Reverse discrimination

[Weaver]

It's called being an "equal opportunity employer" and it's bullshit. It means people are hired for their gender and race as opposed to their actual skillset; which means people who are more skilled for a position aren't getting the jobs they should be.

For instance I interviewed at Microsoft and out of 75 candidates the only ones hired were 3 girls. One can imagine, perhaps, they just really were that good but considering they could barely even speak English I have serious doubts given that they now mark off 2 check boxes on the equal opportunity employer list (female, visible minority).

None of the white females got hired, none of the males of any race got hired, and this is an entirely testable field. I was a bit grumpy being flown out to Seattle to be dicked around like that and being rung through a two month long interview process.

 

[Pandaman1911]

Ah, that's crap. I mean, no offense to you, but the if the other guy had more skill, and they gave it to you just because you lack boy bits, it's just as crap as if it happened the other way around. I don't care how uniform the workplace is, you don't sacrifice efficiency just to make yourself seem diverse. "Why are there no women in this workplace? Because none who are more qualified for the job have presented themselves to me." But no, you can't say that, because then eight kinds of human rights organizations will be all over your ass.

 

[Twilight_guy]

No. Of course I don't believe in affirmative action. Your competition was still being an asshole though so at least feel good that you prevented them from hiring a guy who makes comments like that.

 

[renegade7]

It wouldn't be acceptable at all, but I think your competitor was just being bitter.

 

[Torrasque]

Do you think it's acceptable to use gender or race to determine who will get a job between two persons roughly equal otherwise ?

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.

 

[cathou]

Do you think it's acceptable to use gender or race to determine who will get a job between two persons roughly equal otherwise ?

Question. Would you have made a post stating discrimination, if you did not get the job?

If the reason I didn't get the job because I'm a woman, yes. Otherwise no.

By the way I use reverse discrimination but positive discrimination is equal to me. It's just the first term that I come up with my mild knowledge of english language

 

[Madara XIII]

Because of such Sexist and Racially driven views in society!
We live in an Age of Enlightenment (Not enlightened age), but if one of the goals of enlightenment is equality then Affirmative Action and Reverse Discrimination should in no way to come into the equation.
It shouldn't matter who is what and what color they are! It is disgusting in my opinion that they are FORCING diversity rather than incorporating those diverse few who ARE QUALIFIED.
I can understand the fact that she was qualified, but the male in the situation proved he was above her experience wise.

So once again Immanuel Kant is probably spinning in his grave

It shouldn't. But it does. We aren't that enlightened. But we're working on it. And the only way we're going to have the chance is Affirmative action.


To all three of you - guys, everything you say sounds like one thing to me:

"Waaa waaa waaa! I'm in a privileged group, and I got screwed, so I'm upset! Waaa!"

**shrugs** Too bad. We live in a world with Affirmative Action. And it isn't going anywhere.

So that's what you've resorted to?

"Too Bad, there's nothing you can do about it Nyah Nyah"
Because that's what I read.
Who was complaining about being in a privileged group?
I'm Hispanic and I live in a racially and culturally diverse part of Houston, a melting pot of sorts among a lower middle class and was raised with a sense of Equality.
While to some Skin Tone matters it does not to me. I'm simply making a gripe that I grew up in the same environment as the guy with a lower GPA and gets a scholarship due to the need to increase diversity where as I get less than half for working my ass off. 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.

 

[stiver]

What do you think of that situation :

I just finish a diploma to be an IT technician. In the company I work for, there was a opening for that, so I apply. We were two that asked for the job, and I got it. Last week I was moving my stuff to my new desk and the guy that I was in competition for the job with told me: "it's just because you're a girl, otherwise I would had the job".

My first reaction was to think, ok he's pissed off because I get the job, but after talking a bit with my coworkers and my boss, it turns out that he was right. I've got the knowledge to get that job and my boss tell me he's sure that I will be good at it, but the other guy have more experience than me, and the final decision was indeed make to put a girl in the IT department because there was none before, and that they wanted to show that they promote diversity in all the company departments.

Now I'm a bit furious because I don't know if my coworkers think i'm a good tech or if I'm just that girl that get the job because I'm a girl.

Do you think it's acceptable to use gender or race to determine who will get a job between two persons roughly equal otherwise ?

Do the right thing and give up your job.

 

[Madara XIII]

Finally, to all the people talking about "it should only be about the qualifications," sure, in a perfect world.

Exactly. The patriarchy would love any excuse to keep a vice grip on what it has. Maybe affirmative action isn't perfect, but do you really think the people on top are going to say "Okay, the Civil Rights folks won, we'll instantly stop being racist/sexist/etc?"

Therefore, it's very ignorant to place primacy on merit, because it only benefits those who have the most benefit in this society, rather than those who are marginalized.

Also, the whole "reverse discrimination" thing is wrong on its face. It's fine for women to disdain men and blacks to disdain whites, because there is not a power structure in place to enforce their disdain, whereas males had damn well better love women and whites had damn well better love blacks because they DO have the power, i.e. patriarchy, and prejudice + power = racism.

Get it? Without power, prejudice can't really do much. That's Feminism 101. Oh, so some girl hurt your feelings by commiserating with her girlfriends about how men suck? Or some black guy offended you by talking about how whites are still keeping blacks down? Too bad, they get to, case closed, that's final.

Examine yourselves, men. How much of your desire for 'merit' is really a desire to keep women down?

...

Just kidding, merit should always be the deciding factor, bigotry is bigotry whoever does it, etc.

......HOLY SHIT! That was a scary post I was reading up until the end XD

Well played sir well played. I'd tip my hat to you, but then I'd have to kill you

 

[Laser Priest]

There's no such thing as reverse discrimination. There's simply putting someone above someone else because of one aspect about them. It's discrimination no matter which way it goes.

And I don't think it's fair, but if they're identical in every other way, it must come down to such a thing eventually.

 

[AMAZED]

Of course it isn't right to discriminate why are we even talking about this.

 

[senobit]

First I agree with discrimination is discrimination no matter which way it goes.

But this bloke might just be arsehole and it came across in his interview, people can gain experience and knowledge but twats tend to stay twats.

 

[Princess Rose]

*snip*

First of all, I say your logic is bad because you aren't actually arguing any points.

I have argued Ethical issues (equalizing the playing field for women and minorities) and Logical issues (better working environment).

Your argument has been so far "it's not right".

That's not an argument - it's a premise. That's a fine starting point, but you haven't backed up what you have to say at all. You just keep saying it isn't right over and over again. That's not argument - that's whining like a petulant child. If you want discuss the pros and cons like rational adults, I'm willing - but so long as people argue like children, I will treat them like such.

Also... I lack ethics? That one of the strangest insults I have ever heard. You could say I was being unethical, although I'm not sure how - I haven't violated any ethical code by speaking my mind. You might disagree with my ethical standpoint, but that does not mean I lack one.

 

[funguy2121]

What do you think of that situation :

I just finish a diploma to be an IT technician. In the company I work for, there was a opening for that, so I apply. We were two that asked for the job, and I got it. Last week I was moving my stuff to my new desk and the guy that I was in competition for the job with told me: "it's just because you're a girl, otherwise I would had the job".

My first reaction was to think, ok he's pissed off because I get the job, but after talking a bit with my coworkers and my boss, it turns out that he was right. I've got the knowledge to get that job and my boss tell me he's sure that I will be good at it, but the other guy have more experience than me, and the final decision was indeed make to put a girl in the IT department because there was none before, and that they wanted to show that they promote diversity in all the company departments.

Now I'm a bit furious because I don't know if my coworkers think i'm a good tech or if I'm just that girl that get the job because I'm a girl.

Do you think it's acceptable to use gender or race to determine who will get a job between two persons roughly equal otherwise ?

An interesting perspective from the person who was not discriminated against, you pointed out everything wrong with this kind of thinking in human resources. This is one reason I like working in medicine. Though it's not true at all for the doctors - in their line of work sexism is alive and well - in all of the other areas, while sexual politics and discrimination and entitlement, and what my late grandfather used to refer to as drones, exist, there are substantially less of them. This is what you get when you hire a girl just because you want a girl. When you hire a woman because she's qualified, you get a qualified employee.

I'm not sure how it would benefit you to blow the whistle on this. If you can find a way to make it work for you, go for it. Otherwise, if you choose to do it anyway, without reaping any benefit, then you deserve my respect.

 

[Yopaz]

You got less experience, thus he can get away with paying you less and be more sure that you will stay with that company for a while. The more experienced guy is more inclined to demand higher salary and is more likely to get better offers.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I have to mention again I HATE escapist quoting. Gah!

No. If you honestly want to keep that up, we're going to be discriminating for a million years. And frankly, why the fuck should I (a white male) be discriminated against because my white male great great great great great grandfather discriminated against a black woman? Take it up with him, not me, or I'm going to become very angry because you are now accusing me of something I didn't do. Punishing me for what my ancestors (different people than me, I'll remind you) may have done is disgusting and one of the only true forms of evil in the world.

I'm not accusing you and in the long run I'm not even punishing you. It's worth noting however that black men are STILL paying for those actions. They are still poor and in the south by and large. It would be different if each generation started off at or near zero and merit was the primary method by which wealth is gained but it's not.

By your logic, paying reparations to descendents of slaves is acceptable. People who may very well have done absolutely nothing with their lives getting money because some other people two hundred years ago were enslaved.[/quote]

Only one hundred and fifty years for starters but no reparations at this point would do more harm than good. Teaching a man to fish is better than giving him fish and all where as at the time it made perfect sense. If blacks right then had been given land for farms and been left to their own devices instead of in many cases returning to the same plantations to work as free men who were only superficially better off than before was different. Not to mention we spent a lot of time and money getting the whites in the south back on their feet via Reconstruction. But it's a long since gone thing that I rarely see brought up in any case other than LOOK this is silly!

And while this is true, it is also true that human beings are (or at least have the potential to be) reasonable, rational creatures. We may be wired to associate with our own race, but that doesn't mean we have to be racist.

It means we always will be though. It's not even irrational because our races tend to have their own cultures that go hand and hand with them. It's not irrational, it's not unreasonable and it's not necessarily bad.

That said you're trying to make a different point. You're point being that it should be a merit based society I'm claiming it's not and never will be, we'll talk past each other for years if we keep on that road so I suggest a side point.

A lot of this is dependent on what kinds of jobs are we talking about for starters. IT seems to be a job that rewards creative solutions to your problems. A bunch of white males with similar backgrounds (as is likely in a given geographic area) are going to have the same perspectives and the same solutions. Diversity brings new perspectives and new experiences into the workplace. Now the fact that you have to force this frankly sucks.

It's funny, you're accusing me of wanting to live in a world free of discrimination as if that were a bad thing...

But onto your argument: poverty =/= race. Nowhere did I suggest we should not help the poor. What I'm suggesting is that if we're going to help the poor (or anything else), we look at that person's income and standard of living. You know, things that are, you know, relevant?

It's just like discrimination from car insurance companies. "Well, a lot of other males have gotten into accidents, so we're going to charge you more because you're more likely to be involved in an accident." Right there, they're assuming that because I'm male, I'm going to get in an accident, and congratulations, they're now all sexist fuckwads.

In the same way, if you look at a black or Hispanic person and just assume they're poor, now you're the racist one.

Also I'd love to live in a world free of "discrimination" but I'm a realist. Nothing in the history of humanity suggests that we will ever get beyond it. Even if we do it's gonna be a long time coming.

They aren't sexist. They've done the math and decided that you're a greater risk than a woman of the same age. Even if it sexist it's cus it's true. They are in this to make money not to coddle your feelings. I'm not assuming that black or hispanic is poor. I'm looking at the stats and saying if something benefits either of those groups it helps against poverty because they are by and large the people making up those groups.

Now we could make it about class and make the aim far broader but the mere existance of the Republican party is kinda proof that Southern Whites are perfectly willing to remain poor as long as they don't help minorities get less poor. It sucks but there it is.[/quote]

There are three ways: the two you proposed, and the third option of disregarding race, sex, etc., and considering only things about the individual that are relevant to what it is you're trying to determine. Qualifications for jobs, income level for poverty, the individual's risk (not the group's risk) for insurance, etc. Anything else doesn't even add up logically.

You can't do that. For starters qualifications is a word that ultimately means nothing. If I hire a friend because I like him and his sole qualification is I like having him around and he makes me happy then guess what? He's qualified. If I hire a pretty girl because she raises morale or fire my very best most qualified worker because he lowers morale in the office by making everybody else feel inadequate then guess what? He's not qualified.

Income levels for poverty would work. I've got no problem there but you're never gonna sell it to the right so no point in trying. Besides in much of the country it would ultimately come out the same way with the same people bitching. "Why should I a white middle class male be discriminated against because my parents make more than 50k a year?" You'd simply add on the ending and keep bitching.

There is no way to know an individuals risk. It's a gamble. What would I look at? Do you drink? For starters you'd lie but if you don't drink and drive that's irrelevant. Where you live? I mean some neighborhoods are more likely for you to get your car stolen, or hit and run, or vandalized none of which have anything to do with you. By what method would you figure out an individuals risk anyway? An interview, a questionnaire? It sounds good in theory but it's not practical.

 

[Princess Rose]

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.