Introduction

Forgive me, for this provocative title that does not truly reflect my opinion on the subject.

Indeed, I am not so much against equal opportunity as against its abuses and its exploitation by our current politicians. But, to discuss it, we must first agree on what equal opportunity is.

What is equality of opportunity?

For me, equality of opportunity mainly has two meanings:

• Firstly, in a weak sense, it means allocating places in a society according to a rule that applies in the same manner to everyone. Very concretely, it primarily means that obtaining a job or acceptance into training will be based solely on the candidate's skills or success in a competition. E

• But in a strong sense, it almost denotes its opposite. Indeed, in a strong sense, it refers to the fact that our success depends only on our efforts. That is to say, we will not take the candidate who has the best skills or who had the best results in the competition, but the one who has made the most effort.

  Concretely, this translates to the act of giving advantages to categories known to be disadvantaged.

  For example, we know that the sons of the rich receive an education from their parents that makes it easier for them to compete in elite schools. This means that all other things being equal, a rich man's son will have better results in competitions while working less.

  To compensate for this, some schools like Sciences Po make the contest easier for candidates from modest backgrounds. This policy is justified by equal opportunity, but of course, this is not the only motivation. Among the motivations, there is also that in order to achieve social peace, children from working classes must have the hope of being able to rise socially through school (no matter how illusory this hope may be). And, also that a little fresh blood who have experienced something other than upscale neighborhoods bring a lot of efficiency to the state.

But I digress. Let's get back to the topic. Whether in its strong or weak sense, the goal of equal opportunities isThe text you provided is not complete or clear enough to translate. Please provide a full sentence in a recognized language.ensure that a person's professional success does not depend:

• Of favoritism. This means that a person's professional success should not depend on their relationships or those of their family. It's amusing when we see the promotion of networking by liberal entrepreneurs who only talk about equal opportunities and meritocracy. Of course, they will defend themselves by saying that what they mean by this term is the professional reputation built by their efforts throughout their career (or other version compatible with equal opportunities). But, in practice, it often takes the form of undue advantage obtained through an old boys' network of rich, white men (I know you're incompetent, but you did me a favor, and if I don't return it, it would be known and harm my place in the group, so I hire you when...Sorry, but there seems to be a mistake. "ême)" is not recognized as text in any language. Could you please check and provide correct and complete text?

• Of discrimination (of women, of Arabs, of blacks, of LGBTQIA+,...)

• The artificial material barrier. That is to say, for example, success in competitions mustto be as difficult for the professor's son "who has"A room all to himself and private tutors just for the worker's son who has to share his room with his little brother who screams every 5 minutes: 3,2,1 hyper speed hoping that a dinosaur will eventually come out of his #$@% Beyblade top.

The text provided is incomplete. Please provide the full text to give a proper translation.Advocates of strong and weak sense of equal opportunities therefore have the same goal, but not the same means.

Indeed, for supporters of equal opportunities in the weaker sense, for the teacher's son to have the same chances of academic success as the laborer's son, it is enough to give them both access to competitions. And for blacks to have the same chances as whites during recruitments, it is enough to ensure that during recruitment, HR managers do not choose based on racist criteria. For them, if inequalities persist, it is either because HR managers secretly use racial criteria, or there are differences between black and white that justify this unequal treatment. That's why, quite paradoxically, supporters of this equal opportunity tend to fall into forms of benevolent racism.

On the other hand, for supporters of equal opportunities in the strong sense, so that the son of a teacher has the same chances of academic success as the son of a worker, we must give more classes to the son of a worker or facilitate his competition. And, to eliminate inequalities in hiring between black and white, we must create quotas (or adopt other solutions that give an advantage to blacks).

Personally, I think that it is the supporters of equal opportunities in the strong sense who are right. However, even though I think that it is a useful fight, as the title of this article suggests, I think that the fight for equal opportunities is a mistake. Or rather, that it is given too much importance.

Problem with equal opportunities

Indeed, most of the time, we consider that equality of opportunity is a good thing, but we rarely ask ourselves why. It's considered as something self-evident. And, there are good reasons for this.

Indeed, instinctively, one will feel a deep sense of injustice at the idea that one cannot become a singer because one is the son of a fishmonger. That the best places are already taken by the sons of dignitaries and that one will have to settle for dreams within our reach.

And, there is no need either to think for ten years to understand the loss of competence that it represents for society not to take advantage of emerging talents in the wrong place. And, it's precisely because I acknowledge this that I am not against equal opportunities.

However, if the goal is efficiency, then pursuing equality of opportunity too much, causes more harm than good. Indeed, it may seem unfair (and it is), but due to a mix of social and biological reasons, children are programmed to imitate their parents.

Getting a good framework from a doctor's son or a teacher's son will require much less investment than from a boilermaker's son. And, even if he gets there, he will usually be less good (generally). Conversely, a teacher's son will have a lot more difficulty guessing a boilermaker's son (because contrary to the image we have, it's a very technical job that requires great intellectual skills). Of course, as already mentioned, even if we are only interested in efficiency, we should make sure to allow the most motivated to integrate into fields far removed from their parent's.

But, why insist on erasing advantages gained through birth at all costs?

And above all, why only in certain professions? Because I played the innocent when talking about boilermakers, but strangely I have rarely seen movements fighting for equal access to the boilermaker's profession (soFrom what appears, it's a very interesting job and relatively well paid at the moment.

And, if the goal is happiness or justice, then we will arrive more or less at the same question. Is the lack of equal opportunity really the main generator of injustice in our society? Is improving equal opportunity really the main lever we have to be happy? For me, in most cases, we are happier staying in the social environment where we grew up, and therefore doing work similar to our parents (I emphasize in most cases). Moreover, the testimonies of social class defectors show this well. Therefore, in most cases, more equal opportunities do not greatly increase our happiness. In this case, why do we focus so much on it?

In a word: is the place of equal opportunity in public debate proportional to the improvement it could bring us? And if not, why this difference?

For me, the answer is simple: if we support equality, as much as equality of opportunity, it is to avoid having to question the inequality of positions. And this, while it is the primary cause of injustice and unhappiness in our society.

The injustice that most throttles us is not that women are encouraged to become kindergarten teachers and men high school teachers. That the sons of the poor have an easier time becoming garbage collectors and the sons of the rich to become engineers. What made us unhappy in school was not that Antoine de la Fistiniére got good grades without working, when we couldn't even understand the title of the exercise even after spending hours on it. What made us unhappy was the academic competition that we were forced into and the humiliations we suffered in its name (when originally school should be a pleasant place that gives everyone equal access to knowledge).

What outrages us is that there are those who earn much more than others. What outrages us is that the prestige and recognition one receives seems totally disconnected from the usefulness and difficulty of their work. What outrages us is that some people work themselves to death to receive crumbs, while other workers have dazzling working conditions and salaries. And, I'm not even talking about parasites who concentrate power and wealth without ever having done anything else in their life but inherit (here, I'm talking about our dear oligarchs like Bolloré, Dassault, Bernard Arnault...).

But, what's simply unacceptable, is knowing that we will pass this situation on to our children. That nothing will ever change and there's no hope for collective or individual improvement. And, this is where equality comes in.opportunities. Defending it allows not to question its inequalities while offering an illusion of hope that individually, it will be possible to get out of it. And besides, it masks the fundamentally arbitrary nature of this inequality by giving it a semblance of justification.

As for me, I don't see why we should accept that a person is poorly paid for their work or forced to endure bad working conditions all their life on the pretext that they were bad at math when they were 12 years old.

I don't understand, why should the work of an engineer be more valued than that of a laborer? Both are just as essential as each other and although differently, both are just as hard. They therefore deserve the same respect and the same remuneration.Attention, I am not saying that everyone should be paid and considered the same way. The engineer with 30 years of experience, an expert in a field, obviously should not be paid and recognized in the same way as the junior who barely knows how to hold a broom.

And, the worker who is always willing to replace a sick colleague, who regularly works overtime and creates a good atmosphere in the team, should be more rewarded and valued than the shirker who spends his time complaining. I'm not saying there's no legitimate criterion for differentiating recognition (be it symbolic or financial).

What I'm saying is that the type of position one holds (manager/employee, doctor/nurse, engineer/worker) should not be part of these criteria. Only commitment, talent, experience, the hardness of the work (and other criteria that I probably forget) should count.

On the other hand, everyone, regardless of their skills or performances, should be treated with respect, and all positions that endanger the physical or mental health of those who perform them should be eliminated.

Okay, there are exceptions like the profession of a soldier, firefighter or sewer worker which are essential and where it's impossible. But, in such rare cases, they should be granted benefits like the right to retire early to compensate for the risk taken. And, everything should be done to minimize the risk taken (for soldiers, I have an idea: do not go to war).

Conclusion

But, let's stop this digression to return to the initial subject, namely: The fight for equal opportunities, although positive (most of the time we are far from having too much equality of opportunity) is largely overrated. Indeed, only a small part of the misfortunes and injustices of our society can be solved by more equality of opportunities.

Worse sometimes, it serves outright to justify the unjustifiable and to give an appearance of justice to the transformation of the school (or even the whole society) into a gigantic battle royale whose prize is a diploma guaranteeing you safety and comfort which should (and could) be the norm for everyone.

Not to mention that the increasingly fierce and prematurely competitive academic environment within an increasingly meaningless education system causes far more stupidity and suffering than any smartphone.

I therefore think that it is high time that progressive forces put more emphasis on the only struggle that matters: the struggle for equality of places. The struggle for the equal dignity of all.

We do not want fair rules during the competition for access to the best positions. We want the end of competition and for all positions to bevaluedin the same way.

The particular case of women

One might be tempted to apply my arguments to downplay the importance of feminist struggles (and other so-called societal fights). And, to a certain extent, it's a good idea that some branches of feminism have not refrained from embracing.

Indeed, rather than wanting women to do the same tasks as men, why not rather pay the tasks performed by women in the same way as those performed by men?

When we ask ourselves the question, we realize that we should even pay them more, because the tasks performed by women are often more important for society than the tasks performed by men.

Children are the future of the nation, our only hope for a better world, so why do we consider that raising them should be free and done in addition to a normal job? Why should the kindergarten or primary school teacher who teaches them to live together and to have civilized manners be unpaid?Less well paid than the teacher who will teach them to solve second degree equations?

It seems to me though that the first one is really much harder and more important?

Why is it that housewives and mothers, who allow us to live in an environment clean enough to prevent us from getting sick, are paid less than the doctor who will treat us if we do get sick?

The first one seems to me to be at least as important as the second.

At the very least, even if for one reason or another, it is not possible (or desirable) to pay them as much, we should at least give them the same symbolic recognition (if not more).

However, this reasoning reaches its limits in the fact that many women have no desire to be assigned to these domestic and maternal tasks. Unlike the sons of the working class who would like to do the same job as their parents (if it did not involve experiencing instability and damaging their health due to poor working conditions), most women would like to share the burden of housework, child rearing, and caring for the elderly, in order to focus more on their primary job (or simply to have something called leisure).

If we applied equality of roles, some of these constraints weighing on women would disappear, but not all. It therefore seems important to me not to accept this inequality and to continue to fight for men and women to do more of the same tasks.

On the subject of feminism, I recommend the blog:Emma .

As an AI, I need the actual text that you would like translated to be able to assist you. Kindly provide the text so I can get started.

Here are some sources to delve further into this topic or check the facts mentioned in this blog post.

insee.fr - reproduction of inequalities between generations

Professional Careers: The Weight of Social Origins

Class defectors in leadership positions: overcoming codes and prejudices

Recognition of the usefulness of predominantly female professions and social transformation.

F.Dubet The Places and The Chances

Inequality of opportunity in France in 5 key figures