**TL;DR - The word ‘equality’ is full of positive connotations, as it should be. However, it is not always enough in terms of creating a harmonious society where everyone has a fair chance. ‘Equality is the mantra of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights’ [1], but really, what we should be aiming for is equity.** Equality is good, but if we focus on it alone, we’ll fail to see patterns in society as it often disregards the different obstacles different people may have due to their race, gender, religion, ability, etc. Equity, on the other hand acknowledges that every human is different, and hence, for everyone to have fair chances in life, equality is not always enough. An example of this would be flaws in feminism; ‘striving for the equality of women across all fields has its drawbacks. It fundamentally leaves no room for issues which are particular to women’ [2] for example, the struggles a Black woman may face would be worse than those of her white counterparts due to the racist society we live in. Equity would address this (e.g. intersectional feminism), but equality would just give a step-up to everyone without properly looking into individual needs and situations, hence it skims over differences so it’s harder to notice patterns of discrimination. Equality alone is a problem as it perpetuates privilege, only benefitting majorities and leaving many people out. This is because it ‘assumes that everyone starts from the same place with the same barriers’ [3]. Another analogy would be if the government decided to give every person in the U.K a free car. On the surface this seems fair as it would benefit those who couldn’t necessarily afford one, but it would also give a step up to people who could, so their privilege would still exist despite the government's well meaning act of balancing out people's fortunes. That on top of addressing those who couldn’t drive. All this also proves that sometimes we need to prioritise equity over equality which does not always suffice, and that's why actions such as affirmative action are good steps forward to a just society, giving everyone fair opportunities, and phasing out privilege (which is ‘allowed to continue when we wrap it up with actions of equality’) [4]. So in fact, equality would inevitably follow equity anyway. As Aashika Jashnani states, ‘have you ever thought that if people were treated fairly and impartially, we wouldn’t need to protest for greater equality?’ [5]. [1 & 4] Peter Tatchell in *Peter Tatchell Foundation*, January 9, 2018 [https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/beyond-equality-why-equal-rights-are-not-enough/] [2 & 3] Maryam Abdul-Kareem in *Muslim Girl Life*, n.d. [https://muslimgirl.com/heres-care-equity-equality/] [5] Aashika Jashnani in *Gulf News*, April 29, 2017 [https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/why-equity-is-more-important-than-equality-1.2019105]

I really wish, with all my heart, that this could happen. That the whole of society could have, as you say, equity. There is enough in the world for everyone to have a good standard of living. I think the answer is in education and a massive overhaul of the whole system. Opportunities for everyone to work, jobs created so that everyone feels an important part of the whole. Could this ever happen in our lifetimes? I don't know but the next generation certainly have the ideas! Progress, however slow, is progress for a better world. Keep thinking the way you do!

For me equity is preferable to equality with each individual able to decide their personal version of equity. The ability to choose the life you wish to live, the personal goals you wish to achieve within the practical parameter of providing for ones self. Not everybody wants to pursue a career with the aspiration to reach the top preferring a different work life balance. Some may see child rearing to be their hearts desire. We are all different with our own strengths and weaknesses. Equity acknowledges everyones individual value.

**TL;DR: equity may benefit individuals at the cost of collective benefits.** Since the original article did not define the two terms, I will base my opinion on my understanding. Equality means giving everyone equal resources. Equity means individualizing resources for the most optimal outcomes of every person. By these definitions, equity seems like a perfect idea. However, in practice, equity invites some serious problems. Equity can disincentivize competitions. Equity aims to achieve equal outcomes. It will allow more help to those falling behind. The concept maximizes the benefits of each individual. However, it may not do so for society as a whole. A reasonable level of inequality incentivizes people to compete in an economy (I define reasonable as surmountable with individual efforts). The competition, while stressful, has led to many innovations with societal values. New medicines, technologies, and ideas stem from the competition and material incentives. An unfortunate truth is that the best interest of society as a whole does not mean the best interest of each individual member of the society. Many beneficial acts to society themselves do not generate individual benefits. Therefore, rewards and incentives are necessary to drive people to these socially beneficial acts. Most of the time, the rewards and incentives mean more material possessions. Equity may temper that process. That said, our society has a long way to go before this question becomes significant. We live with unsustainable, rather than reasonable inequality. Instead of stimulating competition, the resource gap has grown so wide as to discourage people from attempting better lives. Therefore, in the short run, our society needs aggregate action to redistribute resources. Whether that is done under the name of equality or equity seems insignificant. However, in a theoretical sense, I think equality may get our society further than equity.

Um. Equality is more or less DEFINED to be enough. i.e. if it seems like equality wasn't enough, it's probably because we haven't truly reached it yet. And yes, equity is a part of equality. If you don't have that, you don't have equality.

This question is loaded…if equality isn’t enough, then you tip the odds into another’s favor. That in itself is inequality because now your giving advantages the opposite wouldn’t have. Equality as it is written, makes everyone equal. As society should be. Everyone is born in different circumstances. But ideally, by merit and work, you could eventually reach a higher status. A society that allows the rising of ranks for any person is an equal society. But not everyone gets to start at the same rank.

Equality of opportunity is VERY important! Its the goal of everyone to have the same opportunities. Equality of outcome is terrible because it would force people down paths they don't want to go down. The most talked about topic of equality over the past ten years is probably gender equality, which is excellent proof of why equality of outcome is a terrible target. Scandinavia has the most Egalitarian societies in the world, and contrary to what researchers thought would happen, the biological differences between men and women were larger than in less free countries. This evidence shows that when you decrease the social difference you will increase the biological difference, so men and women will become less alike. Another example of why equality of outcome is bad is if you look at affirmative action in America. Black students require lower grades than their white peers to get into colleges, and Asian students require higher grades than any other ethnicity to gain access to colleges. It requires racism to try and create equal outcomes... that is not how things should work. Equality or opportunity is what we should be aiming for, and is what the West has. Equality of outcome (equity) is too far.