Related Posts
More Posts
Is there anybody who joined Google in Pune?
Is the CVA exam worth pursuing?
Additional Posts in Advertising
Is Slidequest worth it? Please help!!!!
Chicago 🐠’s: who has a snow day today? 🙋♀️
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.





Equality-Everyone gets the same things across the board. Men & women have the same benefits. No affirmative action. No acknowledgement that humans come from different places and circumstances. Problematic in my opinion. The downfall of the American feminist movement had to do with an obsession on EQUALITY. Men & women are treated the same in much of the parental leave policed for example.
Equity-We recognize that humans come from different backgrounds and circumstances. We acknowledge that women who bear children need more flexibility and time to return to work when they have children. People with disabilities need a spectrum of accommodations. People who grew up in poverty need access to educational intervention programs that can catch them up to their peers who were in wealthier school districts. Parents are offered subsidized child care is they are expected to work full time.
Better policies come from this framework. That’s why Europe has more forgiving and flexible policies in terms of access to and programs for quality of life. They were more concerned with equity.
I honestly go back and forth between the two as I see valid reasoning from both. Leaning all the way to just one can create blind spots. Don’t know if a viable hybrid model exists but would be curious to learn if there’s one.
Without equity, there can never truly be equality. Equality doesn’t work if we’re all starting at different points, which we are.
Explain both of those terms.
A shorter version:
Equality is typically defined as treating everyone the same and giving everyone access to the same opportunities.
Meanwhile, equity refers to proportional representation (by race, class, gender, etc.) in those same opportunities.
Chief
I, uhhh, hire people to fill roles I need filled, accounting for constraints like who had applied and how much I can pay them.
So option 3 I guess?
Chief
If that's equality then absolutely.
Not hiring people for those reasons is kinda dumb, cuz you're reducing your talent pool unnecessarily. It's also dickish, and I find life goes rather well for me by not being a dick.