Fight discrimination with discrimination

dsmythy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7474801.stm

Across the water they are planning to allow companies to discriminate in favour of women and ethnic minority groups in an effort to end discrimination against them. That's what it seems to be to me anyway.

So if a company has a female and male candidate of similar ability it would be legal to choose the woman over the man because you want a another woman on your staff. The man would have no protection for this.

Same goes with a choice between a white candidate and a black one for example. Personally this seems to defeat the purpose of what anti-discrimination should be all about.

Would you like to see similar laws here?

Dord

But isn't that discrimation against white people and men?

monkeyfudge

Note to self: I hate whites!

biko

The point is to promote minorities to such positions where they will reflect the the society they are in.
Today all board members of X company are male. Why?
Not because they are best at what they do but because they know each other from school, go to same gentlemen's clubs and socialise together.
I think Norway is very progressive in this field. Half the government is male.

togster

It's only right. It's positive discrimination tbh. Like biko said it's a system of elevating minorities to poitions to facilate an equal footing.

Recently talked to a friend who is in advertising in London. It's a very male dominated field, and their are no females in senior management in her company and others in that district.

Wimmenz deserve a chance.

Sherifu

Hate everyone the same.

oriain

I'm all for equality in all it's forms and for representing the demographics of your society but this is not equality, this is superiority. This law in the UK is taking rights away from heterosexual, caucasian males and making them an unprotected target for discrimination.

I don't think that anybody in their right mind can endorse "equality" at the expense of a person rights.

biko

I'll give an example of this: My friend left school with low grades but managed get into nursing school just because he was male. As they said "we need more male nurse because of the heavy lifting involved". No-one lifted an eyebrow.

monkeyfudge

They probably needed lots jam jars opened for them as well.

mikemac

biko wrote: »

I'll give an example of this: My friend left school with low grades but managed get into nursing school just because he was male. As they said "we need more male nurse because of the heavy lifting involved". No-one lifted an eyebrow.

Same in teaching.
It can extremely difficult for women to get a primary school teaching post but primary schools are crying out for male teachers to employ. It gives a balance and it helps in other factors like they might be more willing in training sports and PE.

If you’re a lad with a teaching degree, you have an advantage over a girl with same qualification

I.S.T.

biko wrote: »

The point is to promote minorities to such positions where they will reflect the the society they are in.
Today all board members of X company are male. Why?
Not because they are best at what they do but because they know each other from school, go to same gentlemen's clubs and socialise together.
I think Norway is very progressive in this field. Half the government is male.

So how is this new law going to make the members of the old boys club recruit women and non-whites? They will still have the same attitude, it will not make any difference

javaboy

What a pile of bs. The jobs should just be given out on merit and if equality is meant to be then it will happen gradually. Artificially adjusting the number of wimmins/minorities in jobs in this way is just discrimination against white males plain and simple. A few successful lawsuits on grounds of discrimination from white males will soon put a stop to this crap.

Dragan

So called "postitive discrimination" is hardly a new thing in fairness.

Zzippy

togster wrote: »

It's only right. It's positive discrimination tbh. Like biko said it's a system of elevating minorities to poitions to facilate an equal footing.

Recently talked to a friend who is in advertising in London. It's a very male dominated field, and their are no females in senior management in her company and others in that district.

Wimmenz deserve a chance.

Women aren't a minority though

I.S.T.

Zzippy wrote: »

Women aren't a minority though

I've never seen a binwoman. I wonder if this will result in more of them

Earthhorse

From reading the article I can't really see what this allows for that isn't allowed for already.

You can only choose a woman over a man, or vice versa, if they are of equal ability. What's to stop you from doing that now?

gogglebok

I think private companies should be able to discriminate against anyone they want to. If they get government support, however, I don't see why their attitudes shouldn't be weighted a little in favour of those whom society most often treats unfairly. It seems only fair.

Heterosexuals and males have received positive discrimination for years in Ireland, for example. The state should acknowledge that and throw a little rope to gay people and women.

Dragan

gogglebok wrote: »

Heterosexuals and males have received positive discrimination for years in Ireland, for example. The state should acknowledge that and throw a little rope to gay people and women.

Hardly makes sense to discriminate against people going through the system now because of the people who went through it before.

javaboy

gogglebok wrote: »

I think private companies should be able to discriminate against anyone they want to. If they get government support, however, I don't see why their attitudes shouldn't be weighted a little in favour of those whom society most often treats unfairly. It seems only fair.

Heterosexuals and males have received positive discrimination for years in Ireland, for example. The state should acknowledge that and throw a little rope to gay people and women.

Why should they? I'm a white straight male and I haven't benefitted from positive discrimination so why should I be discriminated against?

gogglebok

javaboy wrote: »

Why should they? I'm a white straight male and I haven't benefitted from positive discrimination so why should I be discriminated against?

You're allowed to marry someone you are sexually attracted to. Many people aren't.

I don't know of any current laws that discriminate directly against women. Maybe someone will point out a couple. There used to be quite a bundle, and many of the people they affected are still alive.

Up until 1973 males benefited from not being forced to leave the civil service if they got married, for example. That was discriminatory. A little payback wouldn't hurt, would it? Particularly when you factor in the probability that a history of state discrimination has trickled into the wider society and made things in general harder for gay people and women than for straight people and men.

Seonad

monkeyfudge wrote: »

They probably needed lots jam jars opened for them as well.

Nah just stick a knife in the side of the lid-it breaks the seal:D

I was looking in the Irish Independent today and they had a supplement of powerful Irish women, looking through it though, it is very clear indeed that very few women (if, indeed, any) exist on the boards of the top companies in this country-the most I saw was 2.

In terms of the apparent 40% pay difference between men and women, I don't really understand how this works? Surely there's a position which pays a specific wage, then both men and women apply and then whoever gets it, gets the wage? How is it that men are paid more for the same job if the salary is fixed for the position?

javaboy

gogglebok wrote: »

You're allowed to marry someone you are sexually attracted to. Many people aren't.

I don't know of any current laws that discriminate directly against women. Maybe someone will point out a couple. There used to be quite a bundle, and many of the people they affected are still alive.

Up until 1973 males benefited from not being forced to leave the civil service if they got married, for example. That was discriminatory. A little payback wouldn't hurt, would it? Particularly when you factor in the probability that a history of state discrimination has trickled into the wider society and made things in general harder for gay people and women than for straight people and men.

Well I was born in 1985 so explain to me why I should be discriminated against because of my sexuality, gender or skin colour? That's racism in my book.

Gone West

This affirmative action crap has been tried in the USA and Its been shown to cause more problems than is cures. In addition, its been shown that this so called "positive discrimination" does not work in the long term.

Climate Expert

If you are anti-racist/sexist and you promote these policies then you are beyond contempt.

As an able-bodied, white, male, hetrosexual, over 25 I'm fairly sick of being **** on from every other minority. I've never seen an initiative or grants to get men into teaching or nursing. I've seen plenty in the scientific field. I've seen plenty of initiatives for racial minorities but never any for me.
And for these reasons I reserve the right to be racist or sexist or use any kind of prejudice I like.
Equality of prejudice for all is the only fair way.

gogglebok

javaboy wrote: »

Well I was born in 1985 so explain to me why I should be discriminated against because of my sexuality, gender or skin colour? That's racism in my book.

I'm not proposing a law that would discriminate specifically against you. I'm saying:

1. Heterosexuals and males have received the benefit of state discrimination. I've given a couple of examples of this.

2. It seems fair that the pendulum should swing the other way a little. If we notice ourselves treating one group of people unfairly, is it really wrong to make up for it by over-correcting a little in the other direction?

gogglebok

Climate Expert wrote: »

I've never seen an initiative or grants to get men into teaching or nursing.

Do you think they would be a good idea?

Climate Expert wrote: »

And for these reasons I reserve the right to be racist or sexist or use any kind of prejudice I like.

So when you feel have been subjected to discrimination, you reserve the right to over-correct by disciminating in the opposite objection. Isn't that precisely what you're objecting to?

Climate Expert

is it really wrong to make up for by over-correct a little in the other direction?

Yes, you are advocating discrimination. I've never benefitted from discrimanation so why should I be discrimanated against.

Would you advocate enforced slavery of white americans to compensate for events that happened 300 years ago?

Pompey Magnus

I'm a young, white, heterosexual Irish male with no physical or mental disabilities and with a fixed abode. I think positive discrimination is a bad idea.

Climate Expert

gogglebok wrote: »

Do you think they would be a good idea?



So when you feel have been subjected to discrimination, you reserve the right to over-correct by disciminating in the opposite objection. Isn't that precisely what you're objecting to?

No, people should make their own chocies about what jobs they like. When I was in school there were 20 people studying physics. No girls decided to study the subject. That was their own personal choice.


I'm racist and sexist anyway, I don't believe in equality, just equality of discrimanation.

javaboy

gogglebok wrote: »

I'm not proposing a law that would discriminate specifically against you. I'm saying:

1. Heterosexuals and males have received the benefit of state discrimination. I've given a couple of examples of this.

2. It seems fair that the pendulum should swing the other way a little. If we notice ourselves treating one group of people unfairly, is it really wrong to make up for it by over-correcting a little in the other direction?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Wouldn't it be a better idea to just do it right from now on rather than trying to balance things out?

Mena

It's called Affirmative Action. It's done wonders for South Africa /sarcasm

gogglebok

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I'm a young, white, heterosexual Irish male with no physical or mental disabilities and with a fixed abode. I think positive discrimination is a bad idea.

The term "positive" in this debate doesnt' really mean anything. By definition a discrimination against one group positively discriminates in favour of the opposite group. I've no doubt about the fairness of your intentions. I'm trying to suggest that it is easy for us all to overlook the importance of institutional discrimination when it favours us.

Do you agree that the anti-gay laws discriminated positively in favour of heterosexuals? Do you agree as an able-bodied person you receive positive discrimination when a government office has steps but not a ramp?

Pompey Magnus

gogglebok wrote: »

1. Heterosexuals and males have received the benefit of state discrimination. I've given a couple of examples of this.

As someone new to the workforce I haven't recieved any benefits that any girl or gay person among my peers didn't get, why should I be punished because women 50 years ago had to give up their jobs when they got pregnant or some other example from the past?

Earthhorse

Seonad wrote: »

In terms of the apparent 40% pay difference between men and women, I don't really understand how this works? Surely there's a position which pays a specific wage, then both men and women apply and then whoever gets it, gets the wage? How is it that men are paid more for the same job if the salary is fixed for the position?

It's called discrimination.

FuzzyLogic wrote: »

This affirmative action crap has been tried in the USA and Its been shown to cause more problems than is cures.

This isn't affirmative action though.

gogglebok

javaboy wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right. Wouldn't it be a better idea to just do it right from now on rather than trying to balance things out?

I do see your point. I just think there is a residual benefit that accrues to being in a more powerful position in society, and that it's not an evil or mad policy to try to even it out.

I'm not saying your policy is mad or evil either. It obviously isn't. I think we agree that the state should be fair to everyone, and have a pretty small disagreement about the means.

Would you agree that the state is unfair to gay people now? Or that past unfairness probably still works against gay people?

gogglebok

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

As someone new to the workforce I haven't recieved any benefits that any girl or gay person among my peers didn't get, why should I be punished because women 50 years ago had to give up their jobs when they got pregnant or some other example from the past?

It's 35 years ago. Some of those people may be going for the same job as you. Society isn't just made up of those you identify as your peers. The state has to consider everyone, even women over the age of 53.

Anyway, the bias in favour of heterosexual marriage is still in force. That does directly affect your peers.

gogglebok

Climate Expert wrote: »

Yes, you are advocating discrimination. I've never benefitted from discrimanation so why should I be discrimanated against.

I'm suggesting that you have received the benefits of discrimination against gays and women, and continue to receive them by being straight and male in a society that skews in favour of straight males.

Climate Expert wrote: »

Would you advocate enforced slavery of white americans to compensate for events that happened 300 years ago?

Yes. Yes, I would.

matrim

Seonad wrote: »

In terms of the apparent 40% pay difference between men and women, I don't really understand how this works? Surely there's a position which pays a specific wage, then both men and women apply and then whoever gets it, gets the wage? How is it that men are paid more for the same job if the salary is fixed for the position?

This is the quote from the artical

Female part-time workers still earned 40% less per hour than their full-time male counterparts, Ms Harman told Today BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"Do we think she is 40% less intelligent, less committed, less hard-working, less qualified? It's not the case. It's entrenched discrimination. It's allowed to persist because it's all swept under the carpet."

Maybe they get paid 40% less because the work 40% less, as they work part time.

gogglebok

matrim wrote: »

Maybe they get paid 40% less because the work 40% less, as they work part time.

It's 40% less per hour. There's no suggestion that they work less hard.

Climate Expert

matrim wrote: »

This is the quote from the artical



Maybe they get paid 40% less because the work 40% less, as they work part time.

No its per hour.

Part time workers get paid less than full time workers per hour, regardless of sex.

Women earn less than men because they work in less well paid careers.

Earthhorse

matrim wrote: »

Maybe they get paid 40% less because the work 40% less, as they work part time.

Read it again. It says they get paid 40% less per hour than their full time male counterparts. The benefit of working longer hours is that you get more hours of pay not more pay per hour.

javaboy

Earthhorse wrote: »

Read it again. It says they get paid 40% less per hour than their full time male counterparts. The benefit of working longer hours is that you get more hours of pay not more pay per hour.

When I worked part time as a straight white Irish male I also got paid considerably less money per hour than my full-time straight white Irish male counterparts.

matrim

Sorry, I'd missed the per hour thing when I read it first.

However, it still holds that a part-time worker will get paid less than a full-time per hour.
Any job I've worked in has been like that whether the people are male or female.

Earthhorse

Climate Expert wrote: »

Women earn less than men because they work in less well paid careers.

Or is it that the industries in which women work are traditionally less well paid because they were staffed by women.

*head asplode*

javaboy wrote: »

When I worked part time as a straight white Irish male I also got paid considerably less money per hour than my full-time straight white Irish male counterparts.

They were discriminating against you because of the java, though.

I take your point but one would assume the study took into account what equivalent male part time workers were paid. Well, maybe one wouldn't assume but one would hope.

Seonad

Climate Expert wrote: »

No its per hour.

Part time workers get paid less than full time workers per hour, regardless of sex.

Women earn less than men because they work in less well paid careers.

So then what's the problem? Why point out this apparent difference if there isn't any? Both part-time males and females seem to be paid the same for the same work and also one can conclude that both full-time males and females are paid equally?
The only problem that I can see is that full-time and part-time staff-regardless of gender-aren't paid the same wage per hour...

taidghbaby

did someone apply the same logic to this as they did to smallpox in the 18th century

i.e. use a small amount of cowpox to eradicate smallpox

SV

Being half cast has never been so convenient.

SimpleSam06

gogglebok wrote: »

A little payback wouldn't hurt, would it?

Not if you don't mind pissing off "the majority" and ensuring that you will be on the receiving end of their "payback" some day. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and all that.

Tbh the whole thing is idiocy. Any group, society or organisation that isn't a meritocracy (the best person for the job regardless of race, gender or creed) is putting itself at a major disadvantage against groups that are, and is wilfully choosing inferior alternatives in order to make some politically correct busybodies feel better.

I am completely against discrimination, I think its a tremendous waste of resources, but that cuts both ways. If interviews were conducted over chat programs or something, and the interviewers unaware of the gender or whatever of the person they are interviewing, that might be the best alternative. Obviously this would exclude positions where personal appearance is a factor (you couldn't have modelling agencies working on this premise for example).

gogglebok

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Tbh the whole thing is idiocy. Any group, society or organisation that isn't a meritocracy (the best person for the job regardless of race, gender or creed) is putting itself at a major disadvantage against groups that are, and is wilfully choosing inferior alternatives in order to make some politically correct busybodies feel better.

First off, "in order to make politically correct busybodies feel better" is hardly a decent summary of the case that has been put forth here or elsewhere in favour of this kind of policy. It's a silly caricature.

I can think of three problems with regard to the position Javaboy put forward, that the best thing is to put the past aside and treat everyone equally from now on. (I'm picking Javaboy's case because it seems to me the clearest and best argument.)

1. No-one can seriously contend that the state will treat people equally from now on. There is still plenty of discrimination against gay people, for example.

2. "Equal from now on" can perpetuate great injustices. Tell everyone where the gold is, give some groups a headstart, and when their pockets are filled declare that from now on everyone is equal. It's not a meaningful equality.

3. A meritocracy depends on including everyone. That means giving everyone a fair chance - giving everyone equal access to training. Affirmative action with regard to black people in American college admissions, to take one clear example, attempts to do this. A history of excluding a group from education will obviously harm their ability, and their children's ability, to thrive in the education system. So the state gives itself the best team to pick from by offering a leg up to those who need it. (Particularly when they need it precisely because of the previous policies of the state.) It's not just fairness. It's economic sense.

Let's be clear about merit. Firing women who wanted to get married didn't just do those women an injustice. It also weakened the talent pool available to the civil service, made it unbalanced, and ensured that the positions of authority were more likely to be filled by people who had received an unjust advantage. Is it really surprising if they favour their own kind? Is it really bad to try to balance that?

When you talk about "wilfully choosing inferior alternatives" you should take some account of the fact that this is what the state here did for many years.

Macha

^^ Great post

javaboy

gogglebok wrote: »

1. No-one can seriously contend that the state will treat people equally from now on. There is still plenty of discrimination against gay people, for example.

Yes there is still discrimination against gay people for example but it would be better to correct this than to overcorrect it.

2. "Equal from now on" can perpetuate great injustices. Tell everyone where the gold is, give some groups a headstart, and when their pockets are filled declare that from now on everyone is equal. It's not a meaningful equality.

Imo the mistake you're making here is treating one group such as white straight males as an entity. Sure that group has been benefitting from discrimination for years but that doesn't mean each member individual has benefitted and that headstart you mention has no effect on me.

3. A meritocracy depends on including everyone. That means giving everyone a fair chance - giving everyone equal access to training. Affirmative action with regard to black people in American college admissions, to take one clear example, attempts to do this. A history of excluding a group from education will obviously harm their ability, and their children's ability, to thrive in the eduucation system. So the state gives itself the best team to pick from by offering a leg up to those who need it. (Particularly when they need it precisely because of the previous policies of the state.) It's not just fairness. It's economic sense.

Let's be clear about merit. Firing women who wanted to get married didn't just do those women an injustice. It also weakened the talent pool available to the civil service, made it unbalanced, and ensured that the positions of authority were more likely to be filled by people who had received an unjust advantage. Is it really surprising if they favour their own kind? Is it really bad to try to balance that?

When you talk about "wilfully choosing inferior advantages" you should take some account of the fact that this is what the state here did for many years.

I don't think anybody's suggesting that what happened in the past in e.g. the civil service in Ireland was right but there really isn't much point in trying to artificially rebalance things. The case of blacks in America is one where I would have some sympathy for the idea of positive discrimination.

For many years black people have been marginalised in education and black people are obviously more likely to have black children and so that discrimination can incrementally affect a family through the generations.

But that does not apply to women or gays. If a man benefits from anti-female discrimination and years later his two kids, one male and one female, apply for the same job with the same qualifications etc. why should the woman be favoured? They have the same background.