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.

I feel a bit thick... but could someone explain the liberation / inclusion one to me? What's liberating about the first one?

@Motnight, yes, you are right, arms length. I didn't read your post properly.

GreyhoundG1rl people valued for who they are individually instead of differences being ineffectively masked or whitewashed over.

An example from a disability/ ability angle would be society accepting stimming and ticks instead of trying to surpress them. Accepting people as they are instead of pretending everyone is the same.

Oh, right! Thanks.

The 'inclusion' one is daft, it looks either like dull conformity or else inappropriate- if the team on the pitch was all kids then the adults shouldn't be included, for example. Nor should a small child be in an adult team.

The liberation one is ok up to a point - but barriers around sports fields tend to exist not only to exclude people who haven't got a valid ticket but also as physical protection for players and spectators. So again it doesn't entirely bear scrutiny.

However, it's possible we may be overanalysing.

@Moretodo I think that we work for the same organisation 🤔

One of the questions asked of our CEO was around the relationship with Stonewall, but she didn't answer that one.

That they only think men and boys are human.

@Feelslikealot

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.

Oh for goodness sake. So now when we see obviously male figures we are meant to pretend this isn't sexism, but to believe that we are the sexists because we interpreted obviously male figures as male.

Right. So we can't even combat sexism because we have to pretend the bias towards men only exists in our heads and and not out there in the world.

I don't understand the last two at all

In any event without the fences the game wouldn't happen because there would be no money to pay for it

@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.

Classic example of mixing up gender and sex

I'm glad to hear you will be putting in a complaint, OP.

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

And?
The spectators are not players.

I find that last picture really confusing.

@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.

Oh, give over. Of course they're intended to be male 🙄

I had seen the top two as in Equal is not Fair (used it with my children)

I disagree with the inclusion one as spectators aren't part of the team, if spectators invaded the pitch it would cause issues. it's confusing in this example and there should be better ones...

There isn't any way to include spectators in the team.
The spectators may feel more inclusion with each other if they are all dressed like the team, but that as far as it goes.

The inclusion pick is trying to show the people are part of the team, rather than observing the team I think. Which makes sense but as a visual it isn't immediately apparent (just looks like they are dressed the same) so it doesn't really work

The problem with the inclusion picture is that it is including the spectators which we can assume is beneficial to them, but is it to the detriment of the original team. Maybe they have spent years practicing, made sacrifices for their sport. Then when their big day comes are told to include people who just show up, haven't trained, dont know their game plan.

I guess that's where impact assessments should be carried out, they have found a solution for a chosen few without considering everyone else in the picture

A bit like having a prize in every layer of pass the parcel so nobody is disappointed?

I've seen 3 or 4 panel one used more and more where it used to be just the top 2.

It's handled with different degrees of competence by the various trainers/facilitators.

The one Blueraincoat posted makes sense (sort of), but the first pic just left me totally confused.

I never said they were men or boys, I thought they identified as such.

It seems to demand uniformity. Like, be Borg or be others. No room for the individual.

Real inclusivity would have no two people the same, all accepted, catered for.

Whoever decided o the purple clothes wasn't thinking clearly! Or should that be wasn't thinking, clearly!

I thought the uniforms were really just intended to show that everyone was being allowed to play on the team. Rather than a more sinister interpretation.

That being said, pictures like this are always simplistic. I imagine we could think of real life scenarios that would complicate every one of these depictions. In the one supposedly depicting justice, what happens when someone's dog runs onto the field and takes off with the ball? Are fences really always just there to shut people out? What if it's a natural hedge, rather than a fence?

@Moretodo

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.

Strictly speaking, a stereotype doesn't have to be untrue.

But you can't make assumptions about individual people or situations based on it because it's essentially a statistical observation.

This creates what can be a real tension between treating people as individuals and looking at strong group patterns, especially when it comes to things like prevention.

This is interesting thanks for posting.

It remind me of something my school Physics teacher did at school to teach us about equality but also privilege. He put a waste paper bin at the front of the class in the middle. And gave everyone each a scrunched up A4 paper. You could say that everyone has an equal size and amount of paper so an equal chance to get it in. But the people who were already sitting at the front of the class were automatically privileged and had an easier time of getting it in. Some people at the back who were used to trying hard at throwing, got it in on merit.

Then, he carried the waste paper bin round past everyone so everyone had a fair chance at getting it in. I guess that would be equity.