In many discussions about political and social issues that I've been privy to over the last, oh, few years or so, there's one fallacy that seems to be made over and over and over again, and it's really starting to drive me crazy. (Yes, I know, I'm probably close enough to walk.)
Let's call it Enlow's First Law. I want to shout it from the rooftops.
Equal opportunity does not guarantee, and thus should not be measured by, equal outcomes.
Beautiful in its simplicity, don't you think? (It also helps that it's, well, true.)
Case Study: Feminism
There's a Social Studies (a.k.a. History) teacher here who fits most people's definition of a feminist. She is quite liberal, and quite vocal about it. She took a sabbatical last year to work for NOW. Anyway, there is a bulletin board outside her classroom promoting something called E.N.G.A.G.E., which stands for--something, I forget what. But one of the pieces of paper on that bulletin board asks, "What is a feminist?" Finally today I had some time (and the hall was empty) to actually read it. It went to great lengths to talk about the different definitions there've been over the years, and how diverse a group "feminists" are, and at the end it summed it up that basically (and I'm paraphrasing here) a feminist is someone who believes in equal opportunity for women.
See, that I can get behind. But many of today's feminists--usually of the liberal variety--set about measuring "progress" in that department by how close to 50% the percentage of female __________s (computer scientists, lawyers, MD's, tenured professors, etc.) is. Which, as Enlow's First Law tells us, is bogus.
I am NOT saying that women DO have equal opportunity in all areas of life, ONLY that this is not a way to measure it.
A very close cousin to Enlow's First Law--and much better known--is that
Correlation does not imply causation.
... which I only bring up because I've been thinking about it, in relation to...
Case Study: The Mortgage Crisis
I've been trying to wrap my head around this whole financial poop-pile we seem to find ourselves in these days, to little avail. The explanations that make sense to me are, I'm sure, the most over-simplified. However, I will still relate one.
Somewhere along the line, the measure by which people were judged as credit-worthy grew beyond simply "What are your assets and how's your credit?" Studies were done that showed that minorities were being denied home loans at a greater percentage than whites. Well, it must be racism! Couldn't possibly be objective credit-worthiness! So not wanting to be seen as racist, banks would be a little more "flexible" with who they approved loans for, and lo and behold, more people were unable to make their payments. Thus, foreclosure-mania, etc.
There. That's all I really wanted to say. Just had to get it out!
Let's call it Enlow's First Law. I want to shout it from the rooftops.
Beautiful in its simplicity, don't you think? (It also helps that it's, well, true.)
Case Study: Feminism
There's a Social Studies (a.k.a. History) teacher here who fits most people's definition of a feminist. She is quite liberal, and quite vocal about it. She took a sabbatical last year to work for NOW. Anyway, there is a bulletin board outside her classroom promoting something called E.N.G.A.G.E., which stands for--something, I forget what. But one of the pieces of paper on that bulletin board asks, "What is a feminist?" Finally today I had some time (and the hall was empty) to actually read it. It went to great lengths to talk about the different definitions there've been over the years, and how diverse a group "feminists" are, and at the end it summed it up that basically (and I'm paraphrasing here) a feminist is someone who believes in equal opportunity for women.
See, that I can get behind. But many of today's feminists--usually of the liberal variety--set about measuring "progress" in that department by how close to 50% the percentage of female __________s (computer scientists, lawyers, MD's, tenured professors, etc.) is. Which, as Enlow's First Law tells us, is bogus.
I am NOT saying that women DO have equal opportunity in all areas of life, ONLY that this is not a way to measure it.
A very close cousin to Enlow's First Law--and much better known--is that
... which I only bring up because I've been thinking about it, in relation to...
Case Study: The Mortgage Crisis
I've been trying to wrap my head around this whole financial poop-pile we seem to find ourselves in these days, to little avail. The explanations that make sense to me are, I'm sure, the most over-simplified. However, I will still relate one.
Somewhere along the line, the measure by which people were judged as credit-worthy grew beyond simply "What are your assets and how's your credit?" Studies were done that showed that minorities were being denied home loans at a greater percentage than whites. Well, it must be racism! Couldn't possibly be objective credit-worthiness! So not wanting to be seen as racist, banks would be a little more "flexible" with who they approved loans for, and lo and behold, more people were unable to make their payments. Thus, foreclosure-mania, etc.
There. That's all I really wanted to say. Just had to get it out!
posted by Matt | 11:22 AM
4 Comments:
Does Enlow's law #1 work in reverse? When can we start complaining about how men are significantly underrepresented as stay at home parents?
Enlow's law #2 causes me great problems every February, as I am "strongly encouraged" to present a "diversified" incoming graduate class. Which brings me to a very interesting discussion I had w/ my iChair the other day over lunch. My question to her (who is AA) was simply, "Why was AA academic achievement so much better during segregation? And why has AA academic performance dropped so much since then?" Her response was interesting, and made sense (in a nonsensical kind of way...)
When can we start complaining about how men are significantly underrepresented as stay at home parents?
Well, you go right ahead. No one will listen, though, because being a stay-at-home parent is not valued by our society. It would sound, to many, like complaining that members of your particular group are underrepresented as port-a-potty drainers or javelin-catchers.
Speaking as a Dad who has been at home for the past nine months and will be home for the next nine, I can honestly say that I have received an awesome response from people. When they see me out in public with my boys, they often encourage me along. I'm talking complete strangers here. But they will smile and say things like: "Wow, my husband could never keep up with three kids" or "You realy seem to enjoy your boys." And its true. While this experience was not chosen per se, it has been a wonderful time - a time I will forever be greatful for.
Yeah come to think of it I was probably a little hyperbolic in my previous comment.
Complaining that men are under-represented as stay-at-home parents would effectively be equivalent to complaining that women are under-represented in "the workplace". Or something.
Post a Comment
<< Home