Reverse discrimination

[crop52]

Affirmative action is absolutely stupid. It goes against everything that equality means.

"Hey! My ancestors went through bad things, and that makes me entitled to good things!"
A horrible way of thinking.

 

[dickywebster]

Its worrying how positive discrimination, where someone is discriminated agaisnt for been of a so called majority, like say guys in this case, to avoid discriminating against minority groups.
Discrimination either ways kinda stupid, if the guy had more experiance, then its unfair on him to lose out for something which isnt his fault just so the company looks like a fair employer who employs all groups.

 

[Madara XIII]

I know that's the way the world works, but such things should simply not be. And I honestly hope this country does what it can to WEEN us off such things as Affirmative Action.

I say Ween because I hope over time we'll need it less and less to the point of No more, but that's only a silly thought.
So as long as Affirmative Action exists then I know damn well Equality wont. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I absolutely agree with you.

Affirmative Action is important, but it also must remain a temporary measure.

My point was never that AA was a truly fair or just system - it's not. But it was better than what we had before, which was Old White Men hiring Young White Men and no one else.

Now, the workplace is far more diverse. AA has worked - and the workplace is better for it.

And, in places where it has worked, there is no reason not to start stepping it down. In 50 years, it shouldn't exist at all any more. It shouldn't need to.

If I was sharp with you before, I apologize - I get really sick of people saying "because it isn't right" without actually considering the situation. You did consider the situation, and you formed a moderate opinion based on evidence. So I am sorry that I lashed out at you - it was unwarranted of me.

Apology Accepted.
I apologize as well for coming off as prudish or an over all Asshole. I'm glad we can at least come to a reasonable and peaceful conclusion over such a heated discussion. Well played and nice talking with you.

 

[krazykidd]

I don't think that's acceptable at all.

Individual qualifications in regard to the job at hand is what should matter. Nothing else. And discriminating based on gender isn't "reverse" discrimination; it's just discrimination, plain and simple.

I for one would never have much respect for someone who got in on a quota. At least not until they'd proved themselves time and again. And even then there'd always be the lingering knowledge that not only did they not truly earn their place on their own merits, they were also fine with benefiting from unjust discrimination.

But what do you suggest she give up the job ? Because she got it because she was a girl ?

 

[Princess Rose]

No, it's pretty clear you lack any. You lie without thought. You provide ad hoc rationalizations to support what you want instead of actually justifying it. Pretty clear you lack ethics and simply try to support whatever you like by whatever means, whether it has real support or not.

Disagreeing with you is not lying.

And if you think it is possible to "not have ethics" then you don't understand the meaning of the word.

You know what - never mind. No point in arguing with a child. Believe what you want - clearly you aren't going to listen to any opinion other than your own.

I'm done with you.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

In your story the guy has more experience than you, but the question is asking whether hiring policies based on gender, race, etc... is acceptable if the people have pretty much the same experience. There is quite a difference there.

First one (different experience levels): Of course not! The one with more experience should get the job.

Second one (same experience levels): Honestly, I don't see the problem here. If the company desires to show they are implementing diversity by hiring people with different genders and races it's just another criteria in the hiring process.

 

[getoffmycloud]

Don't your boss or your employer for this it basically boils down to the fact that equality laws basically state that a companies workforce should reflect the countries population. Basically speaking if 45% of the population is male 55% is female then a companies workforce should be somewhat similar and it is true that sometimes people are hired purely for the purpose of trying to meet this. However if you are fully trained then there is no reason you shouldn't have this job the interviewer just might not have liked the other person and from the way he acted to you he sounds like a bit of a prick its not your fault your female so he should have just kept his mouth shut.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

It is the 11th year of the 21st Century. Women do not qualify for affirmative action, they should be judged equally with their male counterparts.

Affirmative Action is only acceptable if the two job applicants are completley and totally equal in experience and qualifications, and even then it's a slippery slope to take.

The point of Equality and Equal Opprotunities is this:

"Nobody should be treated negatively because of their race, religion, sexuality, gender or disability. However, nobody should recieve special or preferential treatment based on those factors either."

So basically we should remove all disabled parking? That's giving special treatment to people who have a disability.

 

[koga88]

Also, he was most likely deciding to cover his own butt. There have been many stories about women complaining and suing companies because they were denied a job over a man. Now these stories never actually go into detail about qualifications but most of the time the men are actually more qualified with past experience and degrees.

Still, it could easily have swung the other way, and being that the workforce was all men already, hiring another man over a woman applicant would have looked bad to any of his higher ups. Or look bad in case of a lawsuit though I'm assuming you wouldn't go through with something like that. Either way it was very unprofessional for them to even let on that you were hired because of gender.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

You're a diversity hire. If you're also Jewish, you're what's known as a two-fer, or double whammy as it's known in the bizz. If you're also black, that company lucked out. I'm joking. About everything except you being a diversity hire.

I'm not saying it's right, but that's how things are. Regardless, you're qualified for the job, and you have job; two things to be grateful for.

 

[peruvianskys]

People in this thread are acting like affirmative action exists to make up for past wrongs, but that's not the case; if that was the case, why isn't there affirmative action for Irish people or Italians? Affirmative action for African-Americans and women exists because the wrongs it means to correct are still going on. For every woman who gets a job due in part to her gender, there are far more who don't get the job for it. Discrimination by the powerful majority is a huge problem still and affirmative action is an admittedly imperfect, but still understandable attempt to correct that bigotry. A great example a teacher I once had (a white one, by the way) showed me was this:

Let's say two people are running a marathon. One man runs it unrestricted, but the other one is only allowed to hop his way along the track. If the man tries to use both legs, the other runner will throw him to the ground and the restricted man's time will be even worse. About A mile from the finish line, the first runner decides that the man can finally use both legs. Without needing to hop, the second runner makes significant progress but the first runner crosses the finish line hours before the second one. Is that a fair race, just because by the time it was over both people were equal? Of course not! It's been less than fifty years since blacks have been legally restricted from enjoying the same benefits and opportunities that white people have had for 500 years, and intense discrimination still exists. In order to make a market fair, it's completely reasonable to give special privileges to those who have been systematically denied even basic rights for 375 years. I'm not a proponent of AA myself because I don't think it works very well pragmatically, but I definitely think that it's a rational and noble cause. White people rose to power on the backs of slave labor and institutionalized racism, and now that blacks want a hand up to the same spot, whites are saying, "I earned it, why can't you?"


There was a great study done by Stanford in the last couple years where they drafted up a resume and submitted two identical copies to several different Fortune 500 companies advertising for hiring. Each time, one resume would be for a Mark, John, Cindy, David and the other would be for a Jamal, Keshante, Abdullah, Shanika, etc. They found that in more than 75% of cases, the Anglo-Saxon names were given calls back at a much higher rate than the non-traditional American names. I'll try and find a link to the study itself. The point is, racism is alive and well in this country but you don't seem to see many conservatives saying, "We need to put an end to blacks being denied jobs based on race!" It only seems to bother people when it's the white person losing out and I absolutely think that's due to racialist thinking, subconscious or not.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Nope.
While it might be wise to hire a black person as the ambassador of the country that has a 95% black population, there should be nothing that gives one person an advantage over another person, other than the actual skill-set required to do the job.

Except the reason why it might be wise to hire a black person to be the ambassador to a country that's 95% black is because in that case being black is a qualification in and of itself. Same as hiring a Muslim to go to a country with a high percentage of Muslims. Not only will the locals likely treat him better and with more respect than they would say a white christian but they likely understand the culture better. In many Muslim countries a woman couldn't have the skill-set required to do said job simply because step one to being taken seriously in certain cultures. HAVE PENIS. I guess we could go check to see how they react to Chaz Bono but otherwise yes sometimes gender/race/religion are actual qualifications.

 

[Flare Phoenix]

It is the 11th year of the 21st Century. Women do not qualify for affirmative action, they should be judged equally with their male counterparts.

Affirmative Action is only acceptable if the two job applicants are completley and totally equal in experience and qualifications, and even then it's a slippery slope to take.

The point of Equality and Equal Opprotunities is this:

"Nobody should be treated negatively because of their race, religion, sexuality, gender or disability. However, nobody should recieve special or preferential treatment based on those factors either."

So basically we should remove all disabled parking? That's giving special treatment to people who have a disability.

Don't be an idiot. There's a difference between special treatment and simply accomadation. I hold the door open to resturants for the elderly and people with their hands full. That's not special treatment, it's just being polite.

But giving special treatment to women over men in terms of employment is just as sexist as choosing men over women.

Call it what you want, disabled parking is discrimination. It's singling out a certain type of person (i.e. one with a disability), and providing something to them and only them. Now, I am in no way suggesting that disabled parking is a bad thing, or that it should be done away with. My point was that saying that equality is based on treating everyone exactly the same is a flawed concept.

Toilets that seperate people based on the colour of their skin? People protested the hell out of things like that.

Toilets that seperate people based on their gender? No one bats an eyelid at that, because people see it as being acceptable.

My point is, it's very easy to say everyone should be treated equally, but it's really hard to put it into practice. Things that are discrimination are really only decided so if enough people believe it to be discrimination. If everyone thought specific toilets for people with different skin colour was fine, would we even consider that to be discrimination in today's world? We have some women who believe a man holding a door open for them is sexist. If that thinking were to become more commonplace, is it not possible that future generations would programmed to believe a man holding a door open for a woman is sexist, and we were stupid for not realizing it?

 

[trigz04]

There was a great study done by Stanford in the last couple years where they drafted up a resume and submitted two identical copies to several different Fortune 500 companies advertising for hiring. Each time, one resume would be for a Mark, John, Cindy, David and the other would be for a Jamal, Keshante, Abdullah, Shanika, etc. They found that in more than 75% of cases, the Anglo-Saxon names were given calls back at a much higher rate than the non-traditional American names. I'll try and find a link to the study itself. The point is, racism is alive and well in this country but you don't seem to see many conservatives saying, "We need to put an end to blacks being denied jobs based on race!" It only seems to bother people when it's the white person losing out and I absolutely think that's due to racialist thinking, subconscious or not.

I'm gonna have to ask for a citation here.

But honestly, the biggest problem I have with affirmative action is the fact that it isn't implemented everywhere and people use the argument that it should be based on ability in some professions and it shouldn't in others. Just look at this video.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bmSzgvaJCn0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>
I hope the video embedded properly.

 

[Gigano]

...
But what do you suggest she give up the job ? Because she got it because she was a girl ?

Hardly anything to be done about it now. Apparently she didn't know she was reaping the benefits of sexism when she was hired, so I guess she can't be faulted. Not sure it'll be the best of workplaces though, certainly not if her co-workers stand on AA is remotely similar to mine.

This heinous concept of AA violate basic principles of justice and fairness - such as the individual civil right to equality before the law - it formally impose state racism/sexism/etc. into employment regulation, it disadvantage innocent individuals simply for sharing the gender/race/etc. of discriminatory employers, and it obviously furthers much resentment; both against those who benefit from it, and against the minority groups they belong to.

All who believe in it are nothing but discriminators, and should be treated as such. But apparently she didn't believe in it, didn't take advantage of it, and has qualms over it now that she's found out. And - unlike AA supporters - I don't believe in punishing individuals who have not shown any culpability.

So no, I don't.