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

SugarHigh · 02-12-2010 03:54PM #1

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 · 02-12-2010 04:01PM

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 · 02-12-2010 04:06PM

"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 · 02-12-2010 04:26PM

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 · 02-12-2010 04:30PM

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 · 02-12-2010 04:32PM

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 · 02-12-2010 05:26PM

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 · 02-12-2010 05:55PM

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 · 02-12-2010 06:32PM

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
1681396.bin

So does the University of Texas

Knasher · 02-12-2010 08:21PM

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 · 02-12-2010 08:42PM

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 · 02-12-2010 09:04PM

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 · 02-12-2010 09:10PM

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 · 02-12-2010 09:50PM

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 · 02-12-2010 10:05PM

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 · 02-12-2010 10:14PM

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 · 02-12-2010 11:16PM

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 · 02-12-2010 11:35PM

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 · 02-12-2010 11:40PM

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 · 02-12-2010 11:58PM

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 · 03-12-2010 12:54AM

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 · 03-12-2010 10:21AM

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 · 03-12-2010 11:04AM

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 · 03-12-2010 12:23PM

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 · 03-12-2010 01:35PM

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 · 03-12-2010 02:08PM

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 · 03-12-2010 02:11PM

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.

03-12-2010 02:11PM

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 · 03-12-2010 02:41PM

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 · 03-12-2010 03:07PM

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 · 03-12-2010 03:28PM

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.

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

Comments