Why is positive discrimination ok?

martinedwards

in London they have a Black Police Officer's Association.

there are women only taxi firms......

if there was a White people's police society it'd be branded Nazi, regardless of it's actual opinions.

so why is it OK for the minorities and women to be exclusive when it's not ok for majorities and men?

Bullseye1

Its not okay. Its political correctness gone mad and will blow up on society in the future.

bizmark

because we let them brow beat us into believeing your the worse thing in the world if your a white man so its easy to shame you into believeing such nonsense is just fine

Im sure that will coast along just fine for ever you know with no problems

CruelCoin

martinedwards wrote: »

in London they have a Black Police Officer's Association.

there are women only taxi firms......

if there was a White people's police society it'd be branded Nazi, regardless of it's actual opinions.

so why is it OK for the minorities and women to be exclusive when it's not ok for majorities and men?

In the case of the taxi companies, it's not done along the lines of "you have a vagina, therefore better".
It's done along the lines of, "you woman, me woman, you safer" and it's advertised as such.

Were you to set up a taxi company for men only, where the cars were american muscle cars, bruce springsteen on the radio, and a free beer on sitting into the car then i'd imagine it'd be fine as you would have a theme. It could be marketed as mans taxi for the mans man.

"I have a penis too!" is not enough.

Lelantos

You only have to look at the "Rooney Rule" in America to see where it can be beneficial.

DEFTLEFTHAND

There's also the Society of Black Lawyers in London. If we tried starting a white equivalent we'd be exposed as Klan members. :pac:

Ilik Urgee

CruelCoin wrote: »

In the case of the taxi companies, it's not done along the lines of "you have a vagina, therefore better".
It's done along the lines of, "you woman, me woman, you safer" and it's advertised as such.

Were you to set up a taxi company for men only, where the cars were american muscle cars, bruce springsteen on the radio, and a free beer on sitting into the car then i'd imagine it'd be fine as you would have a theme. It could be marketed as mans taxi for the mans man.
"I have a penis too!" is not enough.

Could only imagine the feminazis view on such a venture.

I'm a white male, age 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me, no matter how dumb my suggestions are.

CruelCoin

Ilik Urgee wrote: »

Could only imagine the feminazis view on such a venture.

Their bare-breasted protests would only serve to delight my already happy customers.

Pro Hoc Vice

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

There's also the Society of Black Lawyers in London. If we tried starting a white equivalent we'd be exposed as Klan members. :pac:

There is also a London Irish Lawters association. http://www.londonirishlawyers.co.uk/about-us/executive-committee they all lok pretty white to me.

The Backwards Man

You answered your own question in your thread title.

'Positive'

Ted_YNWA

The Backwards Man wrote: »

You answered your own question in your thread title.

'Positive'

Its only positive for those who are benefiting from it.

Grayson

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

There's also the Society of Black Lawyers in London. If we tried starting a white equivalent we'd be exposed as Klan members. :pac:

But wouldn't that have had 100% of all lawyers at one stage?

(and don't be silly. Clan members wear big pointy hats, not wigs)

The Backwards Man

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Its only positive for those who are benefiting from it.

I dunno about you, but I'm not feeling particularly oppressed.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Oh , this should be good!

* Gets popcorn machine ready*

oldyouth

If you use your status (white/black/female/disabled/ethnic background etc) to advance in any situation, you do that sector no favours at all. You're basically saying that your group is not good enough to achieve on merit

Pro Hoc Vice

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Its only positive for those who are benefiting from it.

Setting up a minority group is not positive discrimination. Positive discrimination is the idea that perceived inequality can be cured by promoting minority persons.

An example in certain states in the US very few African Americans received a good education. So on merit they could never get any good job. By imposing hiring quotas (positive discrimination) you removed the advantage the white educated person had.

oldyouth

infosys wrote: »

Setting up a minority group is not positive discrimination. Positive discrimination is the idea that perceived inequality can be cured by promoting minority persons.

An example in certain states in the US very few African Americans received a good education. So on merit they could never get any good job. By imposing hiring quotas (positive discrimination) you removed the advantage the white educated person had.

And you penalised the chap who put the effort in, even if he came from a poorer white background

desertcircus

Ah, nothing quite like a context-free rant from someone who thinks being white is just about the hardest thing in the world to be. To be serious for a moment, though - the black police officer's association in England represents a definable subset of officers who have issues in common (the fact that there seems to be a pronounced discrimination in favour of white candidates for senior positions being one), while being a white police officer isn't the same thing at all: there's no commonality of cause for specifically white officers, unless you count the aforesaid racial bias in senior appointments - and if you form a white workers' union with the express aim of getting more than black workers, then you deserve to be called racist jerks.

Someone who isn't a straight white male will almost certainly have experienced treatment as an inferior by dint of their race, sexuality or gender; someone who is a straight white male is vanishingly unlikely to have experienced the same. As a result, representative organisations for minority groups exist to deal with real and substantive issues facing their members on the basis of their identity, while being a straight white male brings with it virtually zero issues and thus a representative organisation would have nothing constructive to do.

(I should point out that there is a small number of fields in which I could see the point of a representative organisation for men, but they're extremely specific and limited in range, and it would be unfair and illogical to use the example of, say, a tendency to rule in favour of the mother in family law cases to claim that minority representatives are therefore somehow less legitimate.)

Pro Hoc Vice

oldyouth wrote: »

And you penalised the chap who put the effort in, even if he came from a poorer white background

Its not about effort its about opportunity. I never said it was a perfect system or that I even agree with it I simply pointed out what positive discrimition is. Do I personally think its fair no, do I think not allowing another group in society get a proper education because they are black is fair again no. But I do think it is fair to try and give all in society equal access to education so unfair systems like positive discrimination can be done away with.

fonda

The BMAs or black movie awards, can you imagine the outrage if we had the WMAs where only white people were allowed win awards!

No Pants

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Its only positive for those who are benefiting from it.

Could someone please list out the supposed benefits?

Pro Hoc Vice

fonda wrote: »

The BMAs or black movie awards, can you imagine the outrage if we had the WMAs where only white people were allowed win awards!

Ya its called the oscars. Other than a few exceptions, most listed here are white http://www.1728.org/page8.htm I believe total 4 for best male actor in a leading role since 1928, funny that there is a best male actor in a leading role, and 1 female in the same time so in 85 years 4 out of 85 male awards black, and 1 out of 85 female black. And you ask why black actors want their own awards it because otherwise they would have no chance of putting an award on the old CV.

IvySlayer

Labellng all men as potential rapist is not cool.

keelanj69

desertcircus wrote: »

Ah, nothing quite like a context-free rant from someone who thinks being white is just about the hardest thing in the world to be. To be serious for a moment, though - the black police officer's association in England represents a definable subset of officers who have issues in common (the fact that there seems to be a pronounced discrimination in favour of white candidates for senior positions being one), while being a white police officer isn't the same thing at all: there's no commonality of cause for specifically white officers, unless you count the aforesaid racial bias in senior appointments - and if you form a white workers' union with the express aim of getting more than black workers, then you deserve to be called racist jerks.

Someone who isn't a straight white male will almost certainly have experienced treatment as an inferior by dint of their race, sexuality or gender; someone who is a straight white male is vanishingly unlikely to have experienced the same. As a result, representative organisations for minority groups exist to deal with real and substantive issues facing their members on the basis of their identity, while being a straight white male brings with it virtually zero issues and thus a representative organisation would have nothing constructive to do.

(I should point out that there is a small number of fields in which I could see the point of a representative organisation for men, but they're extremely specific and limited in range, and it would be unfair and illogical to use the example of, say, a tendency to rule in favour of the mother in family law cases to claim that minority representatives are therefore somehow less legitimate.)

So a black man gets passed over for promotion and its racist. A white guy gets passed over and the other white guy was what? A better candidate? Or better connected? Or a self loathing racist?

DEFTLEFTHAND

I think the last Presidential election has woken up the GOP in some regards. The minorities are becoming the majorities. Many people of course voted back in Obama because of the colour of his skin. Next time around with two most likely white candidates this vote might not have the same consequence considering that many were 'bandwagoners' voting for the first time. I've a feeling also that some of the lower sections might not exercise their right to vote if it's two crackers running.

The Republicans will still try and infiltrate the minorities and naive young Liberal voters though, if they can get their act together there's a big market for them. Especially among the mid 20s dems who voted for Obama in 08. They're disillusioned now and could flip.

desertcircus

On the subject of positive discrimination specifically: there are a small number of uncontroversial points which should start off the discussion.

1. There is a difference in life outcomes between members of different races in most countries.
2. This is not a consequence of inherent inferiority on the part of the members of races which find themselves underrepresented at the higher levels.
3. The only other explanation is that the system as currently constructed has a preexisting bias in favour of some groups and against others.

Got that? Good. We're agreed that if you're born black in America, you're less likely to go to college and have a white collar job and more likely to go to prison and die violently than someone born white, and it's not because you're inherently inferior.

The decision we then have to make is whether we're going to do something about that bias, and what that something will be. Really, there are three options:
1. Do nothing about it.
2. Fix the structures that lead to these biases.
3. Attempt to compensate in limited and defensible ways to lower the barriers preventing minority candidates from advancing.

Option one isn't really acceptable, unless you're a horrible person. Option two is the best option, but has two drawbacks: it's almost completely impossible, and it will take decades at least. Option three, therefore, presents itself. If you have a white candidate from the suburbs who scores 87% in your entrance exam, and a black candidate from the projects who scores 85%, then you take into account the results both would have been expected to get and see who did better. If suburban white kid comes from a school where the average score is 80%, then he or she is 7% ahead of the average for people with their background and resources. If black kid from the projects comes from a school where the average score is 50%, he or she is 35% clear of the average for people in the same situation. The white kid has nominally outperformed the black kid, but in terms of academic ability you're far more likely to see the black kid finish college with a first than see the white kid do the same - because they didn't start on a level playing field.

One last thing: I have absolutely zero time for the attitude that the beneficiaries of positive discrimination shouldn't be so treated and that they didn't get there on merit. Either you think that the way things are is perfectly normal, which means you think black people are inferior, or you want the existing gross inequalities to continue favouring white candidates ahead of black, which means you think white people deserve to be treated better. It's bigoted garbage disguised as high-minded "real" equality, stripped of any social or political context and shamelessly couching deeply racist arguments in anti-racist rhetoric.

desertcircus

keelanj69 wrote: »

So a black man gets passed over for promotion and its racist. A white guy gets passed over and the other white guy was what? A better candidate? Or better connected? Or a self loathing racist?

I'm going to presume that you had a better point in mind than a confused rephrasing of "I have no idea how statistics work". Did you actually have an idea of what you were writing, or did you respond purely in order to miss the point of institutionalised bias? "So a black man gets passed over for promotion and it's racist" - did you actually read that back to yourself and still think that was a fair estimation of what I wrote? Really?

looksee

Well put desertcircus. I would prefer to see progress by merit rather than gender, race etc, but until there are members of minority groups in positions of authority, no one will be able to see that they can in fact do the job, thus making it more acceptable to appoint/vote other minority people into those kind of positions.

Some Irish people make a great deal of noise about having been oppressed for 800 years, and the consequent effects on Irish society, yet women have been in that situation for thousands of years and have only had less than a century to try and progress towards equality. The same applies to black people living outside their own culture. It is possible to quote a few minor exceptions - someone is going to mention Brehon Law - but it does not take from the overall situation that white males still run the show.

Herb Powell

I actually find it unreal how often this discussion comes up on the internet. How the fucck do people not understand the very simple concept of historical context? The truth is, as a white person, you are very very very unlikely to ever be discriminated against in the Western World.

anncoates

Bullseye1 wrote: »

. Its political correctness gone mad.

This moronic phrase should be declared an official epidemic by the WHO.

keelanj69

desertcircus wrote: »

I'm going to presume that you had a better point in mind than a confused rephrasing of "I have no idea how statistics work". Did you actually have an idea of what you were writing, or did you respond purely in order to miss the point of institutionalised bias? "So a black man gets passed over for promotion and it's racist" - did you actually read that back to yourself and still think that was a fair estimation of what I wrote? Really?

I know how statistics work, so please dont lose any sleep, compadre. I'm merely asking if three people go for a job, 2 white, 1 black. One of the white guys gets it. The black man has an oppurtunity to claim race. What about the other white man?

I agree that their is ingrained injustice but my point is - the black man can claim race. The white man gets to claim the other guy was better for the job.

bgrizzley

The strange thing is, that the people who quietly perpetuate discrimination, be it against blacks, women, gays, immigrants or whoever, are the very fat rich old white men making the rules.

Someday you will all see, that they just want us to distractedly argue about quotas, while they scoop up all the gravy.

pablomakaveli

I don't really see how "positive" and "discrimination" can be used together. A job candidate should be picked on merit. Not based on what race,religion, nationality etc they are.

desertcircus

keelanj69 wrote: »

I know how statistics work, so please dont lose any sleep, compadre. I'm merely asking if three people go for a job, 2 white, 1 black. One of the white guys gets it. The black man has an oppurtunity to claim race. What about the other white man?

I agree that their is ingrained injustice but my point is - the black man can claim race. The white man gets to claim the other guy was better for the job.

Is this an actual point? What exactly does a black candidate get out of being able to point to race as a possible factor? Are you claiming that white people have it hard because they don't suffer racism? Really? Because white people don't as a rule suffer racial discrimination, they're losing out? Surely you're not saying that, because only a lunatic would say that. But I still can't see any actual point. Is is that it's easier being passed over for jobs and promotions when there's a significant possibility that you're being passed over as a result of your skin colour rather than your suitability for the post?

What does a black candidate get out of not being selected that a white candidate doesn't?

B0jangles

I always though this was a good illustration of why the "Positive discrimination is the real problem" argument is bull****:

keelanj69

desertcircus wrote: »

Is this an actual point? What exactly does a black candidate get out of being able to point to race as a possible factor? Are you claiming that white people have it hard because they don't suffer racism? Really? Because white people don't as a rule suffer racial discrimination, they're losing out? Surely you're not saying that, because only a lunatic would say that. But I still can't see any actual point. Is is that it's easier being passed over for jobs and promotions when there's a significant possibility that you're being passed over as a result of your skin colour rather than your suitability for the post?

What does a black candidate get out of not being selected that a white candidate doesn't?

Being white doesn't help the other guy either.

Put it this way, if Obama didn't get elected first time around would people have said its because he's black or that the white guy was better for the job.

If you put in quotas such as x amount of women in government it, in a way, forces peoples hands. While you have greater equality it doesn't neccesarily reflect the best people for the job.

It causes more problems than it solves. If x amount of women need electing, she can claim I'm only here because I'm a woman. Similarly the spurned candidate can claim gender bias as well. Kind of undermines the process.

RandomName2

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Its not okay. Its political correctness gone mad and will blow up on society in the future.

I can be racist towards you - but don't worry; it's okay because I'm going to call it 'positive discrimination'.

Pro Hoc Vice

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I don't really see how "positive" and "discrimination" can be used together. A job candidate should be picked on merit. Not based on what race,religion, nationality etc they are.

Yes in a perfect word, but what about say a world which does not allow say women to be educated, or no education for blondes, then say none of those uneducated people get jobs, well its ok it was done on merit, so no problem. By introducing positive discrimination you are removing the advantage one group in society have by reason of control, of politics, education or money.

Pro Hoc Vice

RandomName2 wrote: »

I can be racist towards you - but don't worry; it's okay because I'm going to call it 'positive discrimination'.

How is it racist to say that the same % of a particular group in society should have roughly the same % of the jobs in particular areas.

desertcircus

keelanj69 wrote: »

Being white doesn't help the other guy either.

Put it this way, if Obama didn't get elected first time around would people have said its because he's black or that the white guy was better for the job.

If you put in quotas such as x amount of women in government it, in a way, forces peoples hands. While you have greater equality it doesn't neccesarily reflect the best people for the job.

It causes more problems than it solves. If x amount of women need electing, she can claim I'm only here because I'm a woman. Similarly the spurned candidate can claim gender bias as well. Kind of undermines the process.

Except being white, statistically speaking, does help. And being black, statistically speaking, does hinder. And being male, statistically speaking, does help. And being female, statistically speaking, does hinder. And if someone's reaction to positive discrimination is to assume that someone only got where they were because of the colour of their skin or the shape of their genitals, then they either think that person is inferior on the basis of their skin or genitals (which makes them a bigot), or they think racial bias is fine as long as it's white people benefitting (which makes them an asshole). If people like that think the process of undoing centuries of bigotry and oppression is undermined because someone took that bigotry and oppression into account when evaluating two candidates, then cry me a river. My heart bleeds for the poor unfortunate racists and sexists who can't conceive of a situation where someone who isn't a white male has their circumstances taken into account.

keelanj69

desertcircus wrote: »

And if someone's reaction to positive discrimination is to assume that someone only got where they were because of the colour of their skin or the shape of their genitals.

Isn't that what positive discrimination is? Quotas and such?

Victor

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Its only positive for those who are benefiting from it.

No. Allowing people who are discriminated against into higher positions allows them become positive role models in their community, whereas some communities only have negative role models.

It benefits those communities by giving people an alternative life path and it benefits all of society by discouraging negative role models. Not having negative role models is a positive common good for all of society.

Scruffles

oldyouth wrote: »

If you use your status (white/black/female/disabled/ethnic background etc) to advance in any situation, you do that sector no favours at all. You're basically saying that your group is not good enough to achieve on merit

please dont compare disability with race,race has come a long way with equality and does not have the barriers in society it used to,we have a long way to go to seen as human let alone achieve near equality.
am not able to speak for other groups as am bogstandard irish-english and have got little understanding of race overall but the reason disabled people need positive discrimination is because our disability 'barriers',the way society is adapted for normies in general and how our barriers are viewed by society puts us at a very unequal footing in comparison.

positive discrimination in disability does not make it unfair and give us extra achievement-its to put us closer to an equal footing,one example of it is the 'two ticks' scheme; am not sure if this is in ireland but in england companies who operate under the two ticks scheme guarantees disabled people an interview in whatever job; it doesnt give them any more chance of getting a job than someone else, it just stops them from being automaticaly turned down when bosses see they have a disability on paper,the two ticks scheme gives them a chance to actualy meet them and have a proper face to face interview to prove they can do x,y,z.

sometimes it actualy feels like people are resentful and jealous when the positive discrimination topic rears its head,rational discussion about it shoud be done because its how things change, but taking it out on whole groups when have got no direct experience of being one of these nor understanding the barriers we all face from a direct perspective is rather unfair.

Victor

martinedwards wrote: »

if there was a White people's police society

ACPO http://www.acpo.police.uk/Home.aspx

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Its not okay. Its political correctness gone mad and will blow up on society in the future.

As if existing ghettoisation is a successful policy.

oldyouth wrote: »

And you penalised the chap who put the effort in, even if he came from a poorer white background

Money isn't the only deciding factor.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I don't really see how "positive" and "discrimination" can be used together. A job candidate should be picked on merit. Not based on what race,religion, nationality etc they are.

But many jobs aren't allocated on merit. It is a person of power employing his buddies.

keelanj69 wrote: »

If you put in quotas such as x amount of women in government it, in a way, forces peoples hands. While you have greater equality it doesn't neccesarily reflect the best people for the job.

How about re-framing the point as "qualified for the job". It's not like being a teacher or publican magically makes you suitable to being a politician.

gallag

The MOBO awards.(music of black origin)
The black entertainment channel.

Shelflife

I understand the logic behind "positive discrimination" but for me its not the correct way to do things.

If you have a job or committee and you give the job to someone on the basis of their gender or race when there are better qualified people available is wrong on two counts.

1. it weakens the company/committee by not having the best available staff working for it.

2. it sends a message to the winning gender/race that they dont have to have as high a standard as the rest in order to get the position.

I fail to see how either of those situations solves the problem, it merely creates more problems down the road.

Pro Hoc Vice

Shelflife wrote: »

I understand the logic behind "positive discrimination" but for me its not the correct way to do things.

If you have a job or committee and you give the job to someone on the basis of their gender or race when there are better qualified people available is wrong on two counts.

1. it weakens the company/committee by not having the best available staff working for it.

2. it sends a message to the winning gender/race that they dont have to have as high a standard as the rest in order to get the position.

I fail to see how either of those situations solves the problem, it merely creates more problems down the road.

It may very well make it worse some studies have shown some positive discrimination does not work. But for me when faced with two bad options I would rather go for the one that at least try's to balance rights as in my opinion afirmitive action does.

19543261

So what, there can be no discrimination at all now?

Positive discrimination is discrimination where there is harm to those who are discriminated. Why does this thread exist?

Femme_Fatale

As a white, middle-class, educated, heterosexual western woman who has never experienced discrimination in my life (unlike my male counterparts, who apparently face untold misery from dawn to dusk every day Brothers... unite!) it would be supremely arrogant of me to condemn those in whose shoes I have never walked, for this particular phenomenon.

I get people's issues with it (people who actually think about things, not the "Herpa derp why can't there be a white music awards" crowd) in that merit should be the deciding factor, but at the same time, things aren't as straightforward as that, so let them to it; it makes no difference to my life, I still have a ridiculous amount of privilege that many others don't. Overall, white people have always had it better. This should be very very easy to grasp - and I'm sure the naysayers are capable of grasping it, it's just that they need their daily dose of vitamin the-only-group-discriminated-against-nowadays-is-the-white-man. You'd think that sh1t would be strictly confined to satire, but nope, some folks actually convince themselves it's true. :pac:

At the same time though, I don't agree with "Women only" this and that (apart from when it's only practical) - the genders should be working together instead of coming up with crap that just further polarises.

keelanj69

I suppose in relation to politics it depends on society as a whole. I would never vote for a woman just because shes a woman. Etc Etc with regards white men, black men, disabled people.

That would be nonsensical.