John Hayward Posted: 22 July 2008
Keywords: Worldviews & Culture,
The chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, wants to launch a "new assault" on inequality. Last week the commission claimed that the extension of maternity leave and the right to flexible working may have “entrenched the stereotype” of women as the primary care-givers.
It seems to me there are two problems with this whole approach to equality. Firstly, it supposes that we are or even should all be equal. However, as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development's diversity adviser recently commented, on the government's new Equality Bill, "There isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for this." If insurance companies presently impose restrictions or higher premiums on the elderly, it's because the senior generation present a greater health risk to them. As my children found out at their school sports day yesterday - and as we will all be reminded in next month's Olympics - humanity is full of differences, of losers as well as winners. Some people, either because of good genes or good training, their upbringing or their environment, are simply faster or stronger, more intelligent or more able.
Secondly, it assumes that equality of being requires equality of function. Yet, as we noted in one of our 1992 Cambridge Papers, Equality but not Symmetry:
"Looking at the relationship of Father and Son within the Trinity shows that having different roles in a relationship does not imply necessarily an inferiority of being, even where that difference relates to authority and submission ... In addition, relationships between equal beings without symmetry of function exist elsewhere than between women and men. Complementarity underlies Paul's discussion of the church as a body with different parts, yet there is no hint that one part is inferior to others. For Paul, different roles do not entail diminished value."
It is right that we take a stand against discrimination. But the truth is, as the CBI has noted, the UK already has some of the strictest anti-discrimination laws in the world. Perhaps it is time to begin celebrating the value to be found in our inherent differences.
It's hard to improve on what John has just said.
A difficulty with legislating against discrimination is that factors
for which e.g. good employers legitimately should discriminate are
often positively correlated with factors for which one would like them
not to discriminate.
Thus if it were the case (hypothetically, but not unreasonably) that
the proportion of women suited to being engineers were lower than the
proportion of men so suited, observing that a company employs more men
than women as engineers would not show that they are discriminating
against women. Equally, the fact that fewer women than men would be
employed as engineers would not imply that "a new assault" would be
needed on such inequality - because it would be an entirely
appropriate inequality.
More legislation does not make this problem any easier. The fact that
all are of equal value in God's eyes does not mean that they are all
the same - either in height, weight, occupation, salary, or anything
else.
Roger Sewell 22 July 2008
"Last week the commission claimed that the extension of maternity leave and the right to flexible working may have ?entrenched the stereotype? of women as the primary care-givers."
Women as primary caregivers? What would give them such a ridiculous idea?? I know plenty of men who are more than capable of lactating. An assault is duly needed!
Ok, back to reality. You stated it correctly, Roger Sewell. Whether by God or Darwin, men and women are simply not the same, and government should refrain from trying to make it so. Cheers!
Libertarian Finlander 22 July 2008