone is included "

When equality is touted these days it generally refers to equality of opportunity and outcome rather than broad brush expectations.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I leave this discussion to the grown ups

Yep I'll back away slowly back to my rock

me hit things with fists, me no brainy hurty things

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ea monkeyMan
over a year ago

Manchester (he/him)

"I don't talk about equality anymore because people automatically default to 'understanding' it as treating everyone the same. That doesn't work.

I talk about equity. Different approaches to get to equitable outcomes."

Nice use of terms there, equality can be misrepresented whereas equity is a subtle but essential difference. I like that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I'd prefer a system that was more or completely neutral, that might also exclude the names of schools or colleges you'd attended, which may not have been mixed gender. It's important to scrutinise organisations for bias and discrimination but application form profiling, as an example, isn't the only way to do this.

I like the more recent submissions that larger organisations have to do upon gendered pay differences. We generally need more transparency, so that entrenched prejudices and inappropriate behaviours don't persist in the dark.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't talk about equality anymore because people automatically default to 'understanding' it as treating everyone the same. That doesn't work.

I talk about equity. Different approaches to get to equitable outcomes."

Yup. This. Give everyone the same consideration, and you may end up treating some differently because that’s the fairest way to do it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entle giraffeMan
over a year ago

Minehead

Have you seen blue eyed/green eyed experiment?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ydnNancyCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke

Humanism? Where we were all part of the same and yet experience different cultures?

There are definitely pros and cons. It may decrease the feeling of isolation minorities in each country feel, but yet you may have those who will miss and actively promote patriotism and nationalism.

Interesting debate though

Nancy

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inky-MinxWoman
over a year ago

Grantham

"So my question is, apart from keeping people employed in tracking stats for this, if it was all taken away, would we appear a more inclusive society? Is there any need to put stats on these grounds for everything if everyone is to be given the same opportunities?"

The logic seems right, though the reality is different. It also depends on what the stats are for.

As an example does it matter if you are filling out a rental application. Should a landlord make a decision based on race etc. Probably not.

For something else, where a particular demographic might be genuinely missing out on something, then it can a good thing to do.

It's a big question with even bigger answers I suspect

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I deliberately choose “prefer not to say” on lots of questions that I think are irrevelant to the form I’m completing.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *innie The MinxWoman
over a year ago

Under the Duvet

Equality isn't about treating everybody the same. It's about treating everybody fairly.

Which is why we went in this country from "positive discrimination" to equal opportunities.

But in 2019 there are still depressingly huge discrepancies in pay and representation.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ocodoughnutgirlWoman
over a year ago

Sea of jelly and doughnuts

[Removed by poster at 09/04/19 22:23:26]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inky-MinxWoman
over a year ago

Grantham

Because there are so many differences between everyone pure equality is impossible.

Not everyone can be a ballet dancer any more than everyone can be a rocket scientist.

What I think is important is equality of opportunity.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ocodoughnutgirlWoman
over a year ago

Sea of jelly and doughnuts

"Have you seen blue eyed/green eyed experiment?"

Blue eye / brown eye experiment by Jane elliot

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entle giraffeMan
over a year ago

Minehead

"Have you seen blue eyed/green eyed experiment?

Blue eye / brown eye experiment by Jane elliot

Oops yes! I knew I should've googled it first. Good though.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *evil_u_knowMan
over a year ago

city

Amazon made an AI to pick employees. It was to pick purely based on performance, results, education, previous experience.

It didn't know what race, colour, age, sex the people applying were.

It started to pick white men only, so they turned it off.

The argument was then made that white people go to better schools, get better educated, get their first job easier and perform better so using these as markers of who to employ is inherently racist.

So even when we totally ignore race/sex, we are racist/sexist cause its built into the system from the start for white men to do better.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

All I'm taking from this thread is that it seems to go badly when they let HR people think.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Because there are so many differences between everyone pure equality is impossible.

Not everyone can be a ballet dancer any more than everyone can be a rocket scientist.

What I think is important is equality of opportunity."

100%

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"Amazon made an AI to pick employees. It was to pick purely based on performance, results, education, previous experience.

It didn't know what race, colour, age, sex the people applying were.

It started to pick white men only, so they turned it off.

The argument was then made that white people go to better schools, get better educated, get their first job easier and perform better so using these as markers of who to employ is inherently racist.

So even when we totally ignore race/sex, we are racist/sexist cause its built into the system from the start for white men to do better."

Look up some of the many articles about AI and human bias. We haven't cracked it with AI yet.

Anyone interested in testing their own bias look up Project Implicit, Harvard.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Amazon made an AI to pick employees. It was to pick purely based on performance, results, education, previous experience.

It didn't know what race, colour, age, sex the people applying were.

It started to pick white men only, so they turned it off.

The argument was then made that white people go to better schools, get better educated, get their first job easier and perform better so using these as markers of who to employ is inherently racist.

So even when we totally ignore race/sex, we are racist/sexist cause its built into the system from the start for white men to do better.

Look up some of the many articles about AI and human bias. We haven't cracked it with AI yet.

Anyone interested in testing their own bias look up Project Implicit, Harvard."

I've just had a look. Very interesting.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread