Equally Unequal

With the football sexism fiasco comes one inevitable question: what happened to equality? Strangely, both sides are asking it, almost chanting in unison as though at the public debate equivalent of a premier league derby game.
Feminists are howling for blood, for a chance to make the ‘male establishment’ pay. The men are also asking what went wrong with equality, they wonder why equality doesn’t cut both ways as they know full well the kind of trouble they would bring upon themselves if they used the same rhetoric against the feminists as is inflicted on them by those same feminists.
This apparent double standard is by no means unique to this argument but is widespread in the political arena as a result of history. As equal rights movements have grown in influence and scope, there has been a critical blurring of objectives – should society strive for equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?
Sadly this debate has never really taken place in an open and objective manner and as a consequence the fairest goal is most often not the one aimed for.  All too often an employer (especially in the public sector) will say they are an ‘equal opportunities employer’ whilst at the same time trying to recruit to specific quotas. Some employers have guaranteed interview schemes for disabled applicants,
Which will have the inevitable side effect of rejecting perfectly capable and qualified non-disabled candidates. Now whilst I personally would be on the nice end of such an idea (having a disability myself), it does strike me as very un-meritocratic.
The primary problem is aiming for equal outcome, rather than giving everyone the same chance (which is, by definition, fair). One fact that no-one in the political establishment will admit to, no matter how widely accepted it may be, is that whilst we are all naturally born equal, it is just as natural that we do not stay that way – genetics makes short work of that! Some people are naturally smarter than others, while some are intrinsically stronger. This inequality of nature is likely to be further amplified by an inequality of nurture. Parents who ate themselves academic will not only pass that on genetically but also in the child’s upbringing, and the same can be said of a love of sport. If one knew me, it wouldn’t take much inference at all to guess that my parents cannot stand football. Similarly most teachers are able to speculate with some accuracy on the capabilities and attitudes of the parents of their class.
If we clearly do not stay ‘equal’ on all counts then there is a serious problem with the doctrine of equality of outcome. The only way to produce equality of outcome is to enforce to the lowest common denominator, eliminating positive outcomes where they exist out of ‘justice’ for where they do not. One such experiment took place in Russia throughout most of the 20th century – history records that it did not go well.
In short, it is folly to conclude that equality should be based in anything other than the capabilities of the individuals concrned, all else is calculated lunacy.