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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

pissants wrote: »

here's the trick: white males are already two steps ahead of everybody else, because white racial/patriarchal advantage is ingrained into the fabric of western society. You don't have to be racist or chauvinistic to benefit from this: you simply have to be born a white male.

White males on the whole still have higher incomes, greater social mobility, and easier access to privileged position in the workforce than the opposite sex or any other racial group. Making things 'equal' (i.e. no intervention from society to rebalance this) means the current system is simply reproduced.

It's funny that teaching is being used as a counterbalance here because
the ratio of male-to-female principals is 70/30 in secondary schools, 65/35 in vocational, and 80/20 in comprehensive schools (http://www.tcd.ie/immigration/css/downloads/ELS_Policy,_challenges_and_deficits.pdf)

Male-to-female ratio of teachers is currently 40/60. Whatever the reasons why less men become teachers than woment may be, it's not because they are discriminated against. The comparison with the engineering field doesn't hold water here.

Just because the top earners in the world are white males does not mean it's easier for a white male to become a white earner. Explain to me how it gives an individual white male an advantage?
How is it more difficult for a women?

Is it more difficult for a white person with equal talent to beat a black runner at a long distance race because there are more successful black long distance runners. Obviously I'd say no. It actually has nothing to do with being black or white it is instead about talent which isn't something black people have more of, the reason there are more black runners is because people from north eastern African countries just happen to be black. The reason they are better at long distance is because they are from areas of very high elevation which means there bodies can operate on less O2.

White males do not have an advantage over people with the same talent but different the reason most top CEO's are white is because most rich family's happens o be white. Children of rich people have an advantage of better education and are more likely to be successful. A rich black family has the same advantages. It isn't a race issue you are just looking at the numbers and calling it one.

Giving a poor black child an advantage over a poor white child makes no sense and is simply people trying to make the numbers look better while making in more unfair for the individual.

Knasher wrote: »

Discriminatory policies will always be unfair to the individuals being discriminated against. In the case of positive discrimination its not a question whether its fair, its a question whether it will have an overall long term positive effect to society.

It is of course possible that any scheme will have negative effects, maybe even to the area, individuals and to the group its meant to help. For instance in politics there is a lot of talk about gender quotas. It is entirely possible that they will result in female politicians being taken less seriously (I mean comparatively of course, nobody takes politicians seriously as a group) seeing they may have gotten in as a result of a quota. The area may suffer as the result of stupid politicians, like Sarah Palin, who I imagine is only there because she is a woman (I can see no other reason, and irregardless of whether I'm right or not it will be the prevailing opinion I think). She damages both politics in general and the case for women in politics. And finally of course the men who are excluded because their opponents are women.

The question it then whether the negative effects outweigh the positive to society in general. I don't pretend to know the answer, though I do hope the people in charge at least ask the question rather than take a knee-jerk approach to negative statistics and pressure from interest groups.

I do think any discussion on so called positive discrimination needs to take a long term look rather than limit itself to the short term simply because the issues its meant to address are long term ones.

The hope of affirmative action is that it will eventually lead to as 50/50 male female ratios in certain workplaces. Why is this a worth while goal?

If there is no barrier to women entering Science but less women are entering, why does that need to be manipulated to give a 50/50 representation?

The aim should be to get the best Scientists not care about what gender or race they happen to be.

Trying to give a view of an equal balance means we get stupid things like any sort of achievement by a woman gets blown out of proportion to what it deserves simply because it's a woman. Look at how any a female get's a high promotion it makes the news even though if it was a man nobody would care we are simply not a country that is interested in our military(unless it's a woman). Or even how relatively obscure achievements in Science get a lot more attention than would normally happen if it's a woman who makes the achievement.

I see what that they're trying to build up womens confidence in their own gender and take pride in their gender(crap like girl power). I just don't think it's a worthwhile aim. We should give attention to achievements that most deserve because of the merits of the achievement not because of the gender who made it. Women should not feel ANY pride about the accomplishments of other women, the same way having pride in the accomplishments of someone just because they were born in the same country as you is just dumb.

It's the gender equivalent of nationalism and I think it just makes more sense for gender to not be a factor than to try and raise up female achievement to match those of men. Which makes gender a massive factor and creates a pointless competition between genders. I don't know why feminists push this competition so much because the achievements of white males will never be matched, we held an advantage for so long.

A white male taken pride in the achievements of white males simply because their white is stupid but also doesn't happen that much so why do we try and encourage women or ethnics to do it?

It makes more sense to me to simply remove them as factors and just focus on talents and abilities for who is deserving of praise. Women have an equal opportunity to become Scientists so if they're not doing that why force it simply because they're women?