Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you believe that son of millionaire have equal opportunity with someone who has to work three jobs just to have something to eat, you are clearly delusional.
How do you propose to fix society so that poor people have the same access to everything that money can buy that rich people have?
How do you propose to fix society so that poor people have the same access to everything that money can buy that rich people have?
This should be interesting.
Poor people. All poor people had better move up the pie in the sky ladder or die. Americas experimental society is finished. Looks like Russia, the Taliban, Anifa, kkk, and Chinese won.
There are people, usually on the left, who advocate for equality of outcome. That's usually accomplished by bringing everyone to the lowest level. Look for and read the Kurt Vonnegut short story Harrison Bergeron.
This was also a claim made by a variety of popular, Conservative talk show hosts years back like Dennis Praeger and the like (He devotes entire segments on the topic so a quick google search should turn it up). I used to listen to a lot of this in my more Conservative days.
I have never heard any liberal-minded person including myself talk about or advocate for equality of outcome, so I can only hypothesize that it is actually intended to refer to social programs which seek to "level the playing field" so to speak in both public and private sector such as welfare programs, hiring programs, diversity initiatives, etc.
My personal belief is that equality of opportunity AND outcome are both utopian pipe dreams; we are failing drastically at both and would require extreme structural, societal changes to even come close to achieving either goal. Instead we can only apply band-aids which we already do in the form of the measures I mentioned above. America is decades behind the rest of the developed world in achieving anything resembling racial equality or justice, see e.g. everything going on in the news right now.
US gender ratio: 51% female, 49% male
CEO gender ratio: 5% female, 95% male
If you can't see the obvious discrimination and inequality of opportunity in those numbers, I can't help you.
I guess you can't help me, then. You must think that just as many women WANT to be CEOs as men, which is a false premise. It's a typically poor argument by typically poor liberal debaters. I don't know where the left learned how to argue or reason, but it wasn't anywhere that understands the concepts. Most directors are men, too, because women don't WANT to direct the vast majority of the time. Most men are coal miners, is that a problem for you too? This is where the liberal agenda falls apart -- the assumption that men and women aren't different, but equal, they're in fact "the same" and there are no differences between genders. That's completely wrong, at odds with science, and anyone with two eyes and two ears can clearly understand men and women are really quite different.
The competitive nature of being a CEO, the long hours required, the sacrifices you have to make aren't worth it for most women. They've conducted studies to that effect, even, I suggest you Google them. For women, a more balanced life is usually preferable -- and there, I agree with them! I wouldn't want to work 90 hours a week to run a Fortune 500 company. Sorry, but no thanks, my health would suffer from the stress and my fitness would suffer because of the lack of time, then what good does it do to make all of that money but have no time to spend it? No time to enjoy life? Based on the study results, though, overall men value high career achievement (there I agree though, I just don't want to work 90 hours a week to do it lol) more than women on average.
Besides, your numbers are completely wrong, so aside from your asinine premise it's just not even true. I'm a CEO, my wife is a CEO too, we both own our own companies, mine has 3 employees and hers is just her, but there are millions of women CEOs. You must mean CEOs of Fortune 500 or Fortune 1000 companies, which is a pretty limited field of people where it's pretty silly to assume that men and women want the same things, but just only one group can succeed.
People may love it if men and women *actually* did 50-50 splits in terms of raising kids, but they don't, and it probably won't ever happen, mainly because women want kids more than men do; many guys could take it or leave it, so the partner who wants that most is going to find themselves doing more of the work. That's even apart from the societal reality that most of the responsibility is going to fall on her. That's also apart from the *biological* reality that she has to take time off to have a kid, be there for it when it's a baby, etc. That is a pretty substantial disadvantage for women in general and all of the studies show women who have kids and put their career on hold are going to fall behind their male peers. This is all well researched information, not hard to look up whatsoever, and I would assume if the issue interested you then you'd have already read all of this. This shouldn't be the first time you hear about it.
If a woman wants to be CEO of a major company, she shouldn't be focused on "having kids" and "starting a family," because if you want to be at the top of the heap in the toughest professions, that should be your sole focus -- that's what will have the greatest chance for success. Any time not spent in that pursuit is time wasted and puts you behind someone who's hungrier. When a woman behaves more like a man when it comes to pursuit of those goals, she'll find equal success if she has equal skills.
There's also the reality that you're probably never going to overcome all gender bias when it comes to leadership roles. Smart, observant people can understand that a woman can make a great leader just the same as a man can, and that there shouldn't be any bias but just a focus on the individual qualifications of that person. Unfortunately, you're asking everyone across a company -- including large, macho men -- to take a physically inferior person seriously as their leader. That shouldn't matter, because it's not the Roman coliseum, it doesn't matter if the CEO is a frail 88-year-old man or a 100 pound woman, it makes no difference, but there's that cave man, animalistic side of people that still respects physical strength and superiority in leadership roles. It's why even short guys have statistically tougher times in life than tall guys. It's incredibly stupid, and lacking logical basis in today's society, but I'm just saying you are wishing for everyone to behave rationality and logically and I understand that desire -- it's just not realistic.
I hope this can remain as a thoughtful discussion and not degenerate into a P&OC thread.
Was reading an article on education funding today and the discussion really came down between those who believe in equality of outcome vs those who believe in equality of opportunity. Hence this poll.
You can't legislate equality of outcome. While all people are morally equal and equal under the law (allegedly), all people are not created equal in terms of intelligence or physical abilities.
I find the responses so interesting. Seems to be an almost universal consensus that equality of opportunity is more important than outcome. Yet whenever there's an actual event that creates a choice, all too often the fight comes down to "outcome." For those on the left who say no one on the left claims to want outcome, then why, whenever a process doesn't create the desired outcome, the left always claims there is bias in the process?
Consider back to the school article I linked. If school A has better outcomes and spends less while school B has worse outcomes and spends more, why would you want to take away from A and give to B? That's not about bringing B up; that's about bringing A down. Why not look internally at B on why it has worse outcomes even with spending more?
My personal belief is that equality of opportunity AND outcome are both utopian pipe dreams; we are failing drastically at both and would require extreme structural, societal changes to even come close to achieving either goal.
99% of American school children have access to an education and are in fact required to go to school until the age of 16.
99% of American school children have access to an education and are in fact required to go to school until the age of 16.
That sure sounds like equal opportunity to me.
So they've had the opportunity and can't cut it once they get out. They did not and/or could not learn at the pace of their 'upper-intellect' classmates. So if the opportunity is given but the people can't improve, what do you do?
I know, give them a broom and mop and then complain about them not improving, overcoming, assimilating, and rising up to your view of success although those were never realistic expectations in the first place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
