Is it fair to punish white males today for the actions of their ancestors?

SugarHigh

The Canadian Employment Equity Act requires employers in federally-regulated industries to give preferential treatment to four designated groups: Women, people with disabilities, aboriginal people, and visible minorities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Employment_Equity_Act

This kind of affirmative action is put in place to try and create a balance where everyone gets represented equally. Its a nice aim but in practice it clearly punishes you for being a white male.

If a white male and a black female apply for the same job with the same qualifications it goes to the female. How is this fair on the man who is being turned for simply being male?

He played no part in the suppressed of anybody and most of the people who benefit from this have never been suppressed so why should they receive compensation for something that never happened to them?

Women receive many college grants for simply being women which gives them an advantage over males from similar backgrounds.
http://collegegrantsforwomen.org/

I just don't see why todays generation of men should be punished and todays generation of women be rewarded for things that neither played any part in.

looksee

That's an interesting question, we could also phrase it to read:
Is it fair to punish Brits of today for the actions of their ancestors?

Having got in my dig, I would say, I do not (as a female) approve of this 'positive discrimination' as I think it is as offensive as negative discrimination. People should be given opportunities based on their abilities, not on gender, race etc. There should be equal opportunities for everyone, but not selection based on race, gender etc.

Logical Fallacy

"Positive Discrimination" doesn't work, it's actually a ****ing joke because you are not treating the person equally in away, you are actually assuming they are disadvantaged because of their sex, race, whatever it is.

Sure if you are a woman, and you go for a job, you would rather get the job because you are the best suited for it than simply because the company has a female quota to fill.

SugarHigh

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

"Positive Discrimination" doesn't work, it's actually a ****ing joke because you are not treating the person equally in away, you are actually assuming they are disadvantaged because of their sex, race, whatever it is.

Sure if you are a woman, and you go for a job, you would rather get the job because you are the best suited for it than simply because the company has a female quota to fill.

It is amazingly bad at achieving what it set out to accomplish. It also negatively affects women who are successful based on their merits not their gender because it puts doubt on whether she simply benefited from positive discrimination. Kind of like how people might doubt a manager who is related to their boss.

Logical Fallacy

SugarHigh wrote: »

It is amazingly bad at achieving what it set out to accomplish. It also negatively affects women who are successful based on their merits not their gender because it puts doubt on whether she simply benefited from positive discrimination. Kind of like how people might doubt a manager who is related to their boss.

Bingo. I'd be pissed if i was going for a job against 4 girls and i got it, and later found out the person who made that decision just has a misguided feeling that men are "better".

I know it is not exactly the same as this issue, but the results are similar, you are not chosen on your merits.

Cavehill Red

All quota systems are de facto anti-democratic. They result in laughable unintended results such as the 'affirmative action' education program in the US which actively denies higher performing students from Asian minorities the opportunity to attend colleges of their choice.

Knasher

Personally I find discrimination in any direction both foolish and detestable. That being said I work in a scientific field and I can absolutely attest to huge imbalance between males and females in that field, 20 to 1 wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Now thats not to say that women are discriminated against, fact of the matter is that there are tons of supports available to women interested in entering the field, there are just less women interested.

The question is then why are less women interested in joining and what can be done about it? The sad fact of the matter is that I think it arises from the prejudice that women should be less interested in science, which is a remnant of when discrimination was legal. Simply put, its seen as a mans field and therefore it becomes a mans field. Clearly this is unfair and damaging to the field itself so something should be done about it. The best solution would be if we could wave a magic wand and remove gender and race among other things from how people judge their own abilities, but sadly it doesn't work like that.

The next option would be to adjust education so women have a huge advantage over men when it comes to certain subjects. As an easy example if you were to change all the literature on an literary subject to chick lit then a hell of a lot more women would pass this than men. On the surface this probably doesn't seem like all that bad an idea and it would definitely achieve the required result, but at what cost? The net result would not be to encourage women but to discourage men. Rather than having a thousand people entering a field of which a hundred are women we would have four hundred of which two hundred are women.

The next option is to make it easier for women to enter a field without actually adjusting the field itself. The idea being that at some point in the future young girls who are interested in a particular field won't dismiss their interest because they view that whole field as a boys club simply by looking at the achievements of their peers.

Sure, it sucks right now when you are discriminated against. It is absolutely and completely unfair. Its just also the lesser evil.

SugarHigh

Knasher wrote: »

Personally I find discrimination in any direction both foolish and detestable. That being said I work in a scientific field and I can absolutely attest to huge imbalance between males and females in that field, 20 to 1 wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Now thats not to say that women are discriminated against, fact of the matter is that there are tons of supports available to women interested in entering the field, there are just less women interested.

The question is then why are less women interested in joining and what can be done about it? The sad fact of the matter is that I think it arises from the prejudice that women should be less interested in science, which is a remnant of when discrimination was legal. Simply put, its seen as a mans field and therefore it becomes a mans field. Clearly this is unfair and damaging to the field itself so something should be done about it. The best solution would be if we could wave a magic wand and remove gender and race among other things from how people judge their own abilities, but sadly it doesn't work like that.

The next option would be to adjust education so women have a huge advantage over men when it comes to certain subjects. As an easy example if you were to change all the literature on an literary subject to chick lit then a hell of a lot more women would pass this than men. On the surface this probably doesn't seem like all that bad an idea and it would definitely achieve the required result, but at what cost? The net result would not be to encourage women but to discourage men. Rather than having a thousand people entering a field of which a hundred are women we would have four hundred of which two hundred are women.

The next option is to make it easier for women to enter a field without actually adjusting the field itself. The idea being that at some point in the future young girls who are interested in a particular field won't dismiss their interest because they view that whole field as a boys club simply by looking at the achievements of their peers.

Sure, it sucks right now when you are discriminated against. It is absolutely and completely unfair. Its just also the lesser evil.

I think the lesser evil is doing nothing at all. Just because there are less women interested in science that doesn't mean there is a problem that needs to be fixed.

So women aren't interested in what you or the feminists think they should be interested, well so what?

Just because something isn't 50/50 split between genders does not mean there is a problem. Have you considered there simply isn't as many women interested in science? Why should we make actions to change their interests?

Judge people solely by ability. Why should Science suffer by having to turn down men who are more qualified in favor of a women just to improve the stats?

I hate the idea that the more women you employ then that is somehow a indication of how progressive you are even if you got there through discrimination.

SugarHigh

Here are some examples where diversity(Aka not a white male) is used as a commodity.
Black students image gets photoshopped into a crowd because a more diverse university is seen as being a progressive better university, It is situated in a mostly white area so the fact it doesn't have many black students is not a surprise so why does it need to be faked?
Why are non-whites seen as more valuable?


Notice to the left of the girls arm


Toronto Fun Guide needs to hire better graphic artists


So does the University of Texas

Knasher

SugarHigh wrote: »

I think the lesser evil is doing nothing at all. Just because there are less women interested in science that doesn't mean there is a problem that needs to be fixed.

So women aren't interested in what you or the feminists think they should be interested, well so what?

Oh absolutely, if somebody isn't interested in something then there is nothing wrong with that. I just think it would be a mistake to assume that, if it turns out to be true then taking action to encourage women over men would be unnecessary and wasteful, personally I hope it's not true because I think humanity will have a brighter future if it isn't.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Just because something isn't 50/50 split between genders does not mean there is a problem. Have you considered there simply isn't as many women interested in science? Why should we make actions to change their interests?

I have considered it. To be honest I see it as a nature vs nurture argument and I absolutely don't believe that genetics completely dictates interests. Sure, if a person is physically or mentally incapable of participating they most likely won't be interested in it. But after that its mostly down to nurture.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Judge people solely by ability. Why should Science suffer by having to turn down men who are more qualified in favor of a women just to improve the stats?

It would be wrong to turn down a more qualified person simply to furfil some quota. I'm sure it happens, but its definetely wrong. Of course that wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about:

SugarHigh wrote:

If a white male and a black female apply for the same job with the same qualifications it goes to the female

Would you like to change the subject?

SugarHigh wrote: »

I hate the idea that the more women you employ then that is somehow a indication of how progressive you are even if you got there through discrimination.

Thats hypocrisy, nobody likes hypocrisy.

Daniel S

Okay, before I start, I'm only 17.

But the sh!te I have to put up with from "feminists" is rediculous. I've never had any of the advantages that men in previous generations had, but yet we're the ones who have to take all this crap from 17 year old feminists. How's that fair?

I totally understand the point of view of feminists 50 years ago, but the ones jumping on the bandwagon now... Jesus.....

Same sort of stuff comes from some black people I know. I've never called anyone the "n word" or thought of them any less than myself.

It's like they need to feel like they're fighting and stuggling for something, because they idolise people from 50 years ago like Dr. Martin Luther King and the feminists when they burned their bra's.

Also, even my mam's at this. I do my own washing (plus mam and dads), cook dinner alot of the time, yet "Everyday you have a dinner infront of you, made with love by me!", this really gets on my t!ts.

If you ARE expieriencing sexism/racism fair enough, but don't come complaining to me if your not good enough to play on the football team (An example), using sexism/racism as an excuse.

/rant :rolleyes:

Also, if we're all supposedly equal, why do women get perks like being let through the door first?




(Don't worry I still let them )

Knasher

I should be clear though, my stance is that I dislike when this happens and agree that its unfair. I'm just hopeful that it might also have some positive effects and that the positive effects might outweigh the negative. Perhaps I'm just in an optimistic mood today.

To be perfectly honest I have taken your exact stance more than once when I'm contemplating alone. I also often think that it is hypocritical that its okay to have different insurance rates for women drivers, its sexist and would be illegal if it was the other way around.

Daniel S

Knasher wrote: »

I should be clear though, my stance is that I dislike when this happens and agree that its unfair. I'm just hopeful that it might also have some positive effects and that the positive effects might outweigh the negative. Perhaps I'm just in an optimistic mood today.

To be perfectly honest I have taken your exact stance more than once when I'm contemplating alone. I also often think that it is hypocritical that its okay to have different insurance rates for women drivers, its sexist and would be illegal if it was the other way around.

I know a 18 year old girl who is an INSANE driver, and gets insured for €500 a year on a 1.3 Dihatsu Terios.... It would cost me €2500 on my mam's 998cc Yaris with third party fire and theft:rolleyes:

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think positive discrimination should only be used in the short term. Sometimes the minority needs to be boosted so racists work with them and realise they're not from another planet.

So for example I supported positive discrimination for Catholics joining the police in northern ireland at the beginning when they only made up 8% of the force. now however I think it is sectarianism without justification and should be abandoned.

SugarHigh

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think positive discrimination should only be used in the short term. Sometimes the minority needs to be boosted so racists work with them and realise they're not from another planet.
think it is sectarianism without justification and should be abandoned.

I don't think it works as well as you think it does.

If someone loses out on a job because they're white I'm pretty sure that will create a few more racists.

SugarHigh

Knasher wrote: »

It would be wrong to turn down a more qualified person simply to furfil some quota. I'm sure it happens, but its definetely wrong. Of course that wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about:

Would you like to change the subject?


Thats hypocrisy, nobody likes hypocrisy.

The thread is about affirmative action not just about that one specfic analogy in my first post.

There are cases where women who are less qualified get hired. Take for example the military where the fitness standards for female applicants is lower. How is a man who can meet the female standards but not the male standards less qualified than the female in the same position.

Now I realise if women had to meet the meet the mens fitness standards then there would be even fewer females in the military but if they don't meet the standards then should they really be there in the first place? So you can either lower the mens minimum requirement to match the females which lowers the quality of soldiers or you can raise the female standards which cuts out a lot of women but raises overall quality.

Why bring sex into it at all?
You can either do the job or you can't. Make it solely about ability and if you end up with more men then so be it and the same if you end up with more women so be it.

Knasher

I would agree with you in general when it comes to labour which needs a physical standard, if a women doesn't meet the standard required she simply shouldn't be there. That being said I would also argue for an exception to this rule for the police force. Simply put the primary purpose of the police force is to keep the peace, and while a part of that is definitely wrestling people to the ground and physically subduing them, its not the entire job. Large parts of it will evolve talking to victims (particularly rape victims) or getting people to calm down before physical deterrences are necessary in which case a female may be better suited to the task than a male in some situations. So even though the job will have the same job description, it might not be the same job and hence will require less of a physical standard. I would then extend this to the army, which I see as doing much the same job as the police force, just in a different country.

SugarHigh wrote:

The thread is about affirmative action not just about that one specfic analogy in my first post.

There is a big difference between picking a female over a male when they have the same ability in an industry dominated by males and picking a female with lesser abilities simply because she is female. It was that change I was objecting to, not the change of analogy.

SugarHigh

Knasher wrote: »

There is a big difference between picking a female over a male when they have the same ability in an industry dominated by males and picking a female with lesser abilities simply because she is female. It was that change I was objecting to, not the change of analogy.

In July 2010, controversy arose when a Caucasian woman, Sara Landriault, was barred from applying for employment in a federal agency because she was not in a racial minority. This incident led Stockwell Day, president of the Treasury Board of Canada, which oversees federal government employment policies, to announce a review of 'affirmative action' (employment equity) and how it is applied in federal hiring procedures.
As of Oct 2010, there has been no sign of Affirmative Action reviewed and Sara Landriault was never allowed to re-apply for the position in Immigration Canada.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-take-aim-at-employment-equity/article1649115/

SugarHigh

mtb_kng wrote: »

It's like they need to feel like they're fighting and stuggling for something, because they idolise people from 50 years ago like Dr. Martin Luther King and the feminists when they burned their bra's.

Completely agree. It's like they wish there was an enemy just so they could feel like they are making an impact on history.

I can just imagine these people telling stories to there grand kids about the great war against hunky dorys of 2010 where a company used attractive women to advertise a product and they whined about it until they didn't have to see the terrible attractive ladies anymore.:D

Knasher

mtb_kng wrote: »

I know a 18 year old girl who is an INSANE driver, and gets insured for €500 a year on a 1.3 Dihatsu Terios.... It would cost me €2500 on my mam's 998cc Yaris with third party fire and theft:rolleyes:

Actually the part that really pisses me off is the fact that every single driver in this country has to do a test in order to drive on our roads. Wouldn't it make a hell of a lot more sense to base our premiums off how we did in that test rather than the existence of our penises. Sure there would need to be a provision for people who haven't yet done their test, I just think it might make a hell of a lot more sense.

Though truth be told I don't drive much so I really didn't do all that well. But at least it would be fair.

Mrmoe

Arbitrary quotas should be a thing of the past. It does not mean that there should be no quotas whatsoever. There are many professions that require a certain minimum number of people of one particular gender. You only need to look at medical practitioners, airport security workers and teachers to see that you need a certain minimum amount of each gender. Other professions such as scientific and military fields this is not required or is usually not essential. Quotas should be based on need rather than as a way to correct gender imbalances.

Bottle_of_Smoke

SugarHigh wrote: »

I don't think it works as well as you think it does.

If someone loses out on a job because they're white I'm pretty sure that will create a few more racists.

Yes when it is taken too far, though if it is an area where the vast majority are white people won't become racist because one black guy gets a small advantage.

That only happens when it becomes impossible for white people to get hired and there's already plenty of black people in the job.

I think the PSNI is a good example of where it was originally neccesary, and where they've now taken it too far, its now getting to the stage where people are believing any half wit can get in so long as he's a roman catholic. Whilst I don't agree with that I do think the PSNI would be better off choosing the best recruits and not give an advantage to someone because they're a catholic.

speedboatchase

Similar law to be enacted in the UK

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335054/Employers-given-green-light-favour-women-jobseekers-Harmans-equality-law-adopted-Coalition.html

Bottle_of_Smoke

FFS that's an absolute joke - there's no need for it in the UK.

Well I don't think I'll be taking female workers very seriously knowing they probably only got the job because they're a woman

Otis Driftwood

Just on the points about insurance.I work in the industry and you can call it sexist that female drivers get cheaper rates but the fact is young male drivers are in the highest risk category.Statistics and facts are there to back it up.The level of claims that have come through for male drivers compared to female drivers is frightening.I can think of one of the top of my head that has been ongoing for 3 years involving an 18 year old male and thus far over 1,000,000,yes,1 million,has been paid out and its still going.Its nothing to do with gender,its risk,and male drivers are a bigger liability than female drivers,that is a fact.

Obviously not every male driver is a big risk,same as every female driver isnt safer but the data shows overwhelmingly why its so expensive for young male drivers to get insurance.

Bottle_of_Smoke

nedtheshed wrote: »

Just on the points about insurance.I work in the industry and you can call it sexist that female drivers get cheaper rates but the fact is young male drivers are in the highest risk category.Statistics and facts are there to back it up.The level of claims that have come through for male drivers compared to female drivers is frightening.I can think of one of the top of my head that has been ongoing for 3 years involving an 18 year old male and thus far over 1,000,000,yes,1 million,has been paid out and its still going.Its nothing to do with gender,its risk,and male drivers are a bigger liability than female drivers,that is a fact.

Obviously not every male driver is a big risk,same as every female driver isnt safer but the data shows overwhelmingly why its so expensive for young male drivers to get insurance.

Genuine question - if they could show a genuine link between ethnicity or nationality and higher risk can they legally charge more?

The Corinthian

nedtheshed wrote: »

Just on the points about insurance.I work in the industry and you can call it sexist that female drivers get cheaper rates but the fact is young male drivers are in the highest risk category.Statistics and facts are there to back it up.

Then we should make it legal for SME's to discriminate against women of child baring age, in terms of recruitment, as statistically they have fair chance of getting pregnant, going on maternity leave - and often never returning.

Statistically women cost more in health care and this is reflected in some countries where they pay more for health insurance. Is this the case in Ireland, and if not, why not? And if it were to be introduced, what you the reaction be in the media?

If you decide to treat the above differently simply on the basis that we're talking about women, then that is why there's a problem. Affirmative action aside, it really comes down to equal legal protection across the board.

28064212

nedtheshed wrote: »

Obviously not every male driver is a big risk,same as every female driver isnt safer but the data shows overwhelmingly why its so expensive for young male drivers to get insurance.

Actually, that shows that many more young male drivers are involved in accidents than female drivers. What it doesn't show is any kind of breakdown based on actual time spent on the road. The car insurance industry, at best, uses a very broad stroke to categorise risks.

Hazys

28064212 wrote: »

Actually, that shows that many more young male drivers are involved in accidents than female drivers. What it doesn't show is any kind of breakdown based on actual time spent on the road. The car insurance industry, at best, uses a very broad stroke to categorise risks.

For example, if a young male is on the road 10X as much as a young female, then he is 10X more likely to be involved in an accident, so risk is greater, so insurance companies will take that into account. Insurance companies ask what your occupation is to work out how much driving you will do and how much stress you are under, to work out the risks.


If it was the other way around and young females were in the high risk category and young males were safe drivers...would insurance be split based on gender? i dont think so.


I believe there should be positive discrimination in places like the USA where there was so much "negative" discrimination for so long that it forced minorities' development years behind the white population. Splitting up insurance based on gender is a by-product of "men's guilt" in an area where there was no discrimination, so it does seem crazy to me that car insurance can operate that way.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hazys wrote: »

For example, if a young male is on the road 10X as much as a young female, then he is 10X more likely to be involved in an accident, so risk is greater, so insurance companies will take that into account. Insurance companies ask what your occupation is to work out how much driving you will do and how much stress you are under, to work out the risks.


If it was the other way around and young females were in the high risk category and young males were safe drivers...would insurance be split based on gender? i dont think so.


I believe there should be positive discrimination in places like the USA where there was so much "negative" discrimination for so long that it forced minorities' development years behind the white population. Splitting up insurance based on gender is a by-product of "men's guilt" in an area where there was no discrimination, so it does seem crazy to me that car insurance can operate that way.

I don't think its down to men's guilt. To me it appears more likely large capitalist companies are taking advantage of men's ''put up with sh*t'' attitude.

What I find rather amusing is when "feminists" defend insurers for charging men more. The last thing one would expect from someone who wants gender equality, though thinking about it the first thing one would expect from a self serving ego who likes the sound of being a feminist.

Mrmoe

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't think its down to men's guilt. To me it appears more likely large capitalist companies are taking advantage of men's ''put up with sh*t'' attitude.

It is definitely down to greed. I would be certain that if they had a more detailed method for calculating actual risk then they would not make as much money or be as profitable as they are.

Knasher

nedtheshed wrote: »

Its nothing to do with gender,its risk,and male drivers are a bigger liability than female drivers,that is a fact.

I agree and any fair system would probably imply that on average a male driver will pay more to get insurance than a female driver. It's a simple and unfortunate fact that if you set out all the risk categories more men would end up in the higher risk categories and should therefore have to pay more. The problem is that you then take that and decide that you can therefore assume that all men are in the higher risk category and all women are in the lower.

The way I see it there are five things that control the risk on the roads.
[LIST=5]
[*] The distance a person travels in say a year.
[*] The speed they travel at.
[*] The condition and power of their vehicle.
[*] The condition of the roads they travel on.
[*] How good a driver they are.
[/LIST]
All five of these things can be in some way measured, for instance in the case of speed either coarsely, does a person have penalty points for speeding, or incredibly finely using GPS (or other technology if people are afraid of the government tracking their movements / invasion of privacy). Now if we lived in a world where measuring those categories and calculating the risk was impossible I'd accept that perhaps sexist insurance policies are the best we can do, luckily we don't so why are they acceptable?

Obviously, of course, for the first year it is impossible to get a meaningful dataset to calculate the risk, so I can accept calculating the risk using statistics. But after that, it isn't acceptable.

As a matter of fact I would go further. I think a fair system that looks at how the driver behaves rather than at their gender would promote road safety more than any other action taken towards that same goal. If a person knew that driving recklessly and dangerously would definitely cost them through insurance when they renew then that person would make far more of an effort to drive safely at all times.

28064212

Hazys wrote: »

For example, if a young male is on the road 10X as much as a young female, then he is 10X more likely to be involved in an accident, so risk is greater, so insurance companies will take that into account.

That's not how statistics work. Say there are 500 accidents involving young males, and 50 accidents involving young females. If males spend 20 times more time on the road, females are the higher risk category.

I'm sure that young males are the higher risk category. I do not think that they are anywhere close to the risk-level that the insurance industry uses to calculate their premiums

K-9

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think positive discrimination should only be used in the short term. Sometimes the minority needs to be boosted so racists work with them and realise they're not from another planet.

So for example I supported positive discrimination for Catholics joining the police in northern ireland at the beginning when they only made up 8% of the force. now however I think it is sectarianism without justification and should be abandoned.

That's the example I always think of in these things. There was a necessity for that to happen for many reasons.

Should we apply a gender discrimination too?

Personally, I don't think so as I think there aren't the same barriers with sex and at this stage, it is just a career that more men will naturally join.

SugarHigh

nedtheshed wrote: »

Just on the points about insurance.I work in the industry and you can call it sexist that female drivers get cheaper rates but the fact is young male drivers are in the highest risk category.Statistics and facts are there to back it up.The level of claims that have come through for male drivers compared to female drivers is frightening.I can think of one of the top of my head that has been ongoing for 3 years involving an 18 year old male and thus far over 1,000,000,yes,1 million,has been paid out and its still going.Its nothing to do with gender,its risk,and male drivers are a bigger liability than female drivers,that is a fact.

Obviously not every male driver is a big risk,same as every female driver isnt safer but the data shows overwhelmingly why its so expensive for young male drivers to get insurance.

So is racial profiling ok then?

If the stats show that black are more likely to break the law are police justified in targeting black people purely because they are black?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

Black people account for almost 50% of crimes but only account for just over 10% of the population.

I don't think it's fair to use stats to discriminate against someone. Statistics also show that women are likely to leave their careers early than men so why should we pay more to educate them when for less money we get longer service form men?

SugarHigh

Hazys wrote: »

I believe there should be positive discrimination in places like the USA where there was so much "negative" discrimination for so long that it forced minorities' development years behind the white population.

It what way is a black person born to a rich family lacking development compared to a white person born to a poor family?

Yet these discrimination laws will give the advantage to the rich kid simply because he isn't white. How is this fair?

evercloserunion

I would be about as "PC" (what a stupid term) as they come, but I find it hard to justify positive discrimination. As others have said, it is a nice idea but can too often lead to bizarre results, and devalues the people it is supposed to benefit. Instead, measures should be put in place to allow each person to fully realise their potential and compete on their merits.

The only legitimate justification for "positive discrimination" measures IMO is in order to ensure that policy-makers take into account a wider variety of perspectives. So, gender- or race-quotas in politics or on the boards of influential companies could be beneficial, not because women/blacks/etc need that handout but because they would be better represented in the upper levels of the decision-making hierarchy. But of course quotas in politics is a whole different story because it is anti-democratic to an extent.

citytillidie

I say just sit back get the dole and let the woman do all the work now, I would like to see woman working in mine's where there is a chance they would be trapped for a month like Chile or worse die like in New Zealand.

How about woman cleaning the streets or being a bin women.

Or is this just office jobs they want the "positive discrimination" on

SugarHigh

evercloserunion wrote: »

I would be about as "PC" (what a stupid term) as they come, but I find it hard to justify positive discrimination. As others have said, it is a nice idea but can too often lead to bizarre results, and devalues the people it is supposed to benefit. Instead, measures should be put in place to allow each person to fully realise their potential and compete on their merits.

The only legitimate justification for "positive discrimination" measures IMO is in order to ensure that policy-makers take into account a wider variety of perspectives. So, gender- or race-quotas in politics or on the boards of influential companies could be beneficial, not because women/blacks/etc need that handout but because they would be better represented in the upper levels of the decision-making hierarchy. But of course quotas in politics is a whole different story because it is anti-democratic to an extent.

That makes the assumption that a black politician would have the interests of black people at heart simply because he's black. This isn't true, he would be much more likely to side with people in the same wage bracket than with people of his own race.

evercloserunion

SugarHigh wrote: »

That makes the assumption that a black politician would have the interests of black people at heart simply because he's black. This isn't true, he would be much more likely to side with people in the same wage bracket than with people of his own race.

It is true that people are ultimately divided by class more than nationality, but all other things being equal, a black politician is more likely to take the interests of the black community into account than a white politician. IMO anyway. Maybe the point is not so relevant in a society like Ireland where all politics is so centrist anyway and race is not a big political issue. But if you look at certain parts of (for example) the US, and particularly if you rewind a couple of decades (but it is still true today), I think a greater presence of black politicians could help facilitate progress.

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

It what way is a black person born to a rich family lacking development compared to a white person born to a poor family?

Yet these discrimination laws will give the advantage to the rich kid simply because he isn't white. How is this fair?

Ok I am pretty anti positive discrimination for this reason too in that the white underclasses were left out of it and the latin american aristocracy availed of it in the US.

Saying that, historically even educated minorities and women had a difficult if not impossible time securing jobs. Paul Robeson graduated from Columbia Law and started out his career in law but his secretary refused to take notes for a black man so he went back to the traditional black role of entertaining the white folk.

At the same time, having seen the files on minorities during the time of affirmative action, I sort of winced when I saw a black woman Harvard graduate was going to be doing my C section.

I dont think the whole positive discrimination is meant to 'punish' white people but to remove some of the privalege they have received for centuries.

iptba

Knasher wrote: »

The next option is to make it easier for women to enter a field without actually adjusting the field itself. The idea being that at some point in the future young girls who are interested in a particular field won't dismiss their interest because they view that whole field as a boys club simply by looking at the achievements of their peers.

Sure, it sucks right now when you are discriminated against. It is absolutely and completely unfair. Its just also the lesser evil.

I'm not convinced there needs to be gender balance in subjects once there is equality of opportunity.

But if there is going to be initiatives (and I know there have been some in the past e.g. WITs - Women in Technology and Science (I think that was the acronym)), the place it would be most justifiable would be gender studies. Having a gender studies field dominated by women and virtually all women's studies with very little men's studies does not seem the way it should be if one wants a proper analysis of society.

iptba

nedtheshed wrote: »

Just on the points about insurance.I work in the industry and you can call it sexist that female drivers get cheaper rates but the fact is young male drivers are in the highest risk category.Statistics and facts are there to back it up.The level of claims that have come through for male drivers compared to female drivers is frightening.I can think of one of the top of my head that has been ongoing for 3 years involving an 18 year old male and thus far over 1,000,000,yes,1 million,has been paid out and its still going.Its nothing to do with gender,its risk,and male drivers are a bigger liability than female drivers,that is a fact.

Obviously not every male driver is a big risk,same as every female driver isnt safer but the data shows overwhelmingly why its so expensive for young male drivers to get insurance.

In health insurance, women cost a lot more than men. I know people talk about community rating but one could have all women paying one rate and all men paying another (a lower rate). But we don't see that happening.

My guess is that there may be other areas in insurance which could be rated in favour of men (PHI?) but aren't.

iptba

citytillidie wrote: »

I say just sit back get the dole and let the woman do all the work now, I would like to see woman working in mine's where there is a chance they would be trapped for a month like Chile or worse die like in New Zealand.

How about woman cleaning the streets or being a bin women.

Or is this just office jobs they want the "positive discrimination" on

They way I would summarise this is that there is not "equal risk" in the workplace i.e. equal risk of dying or getting seriously injured.

We hear about "equal pay" all the time and the differences and measures to change it including that new UK law: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335054/Harmans-equality-law-gets-green-light-Employers-WILL-allowed-favour-women.html .

But there are no moves for "equal risk" i.e. that a similar amount of women as men are in risky jobs.

I think the two are related. If you do a dangerous job, you should expect to get more - who is going to go down a mine for the same pay as a less risky job.

So there is one "outcome measure" is being looked at that suits feminists (pay) but at least another one (safety) is ignored (as the statistics would not suit feminists).

Similar argument could be made about rubbish collection - it's a dirty job which exposes one to the elements. One should expect more for it than a (relatively clean) office job where one isn't exposed to the elements (except to and from work, etc., of course).

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

But there are no moves for "equal risk" i.e. that a similar amount of women as men are in risky jobs.

Who said it was about equality? I thought at this stage it was understood it was about representing the interests of one part of the population, like a trade union. Equality is an altruistic by-product at best.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Who said it was about equality? I thought at this stage it was understood it was about representing the interests of one part of the population, like a trade union. Equality is an altruistic by-product at best.

Good point.

I'm not saying I'd necessarily want a situation where everything was equalized in this way i.e. equal risk between the sexes. But that discussions including in universities/academia often look at the issue in selective ways.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok I am pretty anti positive discrimination for this reason too in that the white underclasses were left out of it and the latin american aristocracy availed of it in the US.

Saying that, historically even educated minorities and women had a difficult if not impossible time securing jobs. Paul Robeson graduated from Columbia Law and started out his career in law but his secretary refused to take notes for a black man so he went back to the traditional black role of entertaining the white folk.

At the same time, having seen the files on minorities during the time of affirmative action, I sort of winced when I saw a black woman Harvard graduate was going to be doing my C section.

I dont think the whole positive discrimination is meant to 'punish' white people but to remove some of the privalege they have received for centuries.

It's not intended to punish white males but if you give an advantage to everyone else apart form white males it's basically the same.

If everyone in a line apart from you step forward it's identical to you stepping backward.

What past generations did isn't the fault of the present generation.

Otis Driftwood

All Insurance companies impose additional charges on non national drivers up to a point.For example,it would cost more for an Italian/French/Polish person with one years driving experience in Ireland to get insured than an Irish person with the same level of experience.Its common sense.If a disproportionate amount of claims come through for non national drivers then obviously premiums for them should be higher.The exact same principle applys to young male drivers.Its not discrimination,its risk profiling.

SugarHigh

nedtheshed wrote: »

All Insurance companies impose additional charges on non national drivers up to a point.For example,it would cost more for an Italian/French/Polish person with one years driving experience in Ireland to get insured than an Irish person with the same level of experience.Its common sense.If a disproportionate amount of claims come through for non national drivers then obviously premiums for them should be higher.The exact same principle applys to young male drivers.Its not discrimination,its risk profiling.

Why doesn't it get applied to health insurance?

Women on average retire earlier than men. If it costs a company €20,000 to train an employee they will get better value from the male so should they be able to discriminate?

Women are a lot more risky to employ in terms of maternity leave and more likely of suing the company for millions.

Otis Driftwood

How do you know it doesnt?By the logic above men are a higher risk as they will be working longer hours for a longer period of time so will be at more risk of health problems eg stress,blood pressure,ulcers, heart attacks etc so a claim on a mans health insurance is likely to be heftier than a claim for the associated costs of pregnancy.

SugarHigh

nedtheshed wrote: »

How do you know it doesnt?By the logic above men are a higher risk as they will be working longer hours for a longer period of time so will be at more risk of health problems eg stress,blood pressure,ulcers, heart attacks etc so a claim on a mans health insurance is likely to be heftier than a claim for the associated costs of pregnancy.

http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/healthinsurance/a/2010-Health-Care-Reform-Law-Changes-In-Benefits-And-Coverage-For-Women.htm

Overall, the cost of health care for women will decrease more than for men because historically, women pay more for less coverage,

Also since women live longer and will be claiming their pension for longer(In the uk they get it 5 years earlier) ,why not charge them more tax since they will be claiming more back?

The second part was from an employers perspective not a health insurance one. Female employees provide less value for money if they retire earlier. That also applies to education.