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.

in the 4th image they are wearing catchers gloves. So it is showing that they are involved, not just watching. I would take that to mean things like disabled people being on the board and staff of a disability charity. Or not just meaningless consultation or ways to share decision-making.

Perhaps that could make some sense of the otherwise offensive "thinking of stereotypes of women as victims". If for example a rape crisis centre was run in a really women-centred way. (unlike a current example I can think of)

I can’t stand those cartoons. They don’t make sense to me as they seem to imply that equality is bad, equity good, liberation bad, inclusion good. When you need all four really to have a just society. They’re not in competition with each other.

@PlanDeRaccordement

I can’t stand those cartoons. They don’t make sense to me as they seem to imply that equality is bad, equity good, liberation bad, inclusion good. When you need all four really to have a just society. They’re not in competition with each other.

And they aren't all equally appropriate in all situations.

@PlanDeRaccordement

I can’t stand those cartoons. They don’t make sense to me as they seem to imply that equality is bad, equity good, liberation bad, inclusion good. When you need all four really to have a just society. They’re not in competition with each other.

The top two have been around for ages.

The bottom two have been added and are totally bollocks.

The top two is one that many people get due to visual.

An example might be.

Two people have tickets for a show. One person gets there goes in happy. Up the stairs and into the venue.
The other is in a wheelchair and gets there and can't get in.

The idea is that-
The same access has been given to both. The stairs go into the venue.
In practice access is only actually available to one. The other person can't get in without access that works for a wheelchair.

The first person is the one who can see over in the first pic.
Same provision, only works for one.

Second pic. The provision works for both.

The same pic can be applied to all sorts of situations obv.

I mean obv no one has to like the images but a lot of people get it, as it were from imagery.

The bottom two images. Are bollocks, ridiculous and it's shit they're l they've ripped off a well known visual and just bunged their own views on the bottom. Annoying.

I mean sure. Re not all situations. When I've seen it before it's been in a sensible context.

@NiceGerbil
Yes I understand what they are trying to say, but it’s all wrong,

In your example, equality= everyone gets a ticket, equity is = everyone has access. But my point is that you need both a ticket and access, you need equality AND equity to end up with both tickets AND access.

The pictures do not reflect this fact. It just shows boxes being redistributed. It’s just really poor visual.

Both getting tickets is surely about financial inequality though. A different topic.

I assume that's what you mean?

Using it for more than one factor at once is not going to work..

You could also put in other things needed eg

Ability to get there
Ability to order the tickets with the methods provided
Ability to see the show once in
Ability to use the toilets
Etc etc.

I mean thinking it's rubbish is aok! The bottom two pics certainly are.

@NiceGerbil
I’m going to stick with it’s all rubbish. The bottom two pics certainly are.

I hate that image. The equality/equity thing is often used by men to derail discussions about women’s equality.

Totally Faye fair enough!

And the two pics are just so annoying (bunged onto someone elses well known thing I'd imagine without permission) AND are just... Totally fucking stupid. I had a rant earlier in the thread

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.

The purple inclusion picture is odd. They are now part of the team because they dress the same and have gloves? But they aren't actually playing; they are still on the sidelines. And we can't all be members of every team.

The inclusion one is a bit of a fairytale. You can't remove all barriers for all people without disadvantaging others.

On a personal level, there were places I couldn't safely take my, then, highly impulsive child with adhd and asd because too many things were at an accessible height for him. OK, so a shop being plunged into darkness because the switches were at the perfect accessible height for a lightning fast 4 year old with a switch obsession isn't the worst thing. It was highly problematic when our council completely leveled the kerbs in our city centre, though, as guide dogs did not understand the new layout and blind and visually impaired people couldn't work out where the pavement ended using a stick, either. Turns out that it also complicated road safety training for both of my autistic boys.

The top two can be very useful with SEN when other parents complain that your dc is getting all the TA time or allowed to leave class early or whatever else it takes for your child to be able to access education.

@SinoohXaenaHide

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.

That's perfectly put!

I've always liked the original version of this. I think it is a very basic way of explaining the difference between a right wing approach of everybody has equal opportunities, and a traditionally left wing approach of understanding structural oppression to explain why not everyone can make equal use of equal opportunities.

It is a big shame today's left has strayed from this understanding of the first two images. It doesn't surprise me at all that someone who misunderstood would attempt to appropriate the message for their own ends. I don't understand the final message at all.

Anyone talking about the need to feel discomfort, who doesn't acknowledge that discomfort can be a life saving warning sign for a woman, is a dangerous individual who should not be providing training.

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

Probably just me…

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?