Jordan Peterson vs Everyone Else - or Why Equality of Outcome is Flawed
I quite like Jordan Peterson and I like when he argues with a feminist who wants equality of outcome and therefore believes workplaces and governmental institutions to better reflect the society we live in and have 50 percent representation of women.
I actually get that argument. I really do. It does make sense.
However Peterson argues merely from the point of view that we shouldn't care about equality of outcome and care about equality of opportunity. Another sound argument.
However there's a couple of more arguments which I think shoots down both the above.
First I do understand the logic that says we should have 50% women in our decision making organisations if there are 50% of women in society. Women understand better about women's issues. Women can advocate for other women.
However lets stop there. This is identity politics pure and simple. The problem with this sort of representation, is that not everyone can be represented. We have distinctions on gender, sex, sexuality, race and religion, before we even start getting into things such as age, height, weight, whether you drive a car, your politics, whether you have a disability (which can be broken down even further). So where do we end the representation? Why do women deserve 50% of the voice in parliament? There are 2 million people living with sight loss in the UK, that is around 3% of the population. Should 3% of parliament, or 19 MP's have sight loss? And of those, should 10 be female and the rest be male? Of those 10 female MP's, should 1 be black and 1 be Asian? And what happens if you happen to be a black lesbian transgender person with obesity and sight loss? Where's your representation?
You get the picture. There aren't enough people and spaces in parliament to represent every single possible permutation. And why look to represent one particular group anyhow? You may be able to cover many groups from race or sex, but someone will still feel left out. Quota systems like this feel like tokenism. Employing someone for the sake of policy, rather than genuine belief.
The second issue which I feel passionate about, is why do we need someone with our characteristics in parliament to represent us? Are we saying women can not represent men? That if you're gay you cannot represent a straight man? Im pretty sure David Blunkett was blind but he represented the UK, not just the 3% of people suffering from sight loss.
Being an MP should be about representing your constituents, everyone, not just people of your specific gender or stereotype. If you don't know how to break down barriers, listen to their voices and help them, then perhaps you shouldn't be an MP. If you're an MP to satisfy just your own selfish whims then resign.
I actually get that argument. I really do. It does make sense.
However Peterson argues merely from the point of view that we shouldn't care about equality of outcome and care about equality of opportunity. Another sound argument.
However there's a couple of more arguments which I think shoots down both the above.
First I do understand the logic that says we should have 50% women in our decision making organisations if there are 50% of women in society. Women understand better about women's issues. Women can advocate for other women.
However lets stop there. This is identity politics pure and simple. The problem with this sort of representation, is that not everyone can be represented. We have distinctions on gender, sex, sexuality, race and religion, before we even start getting into things such as age, height, weight, whether you drive a car, your politics, whether you have a disability (which can be broken down even further). So where do we end the representation? Why do women deserve 50% of the voice in parliament? There are 2 million people living with sight loss in the UK, that is around 3% of the population. Should 3% of parliament, or 19 MP's have sight loss? And of those, should 10 be female and the rest be male? Of those 10 female MP's, should 1 be black and 1 be Asian? And what happens if you happen to be a black lesbian transgender person with obesity and sight loss? Where's your representation?
You get the picture. There aren't enough people and spaces in parliament to represent every single possible permutation. And why look to represent one particular group anyhow? You may be able to cover many groups from race or sex, but someone will still feel left out. Quota systems like this feel like tokenism. Employing someone for the sake of policy, rather than genuine belief.
The second issue which I feel passionate about, is why do we need someone with our characteristics in parliament to represent us? Are we saying women can not represent men? That if you're gay you cannot represent a straight man? Im pretty sure David Blunkett was blind but he represented the UK, not just the 3% of people suffering from sight loss.
Being an MP should be about representing your constituents, everyone, not just people of your specific gender or stereotype. If you don't know how to break down barriers, listen to their voices and help them, then perhaps you shouldn't be an MP. If you're an MP to satisfy just your own selfish whims then resign.
Comments