Pay attention, folks, because this lesson is important. It's important for feminism, for humanity, for respect and tolerance. So read closely, because I don't get this fired up over nothing.
There's this activity I do in my class. All the students sit in a circle, and I ask everyone to take off his or her left shoe and throw it into a pile in the center. Once the shoes are all piled up, I begin re-distributing them, one to each student, completely at random. Then I tell everyone to put on the new shoes. And inevitably, there begin the complaints.
"This isn't my shoe!"
"It's too big!"
"It's too small!"
"This doesn't fit me!"
Whatever the specific complaints are, very few students are actually happy with their newly mismatched pair of shoes. "What's wrong?" I ask. "I did everything fairly. You all have two shoes - one for your right foot and one for your left."
"But Miss David," they say, "they aren't the correct shoes!"
"Oh," I say. "You want the shoes that are best for each of you individually? Not just any shoe I find?"
"Yes!" they all say.
"But," I say, with furrowed brow, "that doesn't seem fair. I wanted to treat you all EQUALLY." I point to a boy with somewhat large feet, and a nearby girl with smallish feet. "He'll have more shoe than you will," I note. And without a doubt, someone unknowingly gets right to the heart of the issue:
"It doesn't matter who has more shoe, Miss David. It matters that we all have the right shoes for us."
And THAT, my friends, is the difference between equity and equality. Equality means everyone gets exactly the same outcome - two shoes - without regard to individual differences - large or small feet, for example. Equity means everyone gets the same quality of outcome - shoes that fit their individual needs.
A lot of feminist arguments are either poorly worded, claiming to desire equality for women in situations where they would actually prefer equity, or misunderstood as demanding equality when they are, in fact, demanding equity. This has become remarkably apparent to me in the recent barrage of posts about women bloggers and how they earn - or fail to earn - respect for their work. Catherine wrote this in her MamaPop post:
What is radical about it is that we push on, demanding to be heard, and demanding recognition of our worth as mothers, women, writers, business-people, innovators, people, against the ignorance of those who would keep us down.
Some have interpreted this as a half-hearted and hypocritical demand for equality, when it is actually anything but. Demanding recognition as mothers and women sort of fundamentally requires an expectation that we will not be treated exactly the same as a man would. Why would we want to be treated exactly like men anyway? In case you didn't notice, WE'RE NOT MEN. What we're demanding is not equality - it's equity.
We demand respect for doing a damn hard job and doing it well. We demand respect for creating a community that inspires and uplifts in the face of some of life's greatest challenges. We demand respect for refusing to compromise our femininity in the face of professional obstacles. We don't demand the EXACT SAME RESPECT that men receive - that's like demanding everyone wear the same shoes, regardless of size. We demand the respect that is most fitting to our stations, but damn it, we still demand the respect. We are women, and we should be treated as women - to do otherwise would be to ignore plain facts. But being treated as women should not automatically mean being treated as less serious or less important, and that's the problem with having an article about our work in the field of blogging - which really is primarily a technological field - placed in the "Style" section of the New York Times.
We are not screaming our heads off to be placated with promises of equality. We are not men - do not treat us as men. We are women, and we demand equity.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The Difference Between 'Equity' and 'Equality'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
As the parent of a child with invisible disabilities (Asperger and Tourette Syndromes), I am often in a position of explaining that what is equal isn't always fair, and what is fair isn't always equal. We are not a one-size-fits all world. I wouldn't want to live in one that was. It's that diversity that makes us interesting, complementary, and unique.
Now if you could just do that exercise over at Fox News...
Three sincere questions:
1. Why do you consider blogging to be a fundamentally technological field? Perhaps excepting blogs that truly push the technical envelope or that self-host on their own servers, it seems that blogging is much more a mishmash of journalism, creative writing, and the traditional graphic arts (layout, photography, etc).
2. Why would anyone claiming to be marginalized in turn themselves marginalize the Style section? Or are style and design-related pursuits (which is core subject matter for thousands, if not tens of thousands of blogs) less important or inferior in some way to other pursuits?
3. What is the essential difference between your collective radical speech and the collective radical speech of your critics? You claim that you're "screaming [your] heads off", so why the surprise when critics scream back? Why not respond in a more muted and measured fashion?
Anonymous, I'm not Lara but:
3. She said "We are not screaming our heads off..." If you're going to passive-aggressively criticize, at least cite and quote properly. Your point is moot because you missed the crucial word: not.
And IMO? By this point in time? Women asking for equity isn't a radical act.
Critics who can't grasp that aren't radicals, either, just not terribly enlightened or open-minded people on this issue, usually.
2. She hasn't marginalized Style and Fashion in the way you mean. That is a niche, and the BlogHer conference did not fit into it. It wasn't even remotely a conference about Syle and Fashion. It was about business and technology, in blogging.
It's not rocket science to figure out that this section was inappropriate for the conference coverage, or why a women's blogging conference got put there. Missing that is being deliberately obtuse...and dare I say perpetuating the very marginalization Lara argues against.
1. Blogging is technological because of the medium. This *is* technology, all of it, Web 2.0, social media and the blogging mediums. Where people go with that...is all over various topics and niches. But that doesn't mean it isn't technology, what we're doing here. I've worked for software companies and hardware companies that created all types of products. But it was still technology.
I catch your anonymous point here.
I think you're wrong. That simply.
If a blog is one of the design or fashion blogs, okay, sure, cover it on Fashion and Style. That's a fit.
But an article covering the BlogHer conference----which included panels about doing good with this technology, building a business, learning how to use the technology, politics, being taken seriously as a political bloggers, and mommyblogging (various)---and the vast array of genres of blogs written by women *do not* belong there.
BBC got it right: it belongs on the Technology page because no matter how you dress it up (blog about cooking, mommying, watching birds, building robots, etc.) this is technology.
Lara, great article, great job...don't denigrate yourself on Twitter. You are your own eloquence. I love the point about what we really want is equity.
Thanks for joining in the discussion.
Lara - Can see myself using that activity in my classroom next month (Eek!)
CMom- I make that point quite frequently in my classroom (which also serves children like yours)
Julie P. - Thanks for saving me lots of typing.
Julie is right, you ARE your own eloquence. This is wonderfully written and I, of course, agree with everything you said.
And, as an aside, I totally love that activity you do with your students. I may be stealing that in the fall....
Lara,your posts are always so thoughtful, sincere, and eloquent. I distinctly remember (towards the end of college) the "aha" moment I first realized the difference between these two concepts in my own life. I was involved in a male-dominated sport, where women competed separately but on the same equipment, if you will. I realized that I was being cheated of having the same quality of experience as the men, when we could easily remedy this by changing one variable. Fifteen years later I returned as an alumna to compete on a women's alumni team, and was pleased to see that the changes I envisioned had been made.
You might be saying, what sport are you talking about? Don't think I'm crazy, but I competed in timber sports, aka lumberjack games, and am referring to the size of the logs we used for speed chopping and sawing events.
This post showcases one of the many reasons that you're a great teacher and that the kids in your classroom this month (!) are blessed to have you guiding them :)
(P.S. I moved to Wordpress and I think you forgot to update your Blogroll)
Lara, I loved this post. I loved your analogy, loved picturing you in the classroom with those kids, loved the lesson.
This is something that is so basic, so blindingly obvious, but alludes many people. You described it with great clarity.
I'm not sure I agree that article belongs in the technology section, as technology is the medium rather than the focus of blogging... although I see your point that it might well have been placed elsewhere if it were about a men's blogging convention.
Great post. Hope you have a great weekend :)
I think this is the perfect way of putting it, Lara. It's also not just related to the blog world but the world in general. How to be treated in a manner that is no less and no more important than anyone
Brilliant, Lara.
I loved this post. Simple, eloquent and without any name calling. Bravo to you, seriously.
I get tired of hearing that because I'm a mother, my opinion doesn't matter in the world. Really, last time I checked I am raising little people who will one day, be in the world. You'd think that after thousands of years, this would make since.
Aww man, I posted all this before, then it disappeared. =/
My understanding of the situation is that it really IS just an issue of demographics from the point of view of the NYT. More women read that section, so a story that will be primarily of interest to women is run there. The thing the NYT should be bashed for is inappropriatly classifying a story in service of their bottom line, not an intentional slight against the feminist movement.
Also, the phenomenon of internet backlash always boggles me. There must be a certain mix of personality traits: masochism, self-righteousness, and sheer blowhard-ness that causes people to appear on blogs and post things attacking opinions widely held by the constituants of that blog. What exactly do they hope to accomplish? Are they just SO convinced of the rectitude of their point of view that they don't understand that other people's opinions are as resistant to change as their own?
My personal favorite is "Well, if you want to make your way in a man's world, you have to act like a man!" First, for the suggestion that we want women acting like men (we're mostly jerks, anyway), and second, for the suggestion that the fact that business has been dominated by men for a majority of the history of the human race somehow justifies it as inheirantly so.
This was amazing, Lara. Kudos to you for putting it so perfectly.
Julie,
Quoting Lara, "We are not screaming our heads off to be placated with promises of equality. We are not men - do not treat us as men. We are women, and we demand equity."
The intent of Lara's words is that bloggers are in fact screaming their heads off. Quoting that as "not screaming" would be an editorial abuse.
The reference to "radical" comes from the quote, "What is radical about it is that we push on, demanding to be heard, and demanding recognition of our worth [...]". It's a self classification made by a member of the movement, not something I just pulled out of my hat.
But being treated as women should not automatically mean being treated as less serious or less important, and that's the problem with having an article about our work in the field of blogging - which really is primarily a technological field - placed in the "Style" section of the New York Times. [Emphasis mine]
In my opinion, that does qualify as marginalizing.
Quoting you, "Blogging is technological because of the medium. This *is* technology, all of it, Web 2.0, social media and the blogging mediums. Where people go with that...is all over various topics and niches. But that doesn't mean it isn't technology, what we're doing here."
Is writing using a word processor fundamentally technological? I think it would be disingenuous to claim that. Obviously blogging is an applied technology, as is printing and word processing, but you didn't address why it's more closely related to technology than it is to journalism, creative writing, and graphic artistry.
Arguably there are multiple places in the paper where such an article is appropriate. From a purely demographic standpoint, Style is probably a winner for the New York Times.
Lastly, your characterization of me as passive-aggressive and deliberately obtuse is unnecessary and unhelpful.
Lara, I've often struggled to explain these concept to people. Thank you for putting it so simply, and eloquently. I hope you don't mind if I borrow the shoe activity!
Elegantly put, Lara! Thank you so much, and I hope you don't mind if I, too, steal the activity!
califmom - when i first learned the activity, it was in learning how to approach special needs students and how they fit into mainstream classrooms. when you make it clear to the students WHY it's often good to give certain students extra time, attention, etc., they're usually pretty good about understanding and helping out. many teachers don't take that time, though, and student interactions can become strained.
anonymous - first, as a caveat, i'm not perfect, which i think everyone already knows. so i may not always have made myself and my meanings as clear as i would like. i'm happy to clarify. so, answering your initial questions:
1) it's not necessarily that i believe blogging itself is a technological field. more that i believe that a conference about the medium of blogging is fundamentally technological. only a few parts of the weekend were about the WRITING that we do, as opposed to the ways we use the medium itself. so i guess i should have specified that i think blogher is a primarily technological conference, less than that blogging is a primarily technological field.
2) i did not intend to marginalize the style section. i believe that when you take a technological event (and i'm standing by my belief that blogher was a tech event) and put it in the style section, it marginalizes it because it is not placing the focus where it should be. i commented on this in catherine's post at mamapop, but i'll say it here too. if the NYT wanted to write a piece on fashion and style and how those aspects of womanhood were represented at blogher, i wouldn't have minded. take pictures of our outfits, take pictures of our shoes, interview the makeover artists, and put the piece in the style section. i would gladly read the piece, and probably have wanted to be IN the piece as well. but if you're going to write about how we are approaching a technological medium, then putting it in the style section DOES diminish its message. just as placing a story about male political bloggers in the sports section would diminish that story's message.
3) i perhaps worded myself poorly in that part of my post. my comment WAS, in fact, intended to show that we are NOT screaming our heads off about anything, and i realize (based on your response to julie) that it might not read that way to everyone. there is a fundamental difference, in my opinion, between demanding what we believe is right and "screaming our heads off" just to get some lip service. i believe that what i wrote was a calm and measured response to something that got me quite upset. i tried to explain myself clearly and without turning to ad hominem attacks on those with whom i disagree. i think the fact that you responded with "three sincere questions" instead of a string of insults attests to the fact that this is a discussion, not a shouting match.
julie - thank you. your comments supported me greatly. i really appreciate that.
middle-aged woman, lisa, kickpants, and schriftstellar - you are more than welcome to use the activity. i didn't make it up - i learned it from someone else. :)
tekla - wow! props to you for competing in something so tough. and bigger props for seeing those changes come about.
brown-eyed girlie - thanks! (and i'll go change it right now.)
guilty secret, flutter, suebob, issa, and major bedhead - thanks for the support, ladies!
william - i don't believe it was an intentional slight either, but i still think it's important for the times to understand WHY they made a poor decision. (and yes, i think it was a poor decision on their part.) and yes, i agree that most men would be rather upset if all the women in their lives began acting like men. for more than just the reasons you gave... :-P
Well said, Lara. Well said.
Lara, thank you for your well-reasoned response.
What a fabulous illustration! This year I've been chosen to have an inclusion teacher and special needs kids. This will make a wonderful demonstration of equity versus equality. Thanks so much!
Just letting you know I read this and appreciated it. And you :)
Lara David, you're my hero.
Truly an excellent illustration. Thank you!
Great post - and great discussion as well. That is what I love about the blogosphere - the general community and opportunity to just get it all out there.
Found your blog through the Blogging the Recession effort, btw.
That is a brilliant exercise, and yet another brilliant post. I once heard a similar theme from a choral director who said, "When we speak of 'unity' what we usually mean is 'harmony'. A choir singing in unison sings all the correct notes, but doesn't sound nearly as beautiful as one singing in harmony." I may not have him quoted verbatim, but you get the idea. And it's exactly this kind of post that made me think of you immediately when confronted with this I have something for you. Something I hope you'll accept in the spirit it was intended. Just a token of my esteem, which you may do with as you wish. (Except maybe hit me over the head with it.)
I'm definitely going to borrow this article -- or at least quote it. Thanks!
The shoe lesson is something everyone should have to participate in at least once in their lives. Well said.
It was in the Style section? I do think that's wrong.
WOW - this is such a great post. I really enjoyed reading it.
Ok, THAT was a tremendous post and I'm going to tuck it away in my memory for the best post award...you wrote that beautifully and I would TOTALLY let you school my kids.
Post a Comment