Equality of opportunity is not like equality of outcome.
We have worked hard to get equality of opportunity, and aside from some truly crazy people, no-one would suggest that we don’t have it here already in the enlightened West.
If a female, BAME or gay person wishes to pursue a particular lifestyle or career here in Britain, there is almost ZERO institutional impediment to them doing so.
And if there is, it is easy for examples to be pointed out so we can fight them together.
Fine.
But we obviously don’t have equality of outcome.
What price are we willing to pay to get it?
Let’s use nursing as an example – a very unequal profession in terms of gender.
Some 90% of nurses here in the UK are women, so ignoring for a moment the statistically-negligible transgender issue, the remaining 10% are men.
We have studiously failed so far to really encourage men to go into nursing, so those that have are simply choosing to do so.
Now let’s imagine we wanted to have equality of outcome.
Men are roughly 50% of the population, so 50% of nurses should be men, if there is to be no unfairness.
How could we engineer this outcome?
I guess we could try education – a nationwide advertising campaign might add to male nursing numbers a bit.
So far, so good.
But I doubt that would get us much further than 85% vs 15%.
What’s next?
Well, we could provide financial incentives for men. Wait, no we can’t do that – that would be discriminatory.
We could just only hire men to be nurses for a while, until we had redressed the balance through natural wastage (the technique being used by the BBC to fill their gender and ethnic imbalances)
But that’s discriminatory too.
How can we force men to become nurses if they don’t want to?
And that’s the problem right there.
Statists assume that if only the imperfections and bigotry in our society could be eliminated, our society would be a perfect reflection of our gender, race, sexual preferences.
If 5% of our society is Muslims, 5% of doctors, nurses, chimney sweeps, footballers, barbers, builders, boxers and bouncers would be Muslims.
If 50% of our society are women, half of all hod carriers, soldiers, carpenters, miners and plumbers should be women.
It’s all obviously insane, isn’t it.
PEOPLE MAKE CHOICES.
If we provide all humans in our society with equality of opportunity, we won’t get equality of outcome.
Women will still choose to be nurses more than men. Men will still choose to be computer scientists more than women.
Because most women prefer people, and most men prefer things.
We have preferences.
We could impose upon our society the most tyrannical of rules and rules in an attempt to FORCE men and women to make the choices that Leftists believe they should.
But they still wouldn’t.
Yet this is not stopping the Leftists from trying to impose such tyranny upon us.
How long will we continue to indulge the fanatical Left as they pursue their “equality of outcome” mirage?
‘Men are roughly 50% of the population, so 50% of nurses should be men, if there is to be no unfairness.
How could we engineer this outcome?’
Easy. Fire 89% of female nurses.
I go for this idea in a big way. It has the right totalitarian authoritarian dystopian leftist touch. But firing may not be the answer. It would result in an army of the unemployed. I’m thinking of extending the age of legal abortion to well after birth.
What’s amazing is that there are nearly 700,000 nurses in the UK. That means almost one in 20 of adult women is a nurse!
It’s the same with flexible working. The more flexible working is allowed, the more women take the opportunity to flexibly not work, resulting in increased disparity between women’s earnings and men’s earnings. To close the gender earning gap, the only solution is clear: make it illegal for women to take time off work.