Humanities Homework Help

You may have see these or similar images in other classes or on social media. The idea is that “equality” and “equity” are different. As you can see in the first frames of each image, everyone has the same resources (that is, the same size of crate) but that equality of resources doesn’t match each person’s needs. Taller folks (that is, folks with lots of privilege) may not need the resource/crate at all in order to view the action of the ball game. Folks in the middle (that is, folks with some privilege but not quite enough) find the resource/crate to be just what they need to see the ball game. But folks who in this situation have very little privilege don’t gain much with the resource/crate, do they? They still can’t see the ball game, even though everyone has been given the exact same equal resources/crates.

In the second frame of these images, everyone has a resource/crate that fits their needs: some folx don’t need any additional resources/crates, some need a little resource/crate, and some folks might need more resources/crates or instead of square crates they might need a different type of resource like a ramp. This is the notion of equity — that our different circumstances, identities, and relationships to privilege and oppression mean we may need different resources.

Great idea, right?! And it matches what we’ve been learning in class. Because of our different constellations of identities and backgrounds, we all experience different amounts of privilege or oppression in different circumstances and hence it takes different strategies and steps to assure that everyone has a place at the table — or ball game, if we’re keeping with the analogy used in these images. 🙂

But look at that third image. What’s different in the third panel they’ve added? Ah ha! Maybe instead of focusing on individual needs, we could focus on systemic issues. Instead of figuring out what resource/crate/ramp each individual person needs, we could focus instead on the root of the problem: the wooden fence that prevent us from seeing the ball game. If change the wooden fence, then everyone gets access to watch the ball game! Again, pretty great idea, right?! And it matches up with what we’ve been learning in class in terms of focusing on the ways that privilege and oppression are embedded in sytemic, structural, and institutional ways.

But… Is this the end of the story?

Given what we’ve learned in class so far and particularly in this last module, is focusing on the wooden fence enough? Is replacing the wooden fence with a chain-link fence that allows these folx to see the ball game enough? Or is there maybe an even deeper structural, systemic way to approach the situation shown in these images that would level the playing field even more? (Yup, I continued the baseball analogy!) 

Your task in this discussion board is to do the following:

In a short few paragraphs, use what we’ve covered so far in class to critique one or all of these images. In what ways do they fall short of adhering to the sorts of inclusion that the feminists in the Combahee River Collective and in Black Feminist address as necessary goals?

HINT: Here a couple more images that might help. Look at what the first image says with regard to justice. Can you think of ways that this is not full justice? Look at what the second image describes as liberation. Does that look liberation to you? Can you think of reasons that this not full liberation?