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.

[LobsterNapkin]

Which is to say - I don't think the first two images are really better than the others. You can still find lots of scenarios where what they are showing will actually make things less fair or be a problem in other ways.

It's just a simplistic metaphorical image and it can't ever be more than that.

[LobsterNapkin]

@Lessthanaballpark

I like the first two as they provide a useful answer to when people bang on about women having privileges in society. Because biology disadvantages us in many ways we need special measures to give us a fair shot.

It is a way maybe to explain the idea. But it doesn't actually justify any specific approach.

For example - university entrances that give points on the basis of race to try and get more members of certain groups admitted. I've seen people try and say, that is ok because it corresponds to this concept. Well, maybe, but there are a lot more questions about it than that, whether it's unjust to other individuals, whether it is really good for the people it is meant to help.

That's probably why people have ended up adding the other illustrations. Maybe in the case of university admissions, the real issue is not giving some people bigger boxes, but finding why some are educationally disadvantaged and try to remedy that earlier on.
Etc.

But in the end these are all just illustrations of concepts, real situations are far more comlex, almost always

[PaleGreenGhost]

So much material produced by woke progressive types contains huge Freudian slips that their creators seem unable to perceive. See also the version of the rainbow flag which has the blue and pink trans pride colours intruding from the edge, using black and brown stripes as a shield. In much the same way as many TRAs (activists, not necessarily trans people) use arguments appropriated from the struggle for racial equality to support their own ideology, whilst taking over gay and lesbian spaces.

[PaleGreenGhost]

Its not actually inclusion because ultimately nothing changes. That some kind of pity pitch is enough to say you have done something.

Exactly. Real inclusion, in sports, is to have leagues for those with disabilities, for different age categories and for women. And to make the cost of being a supporter cheap enough for all. And to have equal media coverage for the matches.

But that is expensive. Sport has massive links with advertising. Advertising prefers to objectify women than have them be the subject, the sports person. What if the sports women aren't sexy enough? What if the players with disabilities aren't sexy enough?

In this brave new progressive world none of that matters. All discrimination is bad, barriers down, and its a scrum to reach the top. And if able bodied white males are the ones who reach the lucrative top? Well perhaps they identify as black disabled women, which the UCU says is perfectly OK to do.

[Whatwouldscullydo]

Yes. Whatever stopped them from playing before is still stopping them now. And maybe now it's actually even harder because dad has to stop the small one from wandering off into the way of the game and might even miss a low flying ball heading straight at the middle one so he gets hurt.

But it's OK everyone thinks they are in the team so its all good.

[minipie]

@Whatwouldscullydo

The last one “inclusion” seems to be suggesting everyone gets to be part of the team, no matter what their size shape or ability. Which is inclusive yes, but not compatible with the way competitive sports work

Its not actually inclusion because ultimately nothing changes. That some kind of pity pitch is enough to say you have done something.

Do you mean because they are still spectators rather than playing?

[sashh]

When I have taught 'Equality and Diversity" I usually start with a discussion of discrimination and when it can be lawful eg if you are deaf you can have a licence to drive a car but not to pilot a plane.

That you have to pass certain exams to get onto uni courses.

And then I give a few real life examples (hopefully with help from students) eg in one office everyone was supposed to have 2 shelves over their des. I'm 5ft 0 and couldn't reach the top shelf, the person sitting next to me was 6ft and could so we 'swapped' I had the bottom shelf over mine and his desk and he had the top shelves.

Cartoons like this don't help because equality and diversity can get quite complicated but at the same time some solutions are simple.

Also the cartoon is wrong, when they are standing on boxes of different heights they all have a similar view, the small person on the right is disadvantaged by the removal of the box.

The fence may have many reasons to exist, it stops a ball hitting the spectators, it gives people something to lean on.

It appears that someone outside the group has decided what is best for them without asking anyone of the three in the group.

[Whatwouldscullydo]

The last one “inclusion” seems to be suggesting everyone gets to be part of the team, no matter what their size shape or ability. Which is inclusive yes, but not compatible with the way competitive sports work

Its not actually inclusion because ultimately nothing changes. That some kind of pity pitch is enough to say you have done something.

[minipie]

The first three make sense.

The last one “inclusion” seems to be suggesting everyone gets to be part of the team, no matter what their size shape or ability. Which is inclusive yes, but not compatible with the way competitive sports work.

[Babdoc]

The picture for men playing in women’s sports would need to be a man standing on a box twice the height of the woman’s box and shoving her off her box altogether.

[Orangejuicemarathoner]

The last one isn't "inclusion". It is enforced uniformity. And that is unfortunately what "inclusion" means to many people. Enforced uniformity of thought . So it is a good picture of "inclusion" being interpreted wrongly

[Griefmonster]

@UntilYourNextHairBrainedScheme

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.

This is what I saw/assumed but also struggled to understand if they are consecutive steps or just individual visuals to explain the concepts.

[WheresTheHedge]

It's ridiculous and dumbed down for a dumbed down audience.

In reality the tallest male in picture one, presumably the dad, seeing that he's with two short children, would carry the youngest so that they can also look over the fence. The boy in the middle would feel like a big boy as he's just about able to peek over the fence.

If this is some match, the tallest bloke, dad, ought to buy tickets is he and his children can sit in the audience like all the other spectators. Peeking isn't terribly polite is it? When they have bought their tickets and watch the game, having a greta time in the audience together with all the other spectators, they' feel part of the crowd, which will be fun. Maybe the dad will feel inspired to support his son in pursuing the sport they are watching. Maybe the sons will feel inspired to train and be the best to become one of the successful players.

What's desirable to be standing in the team's kit on a field when they aren't an elite sports person playing the match?

[Whatwouldscullydo]

Also kinda shows its ok to be pushy/demanding

The inclusion picture could have been showing them getting together and creating a team for disabled people or a kids team or an amateur adult team so everyone gets to play.

Instead they chose to make everyone pretend they were part of the already established team.

[Whatwouldscullydo]

The last too just seen to be about removing a barrier there to keep everyone safe. A fence would exist to stop people running out into the pitch.

And all wearing the kit? Uts a game did they earn their spot or did they just expect people to pretend they are part of the team even if they can't play or are too old/young to qualify fir said team.

Ut says ti ne you just have to trust eveydibe will do what they say they will whether it is to the detriment of everyone else or not.

It says that a boundary is problematic even when its there fir good reason and if you hide behind someone else's situation you can push for the result u want

[UntilYourNextHairBrainedScheme]

Sneezecakesmama do you really not see a problem with the all purple picture (masking individual needs and strengths, going full circle back to treating everyone as identical) as the end goal in relation to disability?

[Sneezecakesmama]

Seen this and similar related to disability. Don't see a problem

[CarrotSticks23]

Yeah the inclusion message is a pile of crap, and isn't relevant.

Who wants spectators playing in a baseball match? They've come there to watch. We've got at least 3 throwers there, it's gonna be a mess of a game. By including the spectators your ruining it for everyone

Its not inclusion to have a small child playing baseball with professionals, that's just a safety issue. It takes it right back to message one where you assume just providing everyone a box is equality. Lets just have everyone play the game for inclusion.

[GothicaAutistica]

Those saying that all of the persons in the image are male; I thought the shorter one on the right was a girl! I thought it was a dad with his son and daughter.

I'm not sure why I thought that. I may have seen a variation in which one of them is a girl.

[PaleGreenGhost]

Then there's the inclusion message. That's fucking awful. Inclusion is about making sure everyone can participate fully without causing harm to others - not for everyone to pretend that they're part of something they aren't or to be forced to say/do something under the banner of inclusion.

Great point (and shout out to the dinosaur ages when inclusion was mostly about people with disabilities being able to access the same stuff as people without). But yes, their crap last picture with no barriers/safeguarding /selection /discrimination between types of people actually lands them right back at the beginning frame. Because when everything is the same for everyone (equal opportunities) guess who gets to dominate? The bigger, stronger more entitled people.

[CarrotSticks23]

I'm sure Ive seen this image (bar the last one) to demonstrate the differences between Liberal and radical feminism on here before. To show the difference between legislating against something and actually removing the obstacle

The last image is stupid though and misses the whole point of the cartoon.

[ProudMaiasaura]

I've always liked the original top two images - it clearly shows that whilst striving for equality isn't a bad thing (everyone gets the same treatment) it still disadvantages others whereas equity is giving everyone the same platform to move onwards. No ambiguity, a little bit of blatant sexism but works fine as an image.

The lower two images are crap. It's not liberation to remove barriers that are there for a reason - that's invasion. For example, I'm sure that Fred in their frock would see it as liberation to be allowed to access female only changes rooms whereas for the women/girls changing in there it could only be seen as an invasion into a previously safe space. The game analogy actually supports this, the fence is there for protection of the fans/players/property. Removing the fence allows invasion of uncontrolled factors.

Then there's the inclusion message. That's fucking awful. Inclusion is about making sure everyone can participate fully without causing harm to others - not for everyone to pretend that they're part of something they aren't or to be forced to say/do something under the banner of inclusion.

Honestly, the second set of images feels like they're from the TRA handbook.

[MargaritaPie]

Or they could just buy a ticket for the game instead of trying to illegally watch it over a fence by standing on boxes.

[allmywhat]

I think that picture proves the opposite of whatever point they're trying to make.

"Liberation": okay, so now the pitch gets invaded and nobody gets to enjoy or even play the game?

"Inclusion" - we should all be on the team! Even though some of us are rubbish at sports and some of us are tiny children who'd be in danger from the other players.

It genuinely strikes me as a right wing metaphor. You start off looking for equality and you end up destroying the resource you're trying to redistribute.

And I find it deeply annoying because it's so stupid. Like do people just not do joined up thinking any more? I know they all love love that picture with he boxes but it doesn't work any more. If your metaphor has lots of awkward unintended implications, find a different metaphor.

[AnyOldPrion]

Anyone else wondering why the woke artist ditched the lovely bright colours and went with wish-washy pastels?

Probably just me…