Fight discrimination with discrimination

SimpleSam06

gogglebok wrote: »

It's a silly caricature.

I would agree that positive discrimination is a silly caricature of a reasonable policy.

gogglebok wrote: »

1. No-one can seriously contend that the state will treat people equally from now on.

How does that impact what I said? If the state continues to practise discrimnation, thats a problem with the state, not with my comment. If the state is not treating people equally, that doesn't mean the state should turn around and continue that unequal treatment in the opposite direction.

gogglebok wrote: »

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.

Your example assumes that employment is a zero sum game. There is not a limited amount of gold, fresh gold is being created all the time as older people retire and new people are hired. If discrimation is being applied against new hires, again thats a problem with the organisation, not my comment.

Your comment smacks of retributive measures, which only lead in one direction, and believe me thats not where you want to go.

gogglebok wrote: »

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.

I do understand that levelling the playing field might be neccessary when people start out with a disadvantage, but to believe that such a system exists in Ireland to anywhere near the extent that it existed in the US is madness. As well as that, you have the "no child left behind" policy, which seeks to provide the ultimate level playing field but instead puts more intelligent children at a major disadvantage, reducing the overall effectiveness of the system. One size does not fit all.

gogglebok wrote: »

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.

And once again, thats a problem with the state, not with my comment, and overcompensating perpetuates the problem, it does not resolve it.

gogglebok

javaboy wrote: »

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

Correcting it right now, I agree, is necessary. But it's only a start. If the state starts treating gay people equally from tomorrow, does is not have any responsibility for the harm it did to them last week?

javaboy wrote: »

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.

I would say that every time doesn't shout racial abuse at you, or gay-bash you, or yell at you to get your tits out, the discrimination against those groups is affecting you positively. I'm not suggesting you're to blame for that, but there is a secret dividend in Irish society for being straight and white and male and middle class, and a couple of other things. Therefore there's a case to be made for equalising it.

A weakness in my argument is that not all of the bias against those categories of people is generated by the state. The governemnt doesn't pay idiots to leer at women. To be honest, I'm not sure where I stand on the state intervening to correct purely social inequalities. You could say that the state helped create the inequalities, but you could also say that state intervention in private matters is usually heavy-handed and counter-productive.

javaboy wrote: »

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.

Javaboy, just because my argument doesn't apply doesn't mean I'm not right.

Oh wait, it does.

Yeah, I would fall back on the more generalised "social bias" argument here, but I really don't know how far I'd push it.

gogglebok

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I would agree that positive discrimination is a silly caricature of a reasonable policy.

<recalibrates riposte-o-meter from 'Wildean' to 'playground'>

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Your example assumes that employment is a zero sum game. There is not a limited amount of gold, fresh gold is being created all the time as older people retire and new people are hired. If discrimation is being applied against new hires, again thats a problem with the organisation, not my comment.

Maybe. I started by saying that I wouldn't impose equality measures on any private organisation, only those that receive state support. I go further on this than most people I know. I think a pub should be free to bar people because of their race or colour or gender, for example. I just wouldn't want to drink there.

With private companies, their hiring policy should be their own business. I would hope social pressure would be brought to bear on anything nasty.

SimpleSam06

gogglebok wrote: »

<recalibrates riposte-o-meter from 'Wildean' to 'playground'>

Sufficient unto the day, etc...

gogglebok wrote: »

I started by saying that I wouldn't impose equality measures on any private organisation, only those that receive state support.

Eh don't you think the public deserves to get the best value for their taxes that they can get? A more efficient and productive public sector is not something you can achieve by shoehorning in minorities or those of a certain sexual preference over more qualified or capable candidates. The idea of the public sector being something that we must put up with rather than of something that should benefit all of us is doing no one any favours.

You can't resolve discrimination by reversing the discrimination, that just introduces another inequality which must at some stage be reversed.

animaal

With rights come responsibilities.

Over tha past century, millions of men died fighting wars to preserve their societies' way of life (discrimination and all). That's about 35 million in two world wars. Now that we're making up for past discrimination, I propose that in future wars, only women are sent to fight. Just until the numbers are evened up.

gogglebok

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Eh don't you think the public deserves to get the best value for their taxes that they can get? A more efficient and productive public sector is not something you can achieve by shoehorning in minorities or those of a certain sexual preference over more qualified or capable candidates. The idea of the public sector being something that we must put up with rather than of something that should benefit all of us is doing no one any favours.

You can't resolve discrimination by reversing the discrimination, that just introduces another inequality which must at some stage be reversed.

Yeah, I do see your point. But I think we're just thinking about this differently. For a start, I'm not talking about dropping Shay Given in favour of Dale Winton. I don't think anyone really wants to promote incompetent people over superb people just because of their colour or sexual preference. The policy would include a clause something like "all other things being equal - or very nearly equal". I don't think any great injustice is done if a candidate from an advantaged group needs 700 points to study medicine, while a candidate from a disadvantaged group needs only 698. The aim is not to garland a moron with all the plum jobs, but to balance out some of the social disadvantage that probably takes 2 points off the score of a black person, or someone in a wheelchair, or a traveller.

Do you accept that there are social disadvantages that affect a given minority? If there are, then a member of that minority has to show more grit and intelligence to reach a certain level than someone from the advantaged majority. It's harder for a black kid to do well in school, to stick with that example. So a slight (and I mean slight) preference is not rewarding his skin colour, but the qualities it took for him to overcome the disadvantage society placed him at because of his skin colour.

Do you honestly not see any merit in that case? I don't expect us to agree, and I do see the good in your argument. For the guy on 700 points who is not getting into Medicine it must feel very like an injustice. I would argue that the feeling of injustice is based on too narrow an appraisal of the facts, but I would feel a lot of sympathy for the individual.

gogglebok

animaal wrote: »

With rights come responsibilities.

Over tha past century, millions of men died fighting wars to preserve their societies' way of life (discrimination and all). That's about 35 million in two world wars. Now that we're making up for past discrimination, I propose that in future wars, only women are sent to fight. Just until the numbers are evened up.

Excellent idea. Obviously we'd have to rule out the career soldiers who joined the army voluntarily, since that option wasn't available to women. And we'd have to balance the measure by returning much of the world's land and property to women, seeing as their forebears were prevented from owning any. And women's votes in most countries would have to be given double or triple weight, to re-balance the late extension of democratic rights to women. But I do like your thinking.

In the meantime, you do realise that this isn't a great analogy for the living women who were forced to chooose between work and marriage? Or the gay people who aren't allowed to marry even now?

Climate Expert

gogglebok wrote: »

In the meantime, you do realise that this isn't a great analogy for the living women who were forced to chooose between work and marriage? Or the gay people who aren't allowed to marry even now?

]Nobody is forcing you to ride other men. You can't expect the whole world to be comfortable with the idea either.

gogglebok

Climate Expert wrote: »

]Nobody is forcing you to ride other men. You can't expect the whole world to be comfortable with the idea either.

What?

kowloon

Read a paper on a train in Englandia that had statistics that fly in the face of the women getting payed less stats.
Apparently of you compare like with like and don't include part time workers and people who care for their children the disparity between male and female wages is not so obvious. The report suggested that at current rates women will control 65% of the wealth in 20 years. (in the UK I'm assuming)
Not sure how true the above was but it does highlight how easily statistics can be invented for any argument.

Having minorities represented proportional to population is a load of pc bull. There are jobs that attract certain types of people. How many Hindus work in kepak?

AlmightyCushion

ClioV6 wrote: »

Being half cast has never been so convenient.

Hermaphrodite as well.

JC 2K3

gogglebok wrote: »

Correcting it right now, I agree, is necessary. But it's only a start. If the state starts treating gay people equally from tomorrow, does is not have any responsibility for the harm it did to them last week?

No, it does not. If a state changes a law it doesn't have any responsibility for infringements against that law before it came into force, nor for any negative consequences that arose from having/not having a certain law in place.

After the smoking ban, the state did not have responsibilty to compensate bar workers who developed lung problems in smoky atmospheres, if the state were to legalise drugs, it'd have no obligation to release drug dealers from prison and compensate them, or if the state were to legalise abortion, it'd have no obligation to compensate those who had abortions for the money they spent on travel.

The same applies to something like the legalisation of gay marriage. It doesn't have to compensate gay people for not previously allowing them to marry (or by your logic, make hetrosexual marriage illegal for a couple of years or something). Laws change as morality evolves and a state progesses to reflect the present situation, not to correct the errors of the past.

Another problem with your argument is that it sees people as demographic groups rather than individuals, and in doing this, neglects the fact that the individuals making up these demographic groups are changing constantly. White males shouldn't be discriminated against because their fathers and grandfathers enjoyed more privilages than females and other racial groups.

"Positive" Discrimination in this day and age simply discriminates against people who've never really enjoyed any of the privilages associated with their demograph in the past, and therefore are just an arbitrary group of people being discriminated against due to their sex or skin colour. It creates resentment and disillusionment amongst these people and this is not in anyway healthy for society.

Stercus Accidit

JC 2K3 wrote: »

...

hits thanks button

kowloon

If anything I can see the resentment caused by "reforms" such as these accelerating social problems. How would anyone feel when they are passed over for the advancement of a minority?

Eoin

gogglebok wrote:

I don't think any great injustice is done if a candidate from an advantaged group needs 700 points to study medicine, while a candidate from a disadvantaged group needs only 698. The aim is not to garland a moron with all the plum jobs, but to balance out some of the social disadvantage that probably takes 2 points off the score of a black person, or someone in a wheelchair, or a traveller.

Do you accept that there are social disadvantages that affect a given minority? If there are, then a member of that minority has to show more grit and intelligence to reach a certain level than someone from the advantaged majority. It's harder for a black kid to do well in school, to stick with that example. So a slight (and I mean slight) preference is not rewarding his skin colour, but the qualities it took for him to overcome the disadvantage society placed him at because of his skin colour.

I can't help but think that the first thing that affirmative action does is define the person by a characteristic / attribute that they shouldn't be in the first place.

To use your example above - if that black person gets in because they've shown the qualities etc etc, but gotten less points then some people will say that they only got the college place because they are black. And they wouldn't be far wrong either.

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.

I don't think that any of your comments about gay rights are particularly applicable because they don't refer to employment which I gather to the main point of this (if not, let's talk about Fathers' rights), and also giving gay people the right to marriage does not take away from straight peoples' right to marry.

Yes, things have been bad for a very long time, but it has gotten a lot better. However, these things take time, and now with more women in the workforce, this will filter upwards through organisations. Career progression because of the amount of melanin one has, or where their reproductive organs are is lunacy - that cuts both ways.

I don't know if it will ever be 50/50 though. At the end of the day, a big percentage of women in the workforce will have kids. If they avail of the full maternity leave, that's 6 months away from the office.

This raises a few questions:

Should a person who was at work for the entire year have more rights to career progression - or should their progress be artificially slowed so the woman on maternity leave is as eligible for a promotion?

Should women be able to transfer their maternity leave to the father of the child, so he can mind the child and allow her to re-join the workforce as soon as possible?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Right, just to be clear, did everyone who's bothering to reply to gogglebok read this comment?

Climate Expert in italics, gogglebok in bold wrote:

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

Yes. Yes, I would.

On topic, I think its a very good idea in theory, but how would you define "equal in ability"? Might have an influence if interviewers are arguing over who made a better candidate.

AlmightyCushion

Hopefully this works out better than the time I decided to fight fire with fire.

SV

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Hermaphrodite as well.

In time...in time..

javaboy

JC 2K3 wrote: »

No, it does not. If a state changes a law it doesn't have any responsibility for infringements against that law before it came into force, nor for any negative consequences that arose from having/not having a certain law in place.

After the smoking ban, the state did not have responsibilty to compensate bar workers who developed lung problems in smoky atmospheres, if the state were to legalise drugs, it'd have no obligation to release drug dealers from prison and compensate them, or if the state were to legalise abortion, it'd have no obligation to compensate those who had abortions for the money they spent on travel.

The same applies to something like the legalisation of gay marriage. It doesn't have to compensate gay people for not previously allowing them to marry (or by your logic, make hetrosexual marriage illegal for a couple of years or something). Laws change as morality evolves and a state progesses to reflect the present situation, not to correct the errors of the past.

Another problem with your argument is that it sees people as demographic groups rather than individuals, and in doing this, neglects the fact that the individuals making up these demographic groups are changing constantly. White males shouldn't be discriminated against because their fathers and grandfathers enjoyed more privilages than females and other racial groups.

"Positive" Discrimination in this day and age simply discriminates against people who've never really enjoyed any of the privilages associated with their demograph in the past, and therefore are just an arbitrary group of people being discriminated against due to their sex or skin colour. It creates resentment and disillusionment amongst these people and this is not in anyway healthy for society.

+1. Sums up everything I was trying to say earlier especially re individuals being lumped into demographics but I was typing with just one finger earlier so I couldn't be nearly as eloquent. Bravo sir.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Right, just to be clear, did everyone who's bothering to reply to gogglebok read this comment?

I assumed/hoped he was being a bit tongue in cheek when he agreed that slavery should be brought in for whites in the US.

gogglebok

JC 2K3: Of course the state can't apply new laws retrospectively. But it's not enough to stop kicking someone. You should also help him up.

The idea that this kind of policy sees people as demographic groups rather than individuals only goes so far in describing the situation. The fact is that every individual is a member of many demographic groups, and these have an influence on how he is treated. Those of us who are privileged by accidents or injustices of society should be willing to make the odd sacrifice to help those who aren't.

Obviously, this only works if you believe that there is some advantage attached in our society to being white, male, straight, middle-class, settled and so forth. If you don't, what I am suggesting will sound ridiculously unfair.

Bottle of Smoke: As to defining "equal in ability", I'm open to suggestions. Some measures, like exam points, are clear. Others are less so, but we can at least make sure there is a bit of diversity on an interview panel.

javaboy

gogglebok wrote: »

JC 2K3: Of course the state can't apply new laws retrospectively. But it's not enough to stop kicking someone. You should also help him up.

The idea that this kind of policy sees people as demographic groups rather than individuals only goes so far in describing the situation. The fact is that every individual is a member of many demographic groups, and these have an influence on how he is treated. Those of us who are privileged by accidents or injustices of society should be willing to make the odd sacrifice to help those who aren't.

Obviously, this only works if you believe that there is some advantage attached in our society to being white, male, straight, middle-class, settled and so forth. If you don't, what I am suggesting will sound ridiculously unfair.

Bottle of Smoke: As to defining "equal in ability", I'm open to suggestions. Some measures, like exam points, are clear. Others are less so, but we can at least make sure there is a bit of diversity on an interview panel.

But the point we are arguing is that if (and I admit it's a big if) there was no advantage to being a white straight middle class settled.... (somebody get David McWilliams to come up with a stupid acronym I'm fed up typing that )... male then there would be no need for "helping them up" after we've stopped "kicking them". Society would be unneccessarily favouring for example women who have never been discriminated against over males who have never benefitted from discrimination. Things will find a balance naturally. Forcing these kind of things is doomed to failure imo.

The exception as I've pointed out earlier is where a race/ethnic group has been downtrodden to the point where there is a knock on effect to further generations which is the case for blacks in America but does not imho apply to any situation here.

Blisterman

I'd take a lot of these "Women earn xxx less than men" or "Only xxx of top executives are female" with a grain of salt.

What it fails to take into consideration are peoples aspirations.

I'd guarantee, if you looked at what percentage of men's life goal was to rise to the top in big companies and earn lots of money, compared to the percentage of women, who's primary goal was the same, there would be a huge difference.

People don't rise to the top, merely by being competent at their job. The people who suceed are the people who strive to succeed.

Sleepy

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.

It's all wrong.

The only results of so-called 'positive' discrimination are to call the ability of the group you're discriminating in favour of into question and engender predjudice in those being discriminated against.

Right now, most reasonable people have no problem with any immigrant moving to Ireland to work. Introduce 'affirmitive action' where they'd be discriminated against due to their skin colour or nationality and see how long it takes for a National Front-stype party to emerge.

gogglebok

javaboy wrote: »

But the point we are arguing is that if (and I admit it's a big if) there was no advantage to being a white straight middle class settled.... (somebody get David McWilliams to come up with a stupid acronym I'm fed up typing that )... male then there would be no need for "helping them up" after we've stopped "kicking them". Society would be unneccessarily favouring for example women who have never been discriminated against over males who have never benefitted from discrimination. Things will find a balance naturally. Forcing these kind of things is doomed to failure imo.

If someone has been discriminated against in the education system, the effects of that last throughout their lives and the lives of their children. And if you acknowledge that society is skewed towards males, then there is no such thing as a male who has never benefitted from discrimination.

Sleepy

Blisterman wrote: »

I'd take a lot of these "Women earn xxx less than men" or "Only xxx of top executives are female" with a grain of salt.

What it fails to take into consideration are peoples aspirations.

I'd guarantee, if you looked at what percentage of men's life goal was to rise to the top in big companies and earn lots of money, compared to the percentage of women, who's primary goal was the same, there would be a huge difference.

People don't rise to the top, merely by being competent at their job. The people who suceed are the people who strive to succeed.

You also have to look at the agenda of the person writing the article / doing the statistics. The stuff we see in the likes of the Indo is usually a *hugely* over-simplified analysis of figures.

Yes, in modern day Ireland, the 'average woman' earns less than the 'average' man.

However, the 'average' man works longer hours, doesn't have paternity leave entitlements, pursues more lucrative careers and places more priority on his career than the 'average' woman. Annecdotally I've noticed amongst my own colleagues that the men tend to be more prepared to dig their heels in and fight for their due during a salary negotiation than their female counterparts.

You also have to factor in the effect on the analysis of previous generations (many of our parents) where the single-income family was the norm and the fact that these men are now the leaders of industry, heads of departments etc. means they have the highest paying jobs skews the figures.

Looked at demographically, adjusted for hours worked, level of experience relevant to the position and qualification, I'd love to see someone prove a disparity still exists in Irish society in favour of men. In fact, I'd be inclined to think it may actually have already swung the other way given lack of paternity leave and the statistics telling us that there are more female single first time buyers than male ones...

Sleepy

gogglebok wrote: »

If someone has been discriminated against in the education system, the effects of that last throughout their lives and the lives of their children. And if you acknowledge that society is skewed towards males, then there is no such thing as a male who has never benefitted from discrimination.

What if you don't acknowledge that society is skewed towards males?

gogglebok

Sleepy wrote: »

What if you don't acknowledge that society is skewed towards males?

Then, as I said, the policy I'm supporting will sound ridiculously unfair. The discussion should probably get another thread though.

Sleepy

Even with the suposition what you're suggesting sounds ill-conceived and ultimately destined to cause more problems than it solves.

While you can legislate for what you call positive discrimination or affirmitive action, in practise they're unenforceable outside of the public sector. Even with all the current equality legislation you hear of employers who are (somewhat understandably IMHO) reluctant to hire women of child bearing age. So what can we do about this?

Legislating that they must hire the woman if she's of 'equal qualification and suitability' will merely antagonise them (perhaps even validating their current prejudice) and they'll find some factor which deems the woman 'less suitable'. For example take Alan Sugar's reason for hiring this year's apprentice - "I wanted someone I could mould". How does one measure the 'mouldability' of a job candidate - you can't. Most likely you'd create a situation where women applied for (and got) the majority of public sector jobs while men got the majority of the private sector.

But hang on a second, what's your ultimate goal in this scenario? Equality, wasn't it?

So, instead scrap maternity leave, introduce parental leave and enforce a minimum of it to be taken by each parent et voila - equality. The employer will do what's good for his pocket and simply hire the best candidate in front of him if they all have the same potential to be gone for months at a time, regardless of gender.

As has already been pointed out to you, issues of discrimination aren't linear zero sum games. What harms someone in a minority group may not necessarily benefit the other (e.g. same sex marriage) so trying to solve them with a linear equation that ignores the individual isn't going to work - think outside the box a little

Tha Gopher

Maybe women are paid less because, proportionately, they often work less hard than their male colleagues? And take more sick days?

From my experience in the world of work departments and firms run by women are run into the ground.

Terry

Dragan wrote: »

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

Indeed.
However, it's still discrimination.

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.

Get married in England.

Mena wrote: »

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

Sleepy wrote: »

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.

It's all wrong.

The only results of so-called 'positive' discrimination are to call the ability of the group you're discriminating in favour of into question and engender predjudice in those being discriminated against.

Right now, most reasonable people have no problem with any immigrant moving to Ireland to work. Introduce 'affirmitive action' where they'd be discriminated against due to their skin colour or nationality and see how long it takes for a National Front-stype party to emerge.

What he said.

Ok, I'm ginger.
Ginger people have the piss ripped out of them all the time.

From now on I will play the ginger discrimination card whenever I go for an interview.
Do any of you liberal hippies have a problem with that?
After all, we are a minority and a dying breed.

White males are the majority in the western world. This is why they dominate high powered jobs.
It's not rocket science.

I might just go to Iran and demand equal rights for white gingers.
I wonder how far I'll get.


Fúcking hippies trying to save the world, but only creating greater divisions by doing this.
Dumb bastards need to lay off the weed.

the_syco

dsmythy wrote: »

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?

Bit slow, aren't ye? It's been the case here for years. Look at all the percentages that must be of X category, and you'll notice that a white male is not a requirement.

Blackjack

Positive discrimination is discrimination, plain and simple.
If someone is the best candidate for the Job, then they are the ones that should be offered the role, plain and simple.
It should not be a case of them being the second best but being selected over a better candidate because of Race/gender/sexual preference or creed, just to tick a box or ensure some diversity quota is fulfilled.

Before anyone asks, I am someone who's employed people who have been female/gay/ whatever you consider to be a minority.
Best people for the job - that's the only selection process that should ever apply.

Earthhorse

Terry wrote: »

However, it's still discrimination.

However, it's still positive, right? lol!

Terry wrote: »

Ok, I'm ginger. Ginger people have the piss ripped out of them all the time.

Oh, yeah, I remember when gingers had to go on hunger strike and throw themselves under horses and shit to get the vote. And the recent past when there was specific employment legislationt that discriminated against them.

Terry wrote: »

White males are the majority in the western world. This is why they dominate high powered jobs. It's not rocket science.

You don't undo thousands of years of patriarchy in two generations. There's still a lot of sexism and sexists out there. Some of them are even liberal hippies.

Terry wrote: »

Fúcking hippies trying to save the world, but only creating greater divisions by doing this. Dumb bastards need to lay off the weed.

Those fuckers ruin everything!

Look, normally, I would be against this sort of thing but first off the measure being introduced here is pretty meek (and I guess people aren't even talking about it really anymore). But it's interesting, I was reading this article in the Sunday Times recently about what they're doing in Norway and it's a real eye opener.

The article is far too long to post but here's the gist of it.

Norwegian minister (burly old man, not a feminist) introduces measures to ensure 40% of all Norwegian companies boards are comprised of women. He doesn't consult the government and they are all like "Wha?" but there's fuck all they can do about it so he introduces the legislation. As a little incentive any company that does not comply faces closure.

All the business heads and politicans and shit, including female heads of industry, are going "What the fuck, you can't do this, investors will leave and no one will like us and you suck!", except in Norwegian, but he is just like "Tough shit!".

By spring of 2008 there was full compliance with the measure and guess what?

Everyone loved it. From the article:

The Sunday Times wrote:

It is now six years since Gabrielsen’s “shock bombing”, and the sky has not fallen in as predicted on this Scandinavian country, which is ranked year after year by the United Nations as the best place in the world to live, and last year was ranked the most peaceful by the Economist Intelligence Unit. It is too early to assess the real impact on the bottom line of the companies affected. The evidence that does exist, however, suggests that Gabrielsen’s plan had merit beyond the politics of equality. A survey of the colleagues of women newly appointed to board positions showed that most of them have significantly higher educational and professional qualifications than many of the male colleagues they replaced, or sit next to. The women are not only brighter, they are younger, and the majority have distinguished themselves in a wide variety of other professional careers before being appointed to company boards.

You can read the whole article for context but basically the move has been pretty universally successful. Personally, I would still be against measures such as the above but sometimes I think we need to wake up to just how far we still need to go on this. Norwegians have been shown a world they didn't think they wanted to see and, now they've seen it, they've accepted as true the fact that women were being discriminated against.

I think that's a lesson liberal and conservative hippies alike can warm too.

*sniff*

seahorse

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

If the state is not treating people equally, that doesn't mean the state should turn around and continue that unequal treatment in the opposite direction.

...overcompensating perpetuates the problem, it does not resolve it.

Haven’t time to read all of this thread right now or contribute to it at length, I'd just like to say I thoroughly agree with the above two comments. 'Positive discrimination’ is an oxymoronic term; there is nothing positive about discrimination.

Terry

So you are saying gingers are not discriminated againt?

A search for the words "Ginger" on AH brings up 315 results.

We are discriminated against and I am now starting to fight back against this discrimination.

Edit This post was directed at Earthhorse.

Earthhorse

Terry wrote: »

A search for the words "Ginger" on AH brings up 315 results.

Which just proves how popular they are.

Terry wrote: »

We are discriminated against and I am now starting to fight back against this discrimination.

See? I knew you were a liberal hippy at heart. I knew it.

Terry wrote: »

Edit This post was directed at Earthhorse.

Hi.

Terry

Liberal hippy this, bitch.

The gingers fight back.

gogglebok

Sleepy wrote: »

While you can legislate for what you call positive discrimination or affirmitive action, in practise they're unenforceable outside of the public sector. Even with all the current equality legislation you hear of employers who are (somewhat understandably IMHO) reluctant to hire women of child bearing age. So what can we do about this?

Nothing. As I've said from the start, I think private companies should have whatever hiring policies they want. No dogs. No Irish. No blacks. I don't care. If they're not spending government money, let them hire who they want.

Sleepy wrote: »

As has already been pointed out to you, issues of discrimination aren't linear zero sum games. What harms someone in a minority group may not necessarily benefit the other (e.g. same sex marriage) so trying to solve them with a linear equation that ignores the individual isn't going to work - think outside the box a little

Me and my pesky linear equations. Me and my pesky not listening to people who have already pointed out stuff to me. Me and my pesky thinking inside the box.

gogglebok

seahorse wrote: »

Haven’t time to read all of this thread right now or contribute to it at length, I'd just like to

Me too.

gogglebok

Blackjack wrote: »

Best people for the job - that's the only selection process that should ever apply.

Aye. Indeed. <Snorts snuff> <Sups beer> <Ignores several pages of closely reasoned argument> Yup.

gogglebok

Sleepy wrote: »

So, instead scrap maternity leave, introduce parental leave and enforce a minimum of it to be taken by each parent et voila - equality. The employer will do what's good for his pocket and simply hire the best candidate in front of him if they all have the same potential to be gone for months at a time, regardless of gender.

Four posts in a row is looking a bit soap-boxy, but this sounds like a good idea, except for the bit about forcing people to take leave. Is it that you don't want a situation where men are entitled to leave, but there is huge pressure not to take it?

seahorse

gogglebok wrote: »

Me too.

I don't understand this?


You’re entitled to your opinion, needless to say, but you needn’t assume that homosexuals or ethnic minorities will necessarily agree with you. My sons godmother, who has been involved in a lesbian relationship for the guts of twenty years, told me directly that she “wouldn’t dream” of getting married were gay marriage legalised here. Naturally I asked her why: She contends that marriage is a heterosexual practice and that she doesn’t need a sense of “sameness” with heterosexuals in order to know that she is considered equal. She maintains that a lot of homosexuals are, in their quest for gay marriage, confusing sameness with equality. Her view is shared by KD Lang, incidentally, who referred to gay marriage as: “aping the monkey”.

On the subject of affirmative action in the States and elsewhere; I had a long and interesting internet conversation a couple of years back with two people from the southern states; a young black woman from Georgia and a middle-aged black Texan man. She fervently argued for affirmative action; he just as passionately argued against it. He maintained that it was insulting to blacks and other minorities and actually he raised several of the points that have been raised on this thread by people I am assuming are most likely white. One of the issues that bothered him most on a personal level was that he had an adult daughter, a woman who’d studied hard and landed herself a great job on the back of her hard-earned qualifications, and that young woman had run up against attitudes and prejudices in her workplace on the back of peoples false assumptions that she had only earned her place there on the back of her ethnicity. He contended that affirmative action actually works against a lot of blacks, citing his own daughter as an example, before going on to cite several more. So, while you’re welcome to believe whatever you like and to voice those opinions, you should not assume that you are speaking for homosexuals and ethnic minorities generally.

gogglebok

seahorse wrote: »

You’re entitled to your opinion, needless to say, but you needn’t assume that homosexuals or ethnic minorities will necessarily agree with you. My sons godmother, who has been involved in a lesbian relationship for the guts of twenty years, told me directly that she “wouldn’t dream” of getting married were gay marriage legalised here. Naturally I asked her why: She contends that marriage is a heterosexual practice and that she doesn’t need a sense of “sameness” with heterosexuals in order to know that she is considered equal. She maintains that a lot of homosexuals are, in their quest for gay marriage, confusing sameness with equality. Her view is shared by KD Lang, incidentally, who referred to gay marriage as: “aping the monkey”.

On the subject of affirmative action in the States and elsewhere; I had a long and interesting internet conversation a couple of years back with two people from the southern states; a young black woman from Georgia and a middle-aged black Texan man. She fervently argued for affirmative action; he just as passionately argued against it. He maintained that it was insulting to blacks and other minorities and actually he raised several of the points that have been raised on this thread by people I am assuming are most likely white. One of the issues that bothered him most on a personal level was that he had an adult daughter, a woman who’d studied hard and landed herself a great job on the back of her hard-earned qualifications, and that young woman had run up against attitudes and prejudices in her workplace on the back of peoples false assumptions that she had only earned her place there on the back of her ethnicity. He contended that affirmative action actually works against a lot of blacks, citing his own daughter as an example, before going on to cite several more. So, while you’re welcome to believe whatever you like and to voice those opinions, you should not assume that you are speaking for homosexuals and ethnic minorities generally.

I don't assume that at all, and I don't think anything I've said suggests that I do.

Blackjack

gogglebok wrote: »

Aye. Indeed. <Snorts snuff> <Sups beer> <Ignores several pages of closely reasoned argument> Yup.

And your solution is what, exactly?. If you believe that I've ignored what you believe to be "closely reasoned argument", then please point out exactly which part of your bull**** argument I've ignored?.

seahorse

gogglebok wrote: »

I don't assume that at all, and I don't think anything I've said suggests that I do.

Well then apologies are in order; I got the impression you felt gay marriage and affirmative action were considered positives by pretty much all gays and ethnic minorities. I've come across the attitude, as I've explained, by some who feel that they are actually objectionable and insulting, and, bizarrely, the converse opinions of heterosexuals/whites who wouldn’t believe gays/blacks etc would feel like that in a million years!

the_syco

Earthhorse wrote: »

You can read the whole article for context but basically the move has been pretty universally successful. Personally, I would still be against measures such as the above but sometimes I think we need to wake up to just how far we still need to go on this. Norwegians have been shown a world they didn't think they wanted to see and, now they've seen it, they've accepted as true the fact that women were being discriminated against.

I think that's a lesson liberal and conservative hippies alike can warm too.

*sniff*

I wonder how many women are collecting household rubbish bins, and collecting rubbish from the street over there at the moment?

Two people, a man and a woman, go for the job of a librarian. Then man has a librarian degree, as well as 10 years experience in another library. The woman has no eperience, related or otherwise to libraries, and only sometimes reads a tabloid. In the real world, then man would get the job, a he's most qualified. In the world of a company having to have X percentage of women employed, the woman would get employed. An extreme example, maybe, but this is why I hate this bullsh|t of having to have X percentage of X people in the job, as opposed to whomever has the best qualifications.

Oh, and back to the binman comment I made above, if the law stated that X amount of women had to be employed, or the business shut down, if the company was compromised entirely of men, and unable to get any women in to do the job of collecting rubbish, would the company have to shut down? I wonder how this worked in Norway?

gogglebok

Blackjack wrote: »

And your solution is what, exactly?. If you believe that I've ignored what you believe to be "closely reasoned argument", then please point out exactly which part of your bull**** argument I've ignored?.

"Best people for the job - that's the only selection process that should ever apply" is a simple restatement of the position I've been arguing against. It takes no cognisance of any arguments I've made, and adds nothing to the many detailed and thoughtful counter-arguments made by other posters. What's the point?

Earthhorse

the_syco wrote: »

Two people, a man and a woman, go for the job of a librarian. Then man has a librarian degree, as well as 10 years experience in another library. The woman has no eperience, related or otherwise to libraries, and only sometimes reads a tabloid. In the real world, then man would get the job, a he's most qualified. In the world of a company having to have X percentage of women employed, the woman would get employed. An extreme example, maybe, but this is why I hate this bullsh|t of having to have X percentage of X people in the job, as opposed to whomever has the best qualifications.

Hmmm, okay, but I think the very extremity of your example detracts from the point you're making. Like I say, I myself would not be in favour of such policies but it's interesting to see what happens when they're introduced. A lot of people in this thread think that because we have equality legislation in place the more qualified candidate is always getting the job (which I agree should be the criteria for getting a job) but we find in Norway that the reverse is true!

This policy saw male board members replaced by female board members with more education and professional qualifications. And no one seems to have complained about any female replacements being incompetent in any way.

the_syco wrote: »

Oh, and back to the binman comment I made above, if the law stated that X amount of women had to be employed, or the business shut down, if the company was compromised entirely of men, and unable to get any women in to do the job of collecting rubbish, would the company have to shut down? I wonder how this worked in Norway?

Norway didn't have to deal with that problem because it was only boards of companies, and not all jobs, to which this applied. Also, it's amazing how resourceful people will be when you light a fire under their ass.

gogglebok

seahorse wrote: »

Well then apologies are in order; I got the impression you felt gay marriage and affirmative action were considered positives by pretty much all gays and ethnic minorities. I've come across the attitude, as I've explained, by some who feel that they are actually objectionable and insulting, and, bizarrely, the converse opinions of heterosexuals/whites who wouldn’t believe gays/blacks etc would feel like that in a million years!

Very gracious of you, but no apology necessary. I've had the same experience as you, of hearing members of ethnic minorities argue against affirmative action. It must be horribly annoying when people assume someone could only have attained a position because of an affirmative action policy. But that doesn't make the policies wrong.

In general, I think society has a lot more to fear from anti-black racism, for example, than from pro-black affirmative action. I find something distasteful as well as dumb in the posture of grievance that so many white people adopt, as if one liberal college admission policy suddenly overturns decades of ubiquitous racism. I don't mean you, obviously, but it's not rare on boards and elsewhere.

gogglebok

Terry wrote: »

White males are the majority in the western world. This is why they dominate high powered jobs.

Interesting. If I could point out a society in which white males are not the majority, and yet still dominate high-powered jobs, would you concede that (a) that society is racist and sexist, and (b) something should be done to balance it?