Inequality, why aren't we beyond that?

Forums: Philosophy, Social Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Islam extremism denounces women.
Chinese citizens prefer giving birth to males instead of females.
We haven't got many female senators.
A common argument against Hilary Clinton was the assumption that she would not be tough enough to lead.
Hindu's excluded women.
I don't know if you'd agree with me on this one, but women would tend to vote for Hilary, and men would vote for Obama. CBC made a big deal of this when a famous women said she's voting for Obama (forget her name though).
in many places women still can't enjoy as many freedoms as males.
Taliban restricted women to their homes, and were not allowed education.
Racism
prejudice against religion, against different cultures

I'm sure you all know more details than I do so...

My question is why can the public be so shallow-minded so as to put antisemetic ideology in their heads?! Clearly, many Chinese people would abort their potential female child if they knew it was going to be a girl.

So to what point are people prejudice of other people? Does it vary? Are you? To what point should people be prejudiced of others, or establishments?

If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race, creed and color, we would find some other causes for prejudice by noon. ~George Aiken

This makes sense. The underlying reason for prejudice is not of truth, but of whatever is a valid action to become superior to others. People want to be superior. I seem to get the idea that equality is this great prospect, but I don't think its possible.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,612 • Replies: 35

No top replies

@Holiday20310401,

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Are you posting about Anti-Semitism or Anti-Feminism, or just inequality in general?

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Unlike commercial credit right now, what Macaulay called the "dark fund of human ignorance" seems never to be depleted.

0 Replies

@TickTockMan,

Inequality in general, it appears antifeminism but that's because I originally wanted to do a thread on it, but decided to switch to Anti-Semetism.(laziness took me) There's already a thread on women's rights I think.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;27894 wrote:

My question is why can the public be so shallow-minded so as to put antisemetic ideology in their heads?! Clearly, many Chinese people would abort their potential female child if they knew it was going to be a girl.

Forgive my mental density, but I'm really struggling to make a connection between these two ideas. How do you see them as being related?

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

You know, you are absolutely right to question my poor writing here. Your "mental density" is fine, I had mistaken the word 'AntiSemetism' for meaning prejudice against certain people based on religion and culture in general. Little did I realize after just looking the word up now that it is solely focused on discrimination against Jews. Oops.

So in your head just find and replace all antisemetism words with inequality.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Little did I realize after just looking the word up now that it is solely focused on discrimination against Jews. Oops.

So in your head just find and replace all antisemetism words with inequality.

It's understandable to make such a mistake, as "semite" doesn't sound like an ethnic group. It's also a bit strange why antisemitic means antijewish because the ancient semitic peoples also included arabs, semitic languages includes arabic, and semitic religions include both Islam and Judaism, along with their precursors like the religions of Baal and Hadad.

Pretty inequal !! Laughing

1 Reply

@ariciunervos,

Equality is not possible. Everyone has their own ideas of right/wrong, good/bad. Equality would require that guidelines be set and rules be followed. But there is the question of freedom and liberty vs laws and oppression. Even if we had all the laws that form a utopia, you still have the human heart and human emotion. As you said "People want to be superior."

2 Replies

@The Mad Physicst,

So the issue seems to be that there can be no equality because the inherent, insane feature of our minds is that we want to be superior. So, how can we change that?

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;27894 wrote:

If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race, creed and color, we would find some other causes for prejudice by noon. ~George Aiken

This makes sense. The underlying reason for prejudice is not of truth, but of whatever is a valid action to become superior to others.

I think you've just answered the question that you asked in the title of this thread. We are not beyond inequality because people need to feel superior.

Holiday20310401;27894 wrote:

I seem to get the idea that equality is this great prospect, but I don't think its possible.

I would tend to agree with you on that one. What are your thoughts on why equality might not be possible?

2 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

So the issue seems to be that there can be no equality because the inherent, insane feature of our minds is that we want to be superior. So, how can we change that?

That's only part of the problem. Let's say that there is an operation that would change this behaviour. Would every one have it done freely, or would there be a law that forces people to have it done?

1 Reply

@The Mad Physicst,

Well if we want to be superior then of course we would not freely, nor can I imagine laws working. But if people were made to believe that it was going to actually benefit them then they might do it freely, because it has to be the people wanting it. Laws will just be broken.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Most of the things in your list are just ways of thinking that appear to be prejudiced, but are not actual human rights violations. Like others have said, people will always be prejudiced. This is not a good thing, but it is our nature to judge others incorrectly. I would rather suffer some prejudice though, than endure a society where everybody is forced to adhere to some mindset which is determined by someone to be without prejudice.

The idea of peace can never work, because people pursue their individual desires first, and we all have different conceptions of what is right and wrong, what is desirable to have in society, and what is not. The closest you can get to peace is that set of rules which is forced upon the people by threat of punishment.

To quote Thoreau, who wrote in his book "Walden":

Quote:

There is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted. It is human, it is divine, carrion. If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life...

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Those examples you mentioned are evidence of the problems in today's society. People aren't all equal; some are smarter, faster, stronger etc. However, the criteria that people have been judged on in the past i.e. race, gender, etc. are ridiculous. You shouldn't necessarily strive for total equality, but that people are judged by a fair system. That people start out with equal status and either climb or fall in social status from there.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

In the case of gender equality, I'm of the opinion that it has to do with the fact that women and men's brains are very different from one another. Men are (generally speaking, of course) more technically adept, for example, and women more intuitive. Completely different types of intelligence.
Name me a really, really good female guitarist....e.g.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

There is a fundamental difference between political and legal equality, and an equality of uniformity and sameness of talent, abilities, or preferences. To recognise the latter is not possible is neither prejudice nor is it based on some feeling of superiority. One of the great problems of modern society is the extension of democracy from political and social goals to other areas where its application would serve to level and stifle spontaneous human activity and creativity.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

I think it may be more precise in this context to say that each person feels he is unique, or special, separate from other individuals. Perhaps this is a function of the fact that we cannot know others in the way we know ourselves. Self-love leads us to love others we believe are like us, and treat others who are not like us as different, generally in a negative way.

0 Replies

@TickTockMan,

Holiday wrote:

This makes sense. The underlying reason for prejudice is not of truth, but of whatever is a valid action to become superior to others. People want to be superior. I seem to get the idea that equality is this great prospect, but I don't think its possible.

I've just written an essay for uni on this topic, here's a bit:

Social Identity Theory (SIT), a title coined by two students of Henri Tajfel, is essentially the theory of generic fashions and groupings in society, and the purpose of the individual in demonstrating membership or otherwise. The 'experimental method' is an empirical investigation that modifies existent variables within a circumstance, in order for an enhanced interpretation of events. One study was the deception of dichotomy between two stylized artworks; pubescent boys were asked to allocate points (equivalent to money) to members of two groups, one of which they had been forced to be a part (an 'ingroup' and an 'outgroup'). He found that when the participants were able to favour the 'ingroup' (their 'own' group, into which they had been coerced) they did, although no points advantage was accrued. Whether teenage boys have scant regard for money as opposed to conviviality and comradeship, or whether there is an issue of a psychological necessity for society instead of wealth is the conundrum presented. 'Minimal groups' - created in SIT - demonstrated that superficial, random and arbitrary categorization have an impact on the discriminatory nature of individual identity. Tajfel concluded that simple, deceptive and enforced categorization was enough to manifest a prejudicial social identity in an individual.

Quite bizarrely, Tajfel interpreted such a conclusion in terms of it's benefit. He stated that 'social categories' based in hierarchic situations fulfilling available power, bolstered prejudice, which in turn improved self-esteem due to the recognition of the inferiority of 'others'; he believed this notion was present in both a majority group and a minority group, thus majority power would be met with minority resistance. I find this aspect of Tajfel's theory utterly repulsive, and would state the most obvious weakness; the extent of 'normative crisis', displeasure and violence as reaction to any kind of prejudicial action or exclusivity.

The idolization of other social groups in this system induces 'social mobility', according to Tajfel; the individual would be able to decide into which group they desired to fit based on personal preference, and attain a place through efforts. Although others might retain such deceptive prejudices and seek change through 'social creativity' (the redefinition of one's own group, as leadership, or tyranny, or competition). Although this ability may be advantageous to the individual, it still belongs as part of an oppressive and unfair system of deception; it is invalidated by the fact that individual 'social mobility' is not satisfactory in the remonstration of category:- the failure of the working and middle classes to make an entrance to the wealthy elite (at least comparable to their numbers) is demonstration that a system that promotes categorization, competition and 'social mobility' does not equate to the transcendence of the majority from poverty-stricken classes to the privileged categories - in other words socio-economic justice could not be achieved by this system without unified ideology for all groups (political theory), therefore it is weak.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Islam extremism denounces women.

Chinese citizens prefer giving birth to males instead of females.

We haven't got many female senators.

A common argument against Hilary Clinton was the assumption that she would not be tough enough to lead.

Hindu's excluded women.

I don't know if you'd agree with me on this one, but women would tend to vote for Hilary, and men would vote for Obama. CBC made a big deal of this when a famous women said she's voting for Obama (forget her name though).

in many places women still can't enjoy as many freedoms as males.

Taliban restricted women to their homes, and were not allowed education.

Racism

prejudice against religion, against different cultures

I'm sure you all know more details than I do so...

My question is why can the public be so shallow-minded so as to put antisemetic ideology in their heads?! Clearly, many Chinese people would abort their potential female child if they knew it was going to be a girl.

So to what point are people prejudice of other people? Does it vary? Are you? To what point should people be prejudiced of others, or establishments?

If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race, creed and color, we would find some other causes for prejudice by noon. ~George Aiken

This makes sense. The underlying reason for prejudice is not of truth, but of whatever is a valid action to become superior to others. People want to be superior. I seem to get the idea that equality is this great prospect, but I don't think its possible.

Alot of these subjects can be drawn back to someone's environment and the reasoning someone has for their survival or day to day coping.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race, creed and color, we would find some other causes for prejudice by noon. ~George Aiken

I think if you take a look at this statement, it has the answer within it. This is taking what could be classified as an "absurdity", to establish a point. Presently the way we think, the statement is absolutely accurate. IMO, it has nothing to do with race, creed or color, but alienation as most live in protected spheres; from the individual to nation states. We like to gather around us that we can control, predict and feel "safe" from that which is alien to us. What is unfamiliar, different or unknown is automatically deemed hostile to that protective sphere we "need" that we think we have control over. Rather than take the time to understand "why" those differences are and apply effort to reach mutual understanding, we become defensive. It easier, faster and we get a sense of strength from it as we defend our own spheres. It's all about fear. The truth of the matter is one day we will be of the same race, creed and color if we don't destroy ourselves first. Once we understand and appeal to those commonalities we share, we will break down those barriers as we develop trust in each other and become one. The Earthling. We cannot survive a part from each other no matter how much we think we can. It is just not going to happen. In my travels I have been privileged to meet one on one with thousands of people of all races, creeds and colors and on those occasions where there was communication and trust race, creed and color disappeared as one human being communicated with another. It is a rare, but enthralling experience.
William

0 Replies

Inequality, why aren't we beyond that?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know