What does this picture say to you?

[Moretodo]

It was used as part of a presentation on inclusion.
To give context...
The presenter was talking about us (the audience) feeling discomfort etc as they challenge their way of thinking.
It sounded to me like the presenter was talking about pushing boundaries and when we instinctively want to push back, to accept it as part of your commitment to diversity, or else you are a horrible person.

All the participants seem to be identify as men or boys. I don't know if that makes me a horrible person or not.

Were the bottom two pictures part of the original image?

I am aware of the top two in relation to racial equality/equity.

I don’t see the problem with it. Looks a good visual to show the different meanings

I am aware and in agreement with the top two.
Seen them around.
They seem to have been extended.

Bottom right hand picture looks more like uniformity than inclusion to me.

Also, where are the women/girls?

I have seen an extended version of the top one

Is this about men in women's spaces and sports?

I've seen the top two before. Equality equity. I think it's a really good visual explanation.

Where have the bottom two come from? They don't make sense.

You have to pay to go in. All sports shoes events etc should be free?

You can join in. If you are good at the sport, work really hard, do the clubs etc and keep being really good and progress.

Get scouted, or try out for the team and get accepted. So that image is bollocks as well.

And whoever added the last two has ripped off a really good and well known set of images.

That one just posted.

One gets more than is needed the other gets less?

What context? Race, class, the country you are from and live in, education, oppression of women, I mean what? .. ????

Getting more/ less than you need is really missing the point.
It's about structural inequality/ barriers meaning that you have a disadvantage.

Totally different. I mean. Just. Eh?

I didn’t think it was about men in women’s sports or really about sports at all. It’s just about the difference between being equal and being fair. So in the top picture it’s equal because they all have the same sized box, but because they’re different sizes they actually need differently sized boxes. When they have the right size boxes although some have more support than others they are all getting the same view.

It was used in my son’s group to describe how something might seem to be not equal but actually is fair. For example, my son was able to ask his helper to help him with questions whereas other children might have to wait for the teacher to come to them. This might seem unfair to kids but actually it was fair as my son needed the extra help otherwise he wouldn’t be able to participate.

I’ve never seen the bottom two though so not sure about those. Maybe something like there shouldn’t be barriers to begin with? But I’m not sure. I think the sports thing is a red herring though, it’s metaphorical for being able to access any service.

@Moretodo, do you work in an arm's length NHS organisation by any chance?

I’ve seen the first 3. The third one is about removing barriers so nobody needs anything extra - if everywhere had ramps as standard, people in wheelchairs wouldn’t need anything extra to get in.I can’t remember but I think it was labelled “inclusion” rather than liberation. I don’t know why the inclusion one is suggesting uniformity- looks like a good visual has bee hijacked.

All male persons should have all rights is what I see

How do you know theyre male? Because they're dressed in shorts/trousers and t shirts with short hair? Bit sexist of you to assume that they must be male. On the feminism board too.

@BlueRaincoat1

I have seen an extended version of the top one

Yes I’m aware of this extended version. It’s a good visual for those that don’t understand that treating everyone the same isn’t promoting equality.

I’m not keen on the bastardised version though.

The 'liberation' image made no sense to me without seeing the later image.
I think the concept of inclusion has become a bit tainted for me by its authoritarian tone (you must overcome your discomfort) so that the last image could be both 'nice' in that everyone is the same but there's an element of forced teaming too.
I think without hearing the accompanying narrative, the 'discomfort' part of your post stands out. Yes, sometimes it is a challenge to rethink things you think you know but it's also often a sensible and primal response to risk. Something we should train ourselves to ignore. We have a survival tactic to be wary of the unknown or the different.

@Feelslikealot

How do you know theyre male? Because they're dressed in shorts/trousers and t shirts with short hair? Bit sexist of you to assume that they must be male. On the feminism board too.

For me, it isn’t the clothes that indicate the figures are male, it’s the body shapes. That’s not sexism, it’s using your eyes to make sense of what you see.

Of course they course also be female, but I’d be very surprised to see images of unconventional-looking women being used in any context as the default human.

I"ve seen versions that just use the firsr 3. I like it.

The problem with the "inclusiveness" rhetoric is that we are being asked to pretend that the fence isn't there so that the tall person who Identifies as short doesn't feel sad because they don't have a box.

Is it trying to say inclusion forces everyone to pretend to be the same (encourages masking of neurodiversity type thing) and liberation is the step we need to aim for?

I'm familiar with the first two images in a disability rights context, and in that context I'd somewhat agree that the ideal is valuing people for who they are and allowing them to reach their own potential, not trying to include them in something that doesn't suit/ trying to compensate for perceived deficit to make everyone superficially the same...

However the order of the images implies inclusion is the step after liberation, which is quite sinister and Borg like - presumably a mistake though!

If it's not about disability rights then it could obviously be interpreted differently.

For me, it isn’t the clothes that indicate the figures are male, it’s the body shapes. That’s not sexism, it’s using your eyes to make sense of what you see.

It's a cartoon. It's not drawn true to life. I just thought it was interesting that for people who are so keen to dismantle gender stereotypes that they immediately jump to the assumption that they're male based on gender stereotypes.

For me, it isn’t the clothes that indicate the figures are male, it’s the body shapes.

Exactly. The clothing and hair are androgynous; the bodies are exaggeratedly male. (Even hormones and surgery can’t alter a skeleton.) This was likely intentional.

Removing all other obvious variables (sex, race, age, gender reassignment, visible dis/ability, etc. ) forces the viewer to focus on the variable used to illustrate the point, in this case height. Pretty typical in explaining structural/systemic disadvantage - you start with multiple individuals similar in every way except the characteristic you want to highlight, because otherwise you get people saying (e.g.) that there’s no racism because there are poor white people and Oprah is rich.

I also read the “inclusion” pic as uniformity and thought it was arguing against inclusion, or arguing that inclusion has drawbacks as well as benefits. But I think the purple clothing is supposed to be an actual uniform (same colour as the team members). But the three figures are still standing in the position of spectators rather than players, so perhaps it’s advocating that everyone should be able to feel like part of the team even if they’re not? It may make more sense in specific context, like making people feel “part of the team” at work or people in different situations working together for a common goal.

I think it could be used quite effectively to debunk the oft trotted out but not actually true in practice arguments for school uniform being a leveller actually... The children and teachers still know who's short and who's tall even if you try to make them all buy the same some size suits nobody purple pyjamas...

The inclusion one implies everyone should look the same with no differences, no individuality. To me, inclusion means everyone is included, whatever their differences.

Thanks all for your responses.

I saw it as the removal of boundaries (named as barriers) and the spectators wearing the costume (identity) of the players.

Mixed in with good fair stuff on diversity, that no one would argue with, it is a trojan horse. As OP said above, I read it as all men should have all rights.

Women were not mentioned, no.
Only in the introduction where the sloppy presenter said "when we think about domestic violence we think about the stereotype of women as victims" and then went on to say how everything they do is evidence based.
Violence against women and girls is not a stereotype mate.
It's reality. And a public health issue.
And I will be complaining.

@Motnight, no not NHS but alongside. I thought we were a sensible organisation, obviously just late to the party.

Thanks everyone for who has taken time to respond.