Positive Discrimination

[Govinda]

I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but listen.

Recently, ideas have been floating around the British government that amount to something they're calling positive discrimination. This basically means that employers will be encouraged to put the fit and healthy white male at the back of the line if there is a job where all applicants have equally fitting experience/qualifications, or in a job where no qualifications or experience are required.

They say that this is a drive to make the UK a better place for everyone. As far as the House of Lords is concerned, this little thing is going to sink.

But the principle remains, and that's what I'd like to ask you: in a multicultural society, should something called positive discrimination be considered to level, in one way, the playing field? Or is it just the government being racist against its own people?

Is thet disadvantaged Polish person more deserving of a job than a fit native? But, moreover, can discrimination ever be called positive?

[InfiniteRealms]

This reminds me slghtly of what I heard on the news about the government discussing plans to actually pay companies to employ criminals (after their jail sentence), so that they do not need to steal or resort to crime.

I find that they are being somewhat discrimating to whites. The british government are tryign so hard to make minority ethics feel welcome and abolish rascism that they are neglecting the people that should matter to them more, as their own people.
They should not base it on the colour nor creed of the person as to wether they hire them or not in these circumstances, but their personality and how they feel they will do in the job.

On the other hand, I am not fully researched in matters like this, not being old enough to get a proper job, but this is based on what I have seen or know.

[Koda]

I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but listen.

Recently, ideas have been floating around the British government that amount to something they're calling positive discrimination. This basically means that employers will be encouraged to put the fit and healthy white male at the back of the line if there is a job where all applicants have equally fitting experience/qualifications, or in a job where no qualifications or experience are required.

Here in the States, that is how it is suppose to work. Those that have the experience and/or qualifications are the ones that get the job. It doesn't matter how fit or healthy they are, it's all based on their ability and mentality to do the job.

But the principle remains, and that's what I'd like to ask you: in a multicultural society, should something called positive discrimination be considered to level, in one way, the playing field? Or is it just the government being racist against its own people?

Is thet disadvantaged Polish person more deserving of a job than a fit native? But, moreover, can discrimination ever be called positive?

We have MANY different cultures here, from every walk of life around the world. And yes, many of us would argue that a native from our own country should get the job first...however, whatever the job may be, it comes down to who is more capable of doing the job well. Who has the education or degree that is required for the job. Who has the past experience and/or knowledge of the job.

I work in Human Resources, and I'll be the first one to tell you that just because you may be a native, doesn't mean you are the best candidate for the job. We have several people at my place of work from other countries, and some of them are the best workers we have. Some have never missed a days work in 9 years, never late, and rarely complain about anything. And then on the other side of the coin, we have our own native workers who do nothing but complain, call off of work a lot, disrespect their supervisors, and will sue anyone at the drop of a hat. So I don't care where you are from.. as long as you are here legally and have the requirements needed to do the job, are dependable and don't whine about everything....You're Hired!

[Meier Link]

Positive Discrimination almost sounds like racism against a govements own people, and that sounds rediculous. But and as Koda said here in the states that is a big no no.
I don't see a point in it if the members of the natives are getting screwed in the long run, it doesn't seem like a logical choice for a government to make either.

Discrimination how ever you put it is not a good thing, if it is intended for the use of good or as the opposite, because someone is going to be offended in one way or another. Now a good policy of equality sounds like a better deal, not to shove the nationals off to the back of the line but to give everyone a fair chance at the position would be the best way to go about things.

Like Koda we have alot of imagrants where I work and some of them are great workers and on the other hand some of our natives are great too. U.S.'s EEOC policy may be flawed but it still is a great system that seems to work out in most situations. Now given that the buddy system still exsists, as it does in all countries of the world, 9/10 times the job goes to the best person for that position.

[Koda]

Like Koda we have alot of imagrants where I work and some of them are great workers and on the other hand some of our natives are great too. U.S.'s EEOC policy may be flawed but it still is a great system that seems to work out in most situations. Now given that the buddy system still exsists, as it does in all countries of the world, 9/10 times the job goes to the best person for that position.

Yes I did forget to mention that we do also have some great native workers as well. As Crimson Sorrow said, here in the States, discrimination is a huge no no. It not only leads to problems between employee's in the work place, but it also leads to lengthy lawsuits that can be extremely expensive to the company owners. And really, there is no reason for discrimination against anyone. As long as you are qualified to do the job and do the job well, your race, gender, or beliefs should have no bearing on whether or not you are hired. Qualifications and dependability are the top two priorities.

[Dan558]

Double standards seem to be the way that "equality" is going these days. I don't like it and although I am all for equality This is the wrong way to go about it. Positive discrimination is discrimination, Plain and simple. I'm sure that some minorities would agree with me too. To me its the same as "Positive" stereotypes like "all Asians are extremely good at math". If you see a problem with that then you should surely see the problem with the "Positive" discrimination that is described above.

[Sasquatch]

We have "positive discrimination" here in America, also known as "reverse racism" (as if there's anything positive about discrimination, or if racism isn't "real" racism if it's against whites), but the program that puts it into action is Affirmative Action. It grants special rights to minorities, which we all know would be oh-so-bad if it happened to white men.

Affirmative Action's most well-known roles are in employment and college admission.

In the college admission system, obviously, there are certain requirements. Of course, nobody would get away with letting a complete imbecile into college because of their skin color, but that doesn't mean the requirements aren't weakened for some "special" people. Many places assign "points" to specific traits. If you have a good GPA, you get a certain number of points. If you score well on the ACT, you get a certain number of points. If you score well on the SAT, you get a certain number of points. If you take part in X, Y, or Z extracurricular activites, you get a certain number of points.

If your skin is X, Y, or Z color -- but not W color -- you get a certain number of points.

In theory -- and in theory only -- the only way it would make a difference is if Person A, who is one color, has the exact same qualifications as Person B, who is a different color, or perhaps a different gender. In practice, however, colleges are forced to admit less-qualified applicants because of the threat of lawsuit.

The same thing happens to employers. Forced to consider minorities "more qualified" because they're minorities.

Some Affirmative Action advocates -- namely, Jesse Jackson -- have even had the gall to threaten private businesses if their payroll doesn't reflect the population of the area. In other words, if I have a store that employs 100 people, in an area that's 20% black, twenty of those employees had better be black, or Jesse Jackson will try to shut my store down.

[Pete]

I think it's a load of crap. If you take the test (as almost all civil service tests are) and do better than the other applicants, then you should be given the job. Take firefighters for example, if there are 20 vacancies, and the 20 top scores are whites, then they get the jobs. If it's 20 blacks, then they get the jobs. It shouldn't be based on race or ethnicity, but rather performance. I don't want some 400lb fatass minority huffing and puffing as they run up the stairs with fire hose to take sweet time as my house is burning down, JUST because he had to be given a position to fill some quota. Not in a job where lives are on the line.

True story, my friend and I wanted to see if selecting a race actually did make a difference on state tests. NY has a mandatory 8th grade reading and writing test, as well as math. We made sure to fill out everything exactly the same (we took some liberties here, but it was so retardedly easy that we both aced it anyway). He got a 98 while I got a 92, simply because he selected that he was Hispanic, while I told the truth and said I was white. He's also white. Makes you think just a little bit.

[Furore]

I don't know about my own government or any other, but I do know here in Australia, that some companies will encourage the hiring of 'minorities' here so they can seem to be 'equal opportunity employers' (or some crappy title along those lines).

It's technically against the law here to discriminate on most grounds, but there are cases where it's either legal to discriminate or it's just done regardless because of that the job entails. Legally, there are cases where the government can hire indigenous people only for positions concerning other indigenous people, and the type that's done regardless can includes jobs such as ladies' clothing fitting and the like, where one gender just isn't as suited. But then I believe that a person could take a company to court over such a thing if they really wanted to. Trouble is, it'd likely get laughed right out of there.

[Alpha]

Funny I should come across this thread. In New Zealand at the moment there is a suggested piece of legislation put forward by the co-leader or the Maori Party, Pita Sharples (Maori are the indigenous people, making about 10% of the population). The legislation suggests that University Entrance (UE) requirements be scrapped for Maori students. This has been labelled 'positive discrimination' or 'reverse racism', or just plain racism. However, I believe such initiates actually have merit, and I'll explain why by giving a hypothetical (but realistic) example.

A Maori student goes to a school with a low decile (decile rankings are based on the average income of pupils parents). Minorities tend to be less well of than the white majorities, something which I'm fairly confident is the case overseas. Lower decile schools can charge parents less, as parents have less money, and the decile system is in place to ensure equitable access to education. However, it is clear that higher decile schools do better than lower decile schools. Simply, rich schools produce smarter children than poorer schools, based on the different resources schools have to offer. Thus, it is easier for a rich student to gain UE qualifications than for a poor student. This means more white students are university-qualified than minority groups. This is what I call indirect racism (no idea if it's a real term, but I use it when defending my stance on this issue, which only 4% of people in my country support, apparently). Indirect racism operates like this: if a white student is more likely to be rich, then they are more likely to go to a high-decile school, and thus have a greater level of achievement than poorer students. By going to university, the students in question are more likely to earn a higher income and send their (white) offspring to high decile schools. See where this goes? It maintains a status quo where minorites are disadvantaged. By dropping UE requirements for Maori, Sharples postulates that this cycle can be broken. Maori students will be able to access tertiary education, and hopefully pass so that there will be a generation of educated Maori parents, who can foster educational achievement in their own children. This would appear to be to the benefit of the country as a whole, right?

Critics say that it disadvantages white people. But if white people are already advantaged in the current situation, then aren't things more equal now?

Please, someone prove me wrong. I feel I'm missing something if only 4% of NZers agree with me (surely that means even most Maori don't want the scheme?).

[Furore]

Please, someone prove me wrong. I feel I'm missing something if only 4% of NZers agree with me (surely that means even most Maori don't want the scheme?).

What you've said does have some merit but I do see one very big, very real flaw. Ask yourself if double standards in this instance would actually be an equaliser. As I'm seeing it, whether or not the scheme passes, the minority and majority won't be on the same footing. I'd recommend something like scholarships for Maoris so they can get a higher quality of education if they desire it, but even that likely wouldn't make things equal.

Personally I feel like a person should just do the best with what they have. Life's dealt me lemons a lot of the time through life, but I made them into lemonade, sold the lemonade and then I bought some premium grog. Things will never be completely fair and for everyone that has a better life than me, hundreds may have a poorer life. In the end it's just the cards you've been dealt and like in poker, you can still win a game even if you got a shit hand to start with. Or not, but that's life.

[OceanEyes28]

White people complaining about racism is really funny to me. White males complaining about being at a disadvantage is even funnier.

In this society, white males especially, you do still have the advantage. You seriously do. Don't worry.

Imagine yourself the only white person in a workplace of all black people. Not only that, but they resent that you got the job and think it's only because of Affirmative Action, because you're the minority in this imaginary country. That's pretty uncomfortable. And that's what a lot of minorities feel all the time.

I'm not saying whites should be discriminated against because of that, but I do think we need to realize and admit that we do still have an advantage over minorities in this country (USA). And I don't think anyone in a minority with any kind of pride would want to be coddled and told "Well, you couldn't be where you are if we didn't help you." That's also pretty racist.

And I agree that hiring people should be about anything other than race and gender. Performance, experience, people skills, you name it. However:

Indirect racism operates like this: if a white student is more likely to be rich, then they are more likely to go to a high-decile school, and thus have a greater level of achievement than poorer students. By going to university, the students in question are more likely to earn a higher income and send their (white) offspring to high decile schools. See where this goes? It maintains a status quo where minorites are disadvantaged. By dropping UE requirements for Maori, Sharples postulates that this cycle can be broken. Maori students will be able to access tertiary education, and hopefully pass so that there will be a generation of educated Maori parents, who can foster educational achievement in their own children. This would appear to be to the benefit of the country as a whole, right?

Critics say that it disadvantages white people. But if white people are already advantaged in the current situation, then aren't things more equal now?

Exactly.

[RagnaToad]

That is simply a ridiculous action.

Overcompensation never helped out anyone.

There's nothing more to say.

[Alpha]

What you've said does have some merit but I do see one very big, very real flaw. Ask yourself if double standards in this instance would actually be an equaliser. As I'm seeing it, whether or not the scheme passes, the minority and majority won't be on the same footing. I'd recommend something like scholarships for Maoris so they can get a higher quality of education if they desire it, but even that likely wouldn't make things equal.

There are so many scholarships fro minorities that it hurts. I'd say I was averagely well-off. I earned three scholarships going to university, one of $4000 and two of $500. These completely cover my first year's tuition. I was going to apply for a $2000 scholarship for 2nd year, but in the budget cuts due to the recession, this scholarship was cut. I looked through all 84 scholarships I could find, and they ALL had lines stating that it had to be someone with financial hardship, a woman, or a racial minority. Yeah, that pisses me off, but the world is full of generalisations. In general, white males are better off. I don't think there's a country in the Western world that does not have this indicated in income statistics.

Personally I feel like a person should just do the best with what they have. Life's dealt me lemons a lot of the time through life, but I made them into lemonade, sold the lemonade and then I bought some premium grog. Things will never be completely fair and for everyone that has a better life than me, hundreds may have a poorer life. In the end it's just the cards you've been dealt and like in poker, you can still win a game even if you got a shit hand to start with. Or not, but that's life.

If life dealt your whole race twice as much lemons than the other races, and you lacked the means to make said lemonade, then someone aught to help you change that. Nothing will change if the lemon-throwers continue to be white males (of which I am one), and the lemon-receivers continue to be the disenfranchised. If we help the lemon-receivers, maybe one day no one will be throwing lemons, and we can just get on with the ****ing lemonade!

Sometimes I wish people presented me with less silly metaphors to work with.

[Furore]

If life dealt your whole race twice as much lemons than the other races, and you lacked the means to make said lemonade, then someone aught to help you change that. Nothing will change if the lemon-throwers continue to be white males (of which I am one), and the lemon-receivers continue to be the disenfranchised. If we help the lemon-receivers, maybe one day no one will be throwing lemons, and we can just get on with the ****ing lemonade!

Sometimes I wish people presented me with less silly metaphors to work with.

Yeah but it hasn't. And if I'm one of those of my race who has received twice the lemons, I still won't recieve the recognition the race full of lemon recievers gained.

Lemons to lemonade? I'll use my own ass as an example. Life was pretty sweet until around about 4 or 5 when my dad had a motorbike accident and had to get both his hip and shoulder replaced. Bye, bye decent supervisor job and hello poverty. Did I mention I started to become very resentful from this point, especially when seeing the other parent spending a lot of the reduced income on random crap we didn't need? Not as a high a priority as food to me I'm afraid. I had to deal with seeing the other kids having what I couldn't, deal with having lower test results not due to level of intellect but the fad of parents hiring special tutors who know the curriculum overly well to pretty much give my rivals their answers. High school was much the same, though I did get a cheap mobile phone and a few other things with the money I made doing construction work and other money making activities at night and on the occasional weekend. Meant I wasn't always awake in class, but hey, money is money. And money was certainly needed around when I turned 16 and my parents started charging me rent. They can legally kick you out of home at that age here. Awesome, no? Oh yeah, did I mention I have a few neurological conditions and went mainstream as specialised education costs a ton? Yeah, I dug into the tests and beat half the other kids anyway. Hooray for not giving a damn for any restrictions, aye?

After school I sought work as I felt a major need to make money to secure my future. Most places wouldn't hire me as my size is fairly imposing and I look somewhat thuggish and I lacked any real experience. I got odd jobs, but nothing concrete and ended up volunteering at a charity op shop to give me something to do in the meantime as well as add some experience to my resume. I got several qualifications during this time such as security, senior first aid and things like that. Already had my Occupational Health and Safety from working construction during my highschool years.

Then my work well and truly paid off this year. I scored a highly paid full time security job that nets me quite a large sum every week and now I can have pretty much anything I want. As a bonus, my thuggish looks which ****ed with me when trying to find other occupations intimidate some of the people most other guards would have had to deal with. Ace.

There's my life story. And there are likely thousands if not millions with similar backgrounds. Some too make something of themselves even if other easier though less legal means make themselves available to the people.

For the record, white boys like me weren't offered a single scholarship, often we seem to be seen as loose powder kegs by most institutions in general, especially when we do manage to accumulate a level of power through some means. And I know from security profiling that it's those from backgrounds like mine who have the highest rate of committing theft and vandalism due to the lemons chucked our way.

I agree that some entire races might be worse off than certain others and some action might be beneficial as an equaliser, but it would have to be carefully worked out. What I don't agree with is people not seeing the problems elsewhere. And you know in Australia, we have minority groups as well but most are hired on their ability. I don't think there's any two guards of the same ethnicity working for my boss which is pretty cool, especially when chatting about random stuff - there are a fair few differences and you can learn some cool shit.

Sometimes I wish people had a better view of the whole picture, it ain't just people of one race suffering and on the flipside, often some members of that one race aren't suffering even if most are.

[Alpha]

Sometimes I wish people had a better view of the whole picture, it ain't just people of one race suffering and on the flipside, often some members of that one race aren't suffering even if most are.

I'm not going to pass comment on your particulars as that's just not my place. However, you do have to agree that in general there are groups that we can identify on the basis of skin colour, gender, etc. that are not as well off, and could use assistance. That's why I support 'positive discrimination' in practice. But maybe a better measure than race is income? Not all white males live in mansions, and not all black females live on the street. But there are groups and individuals that are disadvantaged, and could be helped. They don't always need it: you're an example of that. But there are more in your situation I think positive discrimination can help.

[Zargabaath]

In this world today people claim that they want to end racism, sexism, and the like. These people who speak out about, who believe it still plays a dominant role in people's judgment tend to be of the liberal lot. I'll get this out of the way early. There are people who will maintain the brutish view of humanity no matter what. I disagree vehemently with this view, I find it wrong on a number of reasons, however, in a free society, which so many claim to support, the freedom of thoughts, views, or ideas is allowed. People may not like people have racist or sexist views but in a free society they have the freedom and right to believe in what they wish. If you don't support the previous sentence then you truly don't want a free society but for people to be controlled- enslaved.

Back to those pursuing the end of racism, sexism, etc. Their goal is for people NOT to look at others and treat them differently because of race, sex, ethnicity, religion, etc. Their goal is for people to look pass those characteristics, to see the person beyond. This idea of Positive Discrimination or Affirmitve Action in the states that these people who want to end these negative views does the exact opposite. It emphasizes race, sex, ethnicity, culture, religion, etc. The employer now must take into consideration these characteristics and in the U.S may get into trouble by the ACLU or NAACP for not hiring or accepting "minorities" to their company or college. Supporters say this is "evening" the field for past wrongs. Supporting these programs reveals the hypocrisy of these people- they want to end racism, sexism, etc but support programs that makes others base their decisions on the exact same characteristics! They are not ending these views but are perpetuating them instead. No matter the consequence supporting racism, sexism, etc is believing in the most primitive form of collectivism, ignorant, and irrational. Giving a group of people special or unfair treatment because of genetic lineage, cultural or religious beliefs, etc. is irrational.

Now I'll look at one of their justifications I had put in the previous paragraph, "evening the field for past wrongs". What these people are saying is menacing- that the crimes of a person's ancestors are passed on and can pass judgment on their descendants. That an ancestors actions are the actions of the individual, that the individual's actions are inconsequential. That the punishment can be given to the individual whose ancestor commited a crime, that they (the individual) did not commit. This view is another brutish, primitive form of collectivism that was prevalent in ancient China, Japan, and Oriental Asia in general though I'm not entirely sure about the last one. A family member commits a crime it would be shame and dishonor to the entire family, their ancestors, and descendants yet they did not do anything wrong. The only person that can be punished for a crime is the perpetrator, not his children, wife, sisters, brothers, mom, dad, friend, or descendants (I didn't include ancestors because you can't really punish the dead). And the only person that can be given justice was the person the crime was commited against. Their ancestors have no title to any reperations.

These people "fight for minorities" to make their life easier and to repay wrongs against their ancestors that the minorities have no right to claim. The truth is these advocateds do not fight for minorities. The smallest minority is the individual- not a group of people that share a common characteristic. An individual is made up by one person. A group consists of at least 2 or more people. Which is smaller? The individual. Yet what they fight for infringes on the rights of individuals. A group does not have any rights only individuals; a group, society, or mankind is not an entity or an organism. The only rights a group has are the rights of the individual members it consists of. By assigning rights to a group that says that some people are more important than others and that other people's rights can be broken for others. That is not how a free society operates; everyone's rights must be upheld and respected in a free society. Otherwise it is not freedom that you support but oppression to those who are deemed insignificant by some group that has no authority to violate the rights of others- no one does. Inalienable rights are rights that may not be taken away, suspended, infringed, restricted, or violated for any reason. There is no such thing as "semi-inalienable" rights.

What rights do people have? The Right to Life; all other rights are its consequences or corollaries. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action and the right to life means the right to engage in these. This translates to the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the futherance, the fulfillment, and the enjoyment of their own life. The concept of right pertains only to action- the freedom of action. There is no right to goods of services. No one is morally entitled to the services of anyone without having to be concerned over who made them possible and the cost. Thinking otherwise admits that some people can be forced to provide to others who can not offer value in return; there is a word for this transaction- slavery.

In a free society, where government protects the rights of its citizens and does not interfere with the rights of the people. People have the right to discriminate. I'll explain. If a person owns a business and does not want any athiests working for them then they have the right to deny them the job for they own the business- not the government, society, a group, mankind, or God or gods. They have the right to pursue in owning a business, to set whatever policies they wish for the company. The person seeking employment only has the right to look for a job, they do not have the guarantee to a job- only the action to acquire one. I do not support discrimination but I do support the freedom of ideas, the right to private ownership, the right to life, liberty, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. There is no guarantee to happiness. Only the right to pursue happiness.

One concept that is a gross error in thinking is "reverse racism"; I understand the concept but it is wrong to say that a white or the majority being discriminated by someone is a "different" form of racism. There is only one type of racism, where a person is discriminated based upon the color of their skin; the color of their skin does not determine what type of racism it is. It is a concept I'm trying to destroy for it is just as grievous an error as democracy equating to freedom. Democracy is the rule of the majority, which does not protect the rights of all people, just the rights of the majority. Only a limited-constitutional republic can ensure that the rights of everyone are insured. To use this anti-concept is to obliterate the importance of the discrimination of whites or the majority; it makes it some fairy tale, an urban legend that some will say it exists but proponents of ending racism will discredit. A prime example of a person trying to descredit white discrimination is Bill Maher, who I find to be a dolt and is putting up a facade by calling himself a Libertarian. He was on Hardball recently and Chris Matthews and Bill Maher were talking about the Sotomayer hearings- about her racist comments. Bill went on to say, "white men are insensed(?) about reverse racism and Sotomayer. And you know Chris, for too long Puerto Rican woman have had their boot on the neck of white men in America." Earlier in the conversation when talking about his comedy tour in "red" states he demeans those of an opposing view as hillbillies, real mature from an imbecile. There are two errors in Bill's thinking: 1)That it takes a large span of time for racism against you to be relevant, otherwise you are just complaining. It only takes the instance that racism is enacted for it to be abhorrant, not decades or centuries. Their does not need to be a history of racism for racism to matter; 2) that reverse racism is a silly a notion and the whites, more spefically white men are whining over; racism does not matter about the color of your skin for it to present. Racism is racism.

All discrimination is bad for it puts irrationality into the minds of people. Reason is abonded, people are fearful that special groups, that are only looking out for themselves and the people they represent, not caring about the rights of others will accuse them of "x" and demonize them. A person who truly tried to end the discrimination, Martin Luther King Jr., not the charltans Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Obama (he supports affirmitve action), said in his famous speech "I Have A Dream": I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character! Positive Discrimination and Affirmitive Action go against this dream, supporters are racists, sexists, etc in disguise. They wish for the rights of others to be sacrificed. They are oppressors, boorish, and shallow people who try to hide behind sincereness.

[RagnaToad]

I've always resented stuff like that. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. It's like those ideas of making companies hire a minimum amount of female employees. That's just bullocks. If society is equally balanced, women will have as much opportunities to get a certain job as men, no need to force companies intosituations where they're obliged to hire perhaps less qualified people because they're a woman. Although the qualifying bit isn't really applicable to warehouse jobs etc.

So yeah, positive discrimination like that is ridiculous. I thought everyone knéw that 'positive discrimination' like the kind Govinda is describing does not much good... I guess not.

I'm not going to pass comment on your particulars as that's just not my place. However, you do have to agree that in general there are groups that we can identify on the basis of skin colour, gender, etc. that are not as well off, and could use assistance. That's why I support 'positive discrimination' in practice. But maybe a better measure than race is income? Not all white males live in mansions, and not all black females live on the street. But there are groups and individuals that are disadvantaged, and could be helped. They don't always need it: you're an example of that. But there are more in your situation I think positive discrimination can help.

You're kind of contradicting yourself somewhere, but I get what you're saying and I agree.

On one hand you want to be able to generalise poor people by one common feature, but on the other hand you propose to use income as a basis for positive discrimination.

In the latter case, it might actually work. But aiming at particular groups, just because they are part of a group that 'usually' has more trouble getting around, that's just wrong.

This reminds me of a scene in The Office (UK) where David doesn't fire the midget working in their warehouse, but a 'regular' guy, even though the midget can't work as well as the regular guy. The guy even asks him 'Is this positive discrimination?'.

Granted, it's a comedy show, but to the point nontheless.

[Alpha]

I've always resented stuff like that. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. It's like those ideas of making companies hire a minimum amount of female employees. That's just bullocks. If society is equally balanced, women will have as much opportunities to get a certain job as men, no need to force companies intosituations where they're obliged to hire perhaps less qualified people because they're a woman. Although the qualifying bit isn't really applicable to warehouse jobs etc.

So yeah, positive discrimination like that is ridiculous. I thought everyone knéw that 'positive discrimination' like the kind Govinda is describing does not much good... I guess not.

Rags, Rags, Rags. I'd hoped better of you . You are describing an idealised world where discrimination does not exist. Well, IT DOES. Women in New Zealand receive, on average, 82% of what men earn for a similar wage. There's a protest atm whereby people are crossing out the "$10" figure on $10 notes and replacing them with "$8.20". That's a pay gap, and employmennt figures are also subject to such a discrepancy. The same goes for minority communities, and, while I have no figure ready, I can be reasonably sure that this occurs EVERYWHERE to a greater or lesser extent.

If doing nothing isn't going to fix it, then positive discrimination is unbelievably equitable (and left-wing, mind you, which is why I'm so surprised).

You're kind of contradicting yourself somewhere, but I get what you're saying and I agree.

On one hand you want to be able to generalise poor people by one common feature, but on the other hand you propose to use income as a basis for positive discrimination.

In the latter case, it might actually work. But aiming at particular groups, just because they are part of a group that 'usually' has more trouble getting around, that's just wrong.

It's wrong to assume that, more often than not, minorities and women are subject to employment discrepancies? I suggested income as a method of identifying such people, because race is such a touchy subject. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I'm open to compromise.

This reminds me of a scene in The Office (UK) where David doesn't fire the midget working in their warehouse, but a 'regular' guy, even though the midget can't work as well as the regular guy. The guy even asks him 'Is this positive discrimination?'.

Granted, it's a comedy show, but to the point nontheless.

This depends on how you look at it. Picture it like this: the little person has a harder time finding work, and probably gets paid less when he does find work. The 'normal' person has an easier time finding work, and gets paid more when he has it (ON AVERAGE). If you are an egalitarian, who would you lay off if one had to be fired? Sure, if you are a greedy capitalist solely concerned about productivity, then you would fire the little man. Who would then receive less redundancy money and have a longer period before finding paid employment. And even when (if?) he finds a new job, he'll likely get paid less than the normal height man if he had been fired.

Is Rags there?

[RagnaToad]

Rags, Rags, Rags. I'd hoped better of you . You are describing an idealised world where discrimination does not exist. Well, IT DOES. Women in New Zealand receive, on average, 82% of what men earn for a similar wage. There's a protest atm whereby people are crossing out the "$10" figure on $10 notes and replacing them with "$8.20". That's a pay gap, and employmennt figures are also subject to such a discrepancy. The same goes for minority communities, and, while I have no figure ready, I can be reasonably sure that this occurs EVERYWHERE to a greater or lesser extent.

Do you mean women get paid less for doing the same job?

Or are you talking about the average of all women together being lower than the average wage of all men together? Cause that is both random and irrelevant...

And I'm not denying that a lot of specific (ethnic) groups have a common thread of poverty. I meant that it is sometimes easy for a government to just simplify things and ratify some law in favour of all things foreign.

Like I said, I like your idea of basing it on individual income. That's how most things are done around here (read: Belgium).

[Sasquatch]

You are describing an idealised world where discrimination does not exist. Well, IT DOES.

Differences do not always equate to discrimination, mind you.

Women in New Zealand receive, on average, 82% of what men earn for a similar wage.

That's actually pretty common. And you could look at it two ways.

The first way to look at it would be to include every variable in your assessment. Why do women get paid less than men for the same job ... is it because employers are forced to give women maternity leave, for three to six months, when a woman gets pregnant -- and not forced to give the same time off for men? Is it because the mother of a child is more often called than the father when there is a health or discipline problem with that child? Is it because the mother of a child is more likely to stay home with the child when the child is too sick to go to school? Is it because the mother is more likely to handle the schooling, day care, health, doctoring, etc. etc. of their children, taking time into their work schedule? Is it because females are more likely to get into automobile accidents than are males? Is it because some females have cramps for a week out of every month that make them less effective at their jobs?

The second way to look at it would be to scream "discrimination!" while ignoring all of the factors.

The same goes for minority communities, and, while I have no figure ready, I can be reasonably sure that this occurs EVERYWHERE to a greater or lesser extent.

And, to some extent, occurs where white males aren't on top, too. Now, instead of just assuming that whoever runs that market is racist or sexist, it would only be logical to consider all of the other factors, possibly realizing that prejudice has absolutely nothing to do with it.

If doing nothing isn't going to fix it, then positive discrimination is unbelievably equitable (and left-wing, mind you, which is why I'm so surprised).

So you're saying that discrimination is wrong, so to fix it, we need to discriminate.

This depends on how you look at it. Picture it like this: the little person has a harder time finding work, and probably gets paid less when he does find work.

That's all theoretical -- if the little person does a job that he or she can do as well as a regular person, there should (and would) be no difference.

The issue with the little person isn't as clear-cut as it would be with a color or sex. For a physical job, the little person would not be able to perform the tasks as well as a regular person, and thus would logically be the first one to let go.

Sure, if you are a greedy capitalist solely concerned about productivity, then you would fire the little man.

What does it have to do with "greedy capitalists"? Anybody with an IQ higher than room temperature would choose the employee that works most efficiently.

That's the difference between conservatives and liberals in America. Conservatives think, while liberals feel. To liberals, it all depends on whether or not it FEELS right or wrong.

[RagnaToad]

That's the difference between conservatives and liberals in America. Conservatives think, while liberals feel. To liberals, it all depends on whether or not it FEELS right or wrong.

I can't believe it but I actually agree with Sasquatch on almost everything. Although some things could be more subtily described.

Anyway, the above quote is something I'm not sure what to think of.

Firstly, generalising is ridiculous. I could say things like Republicans have the guns, Democrats have reason, but I don't.

And secondly, the statement that liberals don't go by the laws but search the limits of right or wrong is súch an overused Republican mantra.

Liberals respect the prized second amendment as much as the next conservative, but aren't a total a-hole about it and don't use exceptional situations as an example of how those democrats don't respect the US constitution.

Cf. the situation 2 days ago, where a Republican with a visable gun was protesting near the area where Obama held his speech. Nobody did anything because the Republicans would give them shit and cry about the second amendment. Imagine a muslim American standing near Bush with a gun. He wouldn't be standing there for long.

Still, some good points you made there, Sasquatch.

[Alpha]

Or are you talking about the average of all women together being lower than the average wage of all men together? Cause that is both random and irrelevant...

I'm talking about that one, yes. And how is it irrelevant? Women are not a minority, but they are discriminated against. Why do you think we even have feminists?

That's actually pretty common. And you could look at it two ways.

The first way to look at it would be to include every variable in your assessment. Why do women get paid less than men for the same job ... is it because employers are forced to give women maternity leave, for three to six months, when a woman gets pregnant -- and not forced to give the same time off for men? Is it because the mother of a child is more often called than the father when there is a health or discipline problem with that child? Is it because the mother of a child is more likely to stay home with the child when the child is too sick to go to school? Is it because the mother is more likely to handle the schooling, day care, health, doctoring, etc. etc. of their children, taking time into their work schedule? Is it because females are more likely to get into automobile accidents than are males? Is it because some females have cramps for a week out of every month that make them less effective at their jobs?

The second way to look at it would be to scream "discrimination!" while ignoring all of the factors.

It's actually a highly advanced protest movement, and those variables have been considered. The 82% refers to a wage not a salary, so it is what one receives in an hour, for the same job (now that can be a bone of contention, as few jobs are exactly the same, but this needs to be forgiven; no one can analyse anything if you take that too rigidly). Same work per hour. Different return for labour within the same hour. Fact here, and I assume it is elsewhere. I heard that in Japan, a male and a female with the same qualifications take markedly different amounts of time to rise through the corporate ranks. I can't find it anywhere online and I don't remember the figures, so I'm asking for a bit of trust, but it was a gap of about 15 years. Complete college. Male gets to a certain position in five years (on average), females get to same position in 20 years (on average). Considering Japan's rate of reproduction, this cannot be put down solely to maternity. It is discrimination.

And, to some extent, occurs where white males aren't on top, too. Now, instead of just assuming that whoever runs that market is racist or sexist, it would only be logical to consider all of the other factors, possibly realizing that prejudice has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The example that springs to mind is Zimbabwe, so of course it happens against whites. And I'd advocate positive discrimination there too.

Prejudice has nothing to do with the fact that majorities are more likely to get jobs than minorities? I'd say it had a lot to do with it. If you say it is because of education, have you considered that education is discriminatory? Getting an education requires money. And money belongs to the powerful. This is usually in the hands of the majority (though this is not always the case: cf. Malaysia, where on average the minority Chinese control more wealth than the ethnic Malays. This has led to racial riots in the past). If something requires wealth, it is easy to conceive that it is discriminatory, though this relationship can be vague, I'll accept. But there's merit in it.

So you're saying that discrimination is wrong, so to fix it, we need to discriminate.

The system discriminates one way, so we discriminate the other way. Take off the negative connotations of 'discriminate' and read that sentence. It's a balancing act, and it will probably hurt some people, but it will help more people, who have been discriminated more, and for a longer period of time. In an ideal society this would not be necessary, but unfortunately it is.

That's all theoretical -- if the little person does a job that he or she can do as well as a regular person, there should (and would) be no difference.

Then why is there a proven gap between the races?

The issue with the little person isn't as clear-cut as it would be with a color or sex. For a physical job, the little person would not be able to perform the tasks as well as a regular person, and thus would logically be the first one to let go.

I'm unhappy with that example as well. Employment around physical attributes is different from race, where there are no physical disparities.

What does it have to do with "greedy capitalists"? Anybody with an IQ higher than room temperature would choose the employee that works most efficiently.

Someone with morals would stick up for the little guy, especially if the tall guy can easily find employment elsewhere. But yes, efficiency would decline. This is not the case with race; this issue is separate.

That's the difference between conservatives and liberals in America. Conservatives think, while liberals feel. To liberals, it all depends on whether or not it FEELS right or wrong.

And there's something wrong with that. I remember my lecturer saying "...and nobody wants to be called an idealist!" *class laughs* and I replied "Why? I want to be."

[Sasquatch]

Firstly, generalising is ridiculous. I could say things like Republicans have the guns, Democrats have reason, but I don't.

I didn't say Republicans and Democrats, I said conservatives and liberals. There's a huge difference, especially lately, with Republicans like McCain and Bush.

Hell, even Churchill is loosely quoted as saying that if a man isn't liberal at twenty years old, he has no heart, and if a man isn't conservative at forty years old, he has no brain.

And secondly, the statement that liberals don't go by the laws but search the limits of right or wrong is súch an overused Republican mantra.

When polled, the vast majority of Democratic voters would rather Supreme Court Justices rule on what they think is "fair" instead of what they believe to be Constitutional. You may think it's "an overused Republican mantra", but that doesn't make it false in the least bit.

Hell, how did Obama get elected? Hope.

Liberals respect the prized second amendment as much as the next conservative, but aren't a total a-hole about it and don't use exceptional situations as an example of how those democrats don't respect the US constitution.

Liberals respect the Second Amendment as much as conservatives do? Hahahahahahahahahahah. What "exceptional situations" have been used to show that liberals don't respect the United States Constitution? The common situations of liberals attacking Second Amendment rights, you mean?

Cf. the situation 2 days ago, where a Republican with a visable gun was protesting near the area where Obama held his speech. Nobody did anything because the Republicans would give them shit and cry about the second amendment.

And maybe because it was perfectly legal to openly carry a firearm in that area. I'd like to see a credible source for that story, of a protester openly carrying a firearm near Obama, if you would be so kind as to provide it for me.

Imagine a muslim American standing near Bush with a gun. He wouldn't be standing there for long.

So now you're assuming prejudice on the account of your opponents. Here's something for you to consider: If they're not doing anything illegal, nothing can legally be done to them. Whether they're Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic, Shinto, Pagan, Christian, or even Scientologist, they must be doing something illegal to have any sort of retribution. Which is why I support the woman in Westhampton, NY that was arrested for "trespassing" outside an Air National Guard base -- she was stupid, she was suspicious, but she wasn't doing anything illegal.

I'm talking about that one, yes. And how is it irrelevant? Women are not a minority, but they are discriminated against.

The total wage of all women compared to the total wage of all men would be irrelevant, seeing as women and men work in vastly different job fields. One would have to compare wages from the exact same job, and if there's a discrepancy, then raise the issue.

Why do you think we even have feminists?

The same reason we have the ACLU, the NAACP, and labor unions. While they were needed at a time, they have well outlived their usefulness, and now do nothing but bitch and moan and give their own cause a bad name.

I know I have more to respond to, and I'll get back to it later. More important things to do now. As always, it's a pleasure.

[OceanEyes28]

The first way to look at it would be to include every variable in your assessment. Why do women get paid less than men for the same job ... is it because employers are forced to give women maternity leave, for three to six months, when a woman gets pregnant -- and not forced to give the same time off for men? Is it because the mother of a child is more often called than the father when there is a health or discipline problem with that child? Is it because the mother of a child is more likely to stay home with the child when the child is too sick to go to school? Is it because the mother is more likely to handle the schooling, day care, health, doctoring, etc. etc. of their children, taking time into their work schedule? Is it because females are more likely to get into automobile accidents than are males? Is it because some females have cramps for a week out of every month that make them less effective at their jobs?

Assume we're not talking manual labor. It's work that can be done just as well by a woman as by a man. Women are trying to have their own careers, but they are still expected, in this society, to manage the children and the home. So, yes, women are often expected to stay home with a sick child or handle the family affairs. If a woman doesn't, she is a bad mother and wife. Men don't have that same pressure. Some individual men might step up and take some pressure off their female partners, but they are not expected to. They are expected to do whatever it takes to be successful, even if that means being uninvolved. And yet, according to your reasoning, the same society that demands women take care of the family has every right to deny women an equal salary BECAUSE they have those family obligations placed upon them.

If you think everyone is equal and we should all stop working for equality and bitching about discrimination... you are in denial. A black person in the workplace will have to work twice as hard as a white person just to be seen as competent. If he ****s up? "Oh, well, what do you expect from a black guy? Probably listens to rap all the time and went out for fried chicken instead of doing his work." That is not a "joke" that I would be surprised at hearing. Do you have to worry about that? Do you wonder if folks in charge are saying, "Oh, well, what do you expect from a white guy? Probably spent all his money on fancy cheese and alternative rock CDs." If you **** up... it's because you ****ed up. Not because you're white. A lot of minorities don't get that. If they make a mistake, it almost always gets credited to their race.


What you are indicating to me is that you don't actually think women are your equal. They don't work as hard as you work, aren't as smart and capable as you are, and shouldn't get paid as much as you get paid. You like being in relationships with them and being friends with them, but you do not see them as your peers. That's just a guess, though. But tell me, do you agree with the statement, "Whoever is the strongest is in charge?"

And I'm certain I won't change your mind any more than you'll change mine, but for some reason, I responded. Another exercise in futility.

[Angantyr]

White people complaining about racism is really funny to me. White males complaining about being at a disadvantage is even funnier.

In this society, white males especially, you do still have the advantage. You seriously do. Don't worry.

Imagine yourself the only white person in a workplace of all black people. Not only that, but they resent that you got the job and think it's only because of Affirmative Action, because you're the minority in this imaginary country. That's pretty uncomfortable. And that's what a lot of minorities feel all the time.

I'm not saying whites should be discriminated against because of that, but I do think we need to realize and admit that we do still have an advantage over minorities in this country (USA). And I don't think anyone in a minority with any kind of pride would want to be coddled and told "Well, you couldn't be where you are if we didn't help you." That's also pretty racist.

And I agree that hiring people should be about anything other than race and gender. Performance, experience, people skills, you name it. However:



Exactly.

Not in New Zealand.

I worked at KFC for 3 1/2 years, Maoris have more opportunities than us.

[Alpha]

Not in New Zealand.

I worked at KFC for 3 1/2 years, Maoris have more opportunities than us.

What?? You worked at KFC and didn't notice the number of Maori people who come into your workplace? How is that an opportunity?

Notice the location, I know what I'm saying here.

Why is a large proportion of your client base Maori or some kind of Pacific Island? Because they are POOR, and your food is cheap. Why are they poor? Because they are DISCRIMINATED against. They eat your food, and become unhealthy? Blame them? Blame the fact that coke is $2 and milk is $5.

We may like to think they are not discriminated against, but they are. I went to KFC the other day, all the staff were Maori/PI, and there were 3 of 4 customers of similar ethnicity (this includes me - I was the only white face). I only went to get some potato and gravy, the lady in front of me got a bucket of chicken. You can reasonably assume this is because they cannot afford better food. Perhaps they are less educated about such things as the importance of a healthy lifestyle, etc.

What do you think of Pita Sharples' university entrance proposal?

By no stretch of the imagination do Maori have more opportunities than us white people. What decile school did you go to? Anything below 4 is HIGHLY likely to have a disproportionate number of Maori in it. That is not opportunity, mate.

[Angantyr]

No I don't mean it in that way.

There's many many parties, trusts and organizations to help them plus a lot of white people are in a similar situation they just go somewhere else. Getting on the Welfare is a rather simple process and study link is there to help them get the education they need to further there career.

What you are mentioning is the cycle that many countries go through but overcome. Japan over came it and they're not white so its obviously not about being non-white or anything inherited.

There is no real racism from Whites to Maoris here. There are times when they are criticized though for the most part its also recieved from their own people. I see more Maoris making fun of Maoris than whites making fun of them.

[Alpha]

No I don't mean it in that way.

There's many many parties, trusts and organizations to help them plus a lot of white people are in a similar situation they just go somewhere else. Getting on the Welfare is a rather simple process and study link is there to help them get the education they need to further there career.

What you are mentioning is the cycle that many countries go through but overcome. Japan over came it and they're not white so its obviously not about being non-white or anything inherited.

There is no real racism from Whites to Maoris here. There are times when they are criticized though for the most part its also recieved from their own people. I see more Maoris making fun of Maoris than whites making fun of them.

There are so many trusts to help them because it is a necessity; the system screws them over, some pieces are picked back up by such moves as race-based scholarships. These aren't opportunities, they're welfare. Welfare isn't made for people to live on: that's not only humiliating, but terrible economically. Studylink is a huge help; I wouldn't be at uni without it, but success at uni is predicated by success at school. This isn't wholly the case, but you'd be hard-pressed to say it doesn't make a difference. So what if the government can pay for uni? The government barely gives enough money to pay a student rent in a Wellington flat; it is still aided by having personal finance. Even once a Maori gets a degree, they, like most minorities, are likely to be discriminated against in the workplace. OceanEyes has alluded to that, and I don't need to say anymore here.

It's not about being white or non-white, it's usually majority/minority. What situation like this occurred in Japan? I'm not aware of any.

Discrimination is usually hidden. Lots of Maori make fun of Maori. Billy T. James is a prime example. But even without there ever being a objective discriminatory law, discrimination occurs. Maori are overrepresented in welfare, prison population, low-decile schooling, low-income households, health statistics such as diabetes and heart disease, etc. They make up 14% of our population, but 51% of our prison population (Reducing the imprisonment of Maori - Corrections Department NZ), just for example.

[nickness89]

Basically, the minorities that cried about equality, are now in a state where the majorities that were getting the advantages before, are now crying for equality. The worst of it is, the minorities are now the ones that are favoured, yet if they don't get their way, they will go for a lawsuit. The majorities are now the minorities.

To be honest, I'm sick of hearing about equality, especially ethnic and homosexual equality. Not to piss on my own people's parade, but we gay people are getting a lot compared to other minorities, and anyway, it should be equality for all, including white people and rich people.

I do think that this 'positive discrimination' is a load of bullshit, I think the Government in this country need to get their fingers out of their arse and get a grip. Like most have said, if someone is qualified for the job, then they should have the job. I would rather employ someone who will make more money for the business than have ten useless people who got the job because they were a different race, different religion or from a different country, because the business felt sorry for them or were worried of a lawsuit.