Somehow Rey Returned

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
For those who dont understand the difference between the two:

View attachment 682133
Even in the very progressive College and University we were taught how misleading that image above is. Equality is not everyone gets a box, equality is everyone gets the opportunity to see over the fence. Equity is everyone playing the game wins gold.

My feminist sociology lecturers were against equity. They praised equality.

EDIT: this revised image for example shows a more accurate representation of the two, pointing out that the boxes are about correcting the systemic barriers. The more accurate version also shows that boxes don't get taken from others but rather extra boxes are provided to correct the unequal opportunities.
1678754174111.jpg


but even this image is based on equity being equal outcome which is misleading because it is really showing equal opportunity. More accurate but still inaccurate

the labels really should read "Inequality" vs "Equality" and there should be no boxes in the first image.

basically all these images over simplify and mislead, the confusion they cause results in people misunderstanding each other

Edit agin: back in University I recall the image used had a third panel where the fence was replaced with chain fence and there were no boxes as they were not needed. it pointed out that equality was about removing barriers that stop people being able to access. All the audience has equal access to see the game while the game itself is played by skilled sportsmen. There is equal opportunity to view the game but not equal result of everyone being able to play.
 
Last edited:
The point I was poorly making is that equality will sometimes result in equitable outcomes (everyone can see the game) as well as inequitable ones (not everyone can play well enough to be on the field). Striving for equity results in unequal opportunities, removal of meritocracy and also discrimination by necessity in order to try to achieve equal outcomes. Much like how sacrificing freedom for security guarantees neither in the end.
 
Equality and equity comes into play in giving people a shot. Merit comes into play when it's time to choose who gets the prize. Of course the qualifications for the merits have to be defined. I think what's muddying the argument here against merit is factoring in privilege when speaking of the topic.

In terms of helming a film, regardless of one's race, gender, belief, social status, etc., anyone should have a shot at it BUT they should come with the proper merits within the scope of cinematography at the very minimum. Equity/equality and merit should all be present in fulfilling a specific role. Even the right to vote has merits that need to be met (age, citizenship, criminal status, etc.)

We don't really know if Obaid-Chino is the right person for helming this Star Wars project. There are already aspects working against her favor whether by consequences of her actions or things entirely out of her control. Only the end product will show this. Unfortunately, some may have made up their minds already. Had Gilroy's sentiment of not being a huge Star Wars come out prior to Rogue One releasing, I think he would have found himself in a similar situation with the success of Rogue One possibly getting hampered in spite of its content.
 
Back
Top