Daughter Water [Gender Pay Inequality]

[quote=Searz][quote=jhoijhoi]Searz: In the sense that, for a VERY inane example, giving a 3rd world child the same Christmas presents as a 1st world child. That would be equality. Equity would be giving the 3rd world child, I don't know, access to electricity and clean water, stuff that builds up what that child needs in order to have equal chances as the 1st world child. I don't think that a connection negates the need for one to be scaffolded on another.[/quote] I don't think that's a fair example. A fair example would be to put a 3rd world child that lost his or her parents in the same situation as a normal child. Presents, electricity, water and living all being the same for both. That still obviously doesn't put them in the same position seeing as one is missing his or her parents and probably suffering from trauma, while the other isn't. I'm not sure whether adoptive parents would be fair to include in the comparison, but even if they were included there's still a clear difference. Going back to the main point that equity is required for equality: I honestly thing it's the other way around. If there was a scale of how things were it would go from "inequality" to "equality" and ending with "equity". <-inequality----equality----equity-> One needs to pass equality to reach equity. So yeah, I think it's more likely the other way around, that equality is needed before equity can be achieved. [quote]I don't want to remove your contributions from the list, but going back and requoting everything would suck and I'm not up to it at the moment. I'll see what I feel like tomorrow lol.[/quote] I understand. The important thing is that you do it correctly. Is there a reason you can't just display the site? If not through your school network, wouldn't it be possible to just do it through your mobile internet? (i.e: setting up a Wi-Fi hotspot through your phone and connecting the computer to that, then connecting a projector to the computer)[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard][quote=jhoijhoi]Amanda: Actually, both your comments were quite useful. If none of my students mention it, I'll be sure to bring up the fact that only three women posted in this thread. One talked about how anyone who talked about gender related issues are called feminists and that women can be stronger than men - your replies are more interesting than you think :)[/quote]The sarcasm dripping from my first comment makes it less than optimal for your use. It was simply responding to a previous comment stating that Americans are too busy worried about what the president eats to care about this. When, in actuality (at least where I live), any woman who brings it up is just immediately branded one of those "crazy feminists" whose opinions have no merit anyways (since feminists are often stereotyped as man-hating, lesbian wackos).[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=jhoijhoi]However, if you'd all like, if I do go down the path of dot-point summarising, I could post the end document. Then people can check through to see they've been accurately represented. Depending on the feedback that will hopefully come while I'm sleeping, I may even just remove names (except my own) and replace them with Anon#1 or whatever.[/quote] There's no need to remove names. They're anonymous to the extent the authors would have expected anyways. I do not want my comments dot-point-summarized though. You [b]cannot[/b] dot-point-summarize other peoples' comments. Because the end-readers will have no idea if you injected your bias into the the comment, nor if you understood it completely. You can however ask people to provide their own summaries of their comments. That would be fair. [b]Just don't summarize them yourself. Please.[/b][/quote]

[quote=Toshabi]Toshabi's points got ignored. I think it's cause he was onto something[/quote]

[quote=jhoijhoi]The way I was taught at uni is that equality is "equal x for everyone", whether that means equal rights, equal pay, equal whatever. Equity is "x amount for everyone to suit their needs"; this could be considered unfair if you're really against giving poor people more money/clothing/food/etc than rich people. I guess it doesn't really matter whether equality comes before equity or vice versa, as long as people understand that equality isn't the whole picture, per se (and on the other side of the coin, equity isn't the whole picture either). Maybe let's just say I'm for the principle of equity (giving people what they need for equality), but appreciate the idea of equality as a stand-alone "world peace"esque condition of life. As for displaying the site - I could display it from my own laptop that only has certain restrictions (like I can't access Facebook). My only concern with this is that 6 pages of discussion takes a long time to read through and my plan was to divide the comments appropriately to students and get them to summarise at the same time and report back on their findings. Tosh, I replied to your comments :( Amanda: That's the point :P It's what you didn't say. Argh! I actually need to sleep now D: Night! <3[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=jhoijhoi]The way I was taught at uni is that equality is "equal x for everyone", whether that means equal rights, equal pay, equal whatever. Equity is "x amount for everyone to suit their needs"; this could be considered unfair if you're really against giving poor people more money/clothing/food/etc than rich people. I guess it doesn't really matter whether equality comes before equity or vice versa, as long as people understand that equality isn't the whole picture, per se (and on the other side of the coin, equity isn't the whole picture either).[/quote] Exactly. Well written. Probably the best thing you've written in the entire thread :P [quote]As for displaying the site - I could display it from my own laptop that only has certain restrictions (like I can't access Facebook). My only concern with this is that 6 pages of discussion takes a long time to read through and my plan was to divide the comments appropriately to students and get them to summarise at the same time and report back on their findings.[/quote] Take some time to consider the options and then make your choice. As long as you don't represent others' opinions in some way it's unlikely that things will go wrong.[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard][quote=jhoijhoi]Amanda: That's the point :P It's what you didn't say.[/quote]Just making sure the point of the comment is clear.[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=The_Nameless_Bard]The sarcasm dripping from my first comment makes it less than optimal for your use. It was simply responding to a previous comment stating that Americans are too busy worried about what the president eats to care about this. When, in actuality (at least where I live), any woman who brings it up is just immediately branded one of those "crazy feminists" whose opinions have no merit anyways (since feminists are often stereotyped as man-hating, lesbian wackos)-[/quote] Man, that's gotta suck. I'm glad I don't live in a place where that takes place. I gotta say though that while there is little feminist-stereotyping going on in Sweden the attitude toward feminism is mixed, and rightfully so. I'm one of those being negative toward feminism, not because I don't want equality, but because the feminist party here wants to use some pretty idiotic measures to reach their goal of "equality". Edit: Sexism is about as common among feminists as it is outside them, which is a terrible dilemma. The fact that I also have a sister that is a rude, sensitive feminist that has plenty of double standards does also play some part in my negative attitude toward feminism, but I've at least grown to realize that and have adapted my attitude accordingly.[/quote]

[quote=The_Nameless_Bard][quote=Searz]Man, that's gotta suck. I'm glad I don't live in a place where that takes place. I gotta say though that while there is little feminist-stereotyping going on in Sweden the attitude toward feminism is mixed. I'm one of those being negative toward feminism, not because I don't want equality, but because the feminist party here wants to use some pretty idiotic measures to reach their goal of "equality". The fact that I also have a sister that is a rude, sensitive feminist that has plenty of double standards does also play some part in my negative attitude toward feminism, but I've at least grown to realize that and have adapted my attitude accordingly.[/quote] Well, I'm definitely not a feminist in the usual sense. I believe in gender equality, or, I suppose, equity to an extent. This includes many of the problems men deal with (here in the US, at least) due to stereotypes as well. Like the fact that men who are sexually assaulted rarely report it because they often aren't taken seriously or the idea that men can't be victims of domestic violence in heterosexual relationships because they are often stronger and, therefore, unlikely to be hurt by a woman. I think a lot of people fail to remember that there are upsides and downsides to both genders and that absolutely nothing is black and white.[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=jhoijhoi]Amanda: Actually, both your comments were quite useful. If none of my students mention it, I'll be sure to bring up the fact that only three women posted in this thread. One talked about how anyone who talked about gender related issues are called feminists and that women can be stronger than men - your replies are more interesting than you think :)[/quote] I just wanted to point out that the fact that women can be stronger than men is obvious to the point of not needing to be said to me and most people where I live. It in no way struck me as something that was needed to be mentioned.[/quote]