In order for women to rise, men must fall.

[Loren Pechtel]

There is a big difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Feminists, progressives generally support the latter which is why they love Troudou's "gender parity" nonsense. Cabinet posts should be based on merit, not plumbing.

Okay. What makes you think Cabinet post placements are solely based on merit and not other factors, one of which is plumbing? And if Cabinet posts are based solely on merit, why wouldn't one expect the gender distribution of Cabinet heads to be roughly similar to the gender distribution in the adult population?

One would not expect the top level positions to match the gender distribution of society because of the mommy track.

- - - Updated - - -

This is simply a straw man against equal opportunity.
When African Americans were given more opportunities in the job market, does this mean whites were sacked? Of course not. They are looking for vacant positions. The same is for women. They don't have to simply replace men in existing jobs but have more opportunities to fill vacancies.

When the discrimination is strong enough it means the discriminated group can't get hired even if they aren't being fired.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Any evidence AA has harmed anyone (as in hurt or killed)? Any fires that killed people because inferior blacks were hired instead of supreme whites?

AA hurts individuals and society, including the groups that ostensibly benefit from it.

But couldn't anyone turn what you've said around, and ask "any evidence that power and privilege being extended overwhelmingly to the sons of wealthy white Protestant men only 'harmed' anyone (as in hurt or killed)?"

It's a bad idea to discriminate against people based on irrelevant and immutable 'membership' in groups.

AA doesn't hurt people, it scares people. namely people who want to keep an unjust status quo in place, or worse, to return to a time when not just the television shows were in black and white.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup. Attempting to bring about equality too quickly results in inferior candidates being selected and a backlash from those in the disfavored group that quite rightly see themselves as being discriminated against.

You really do not read what you post, do you?

So you're belief is that the injustice for people suffering from inequality should continue for however long it takes for the people benefitting from that injustice not to feel bad about losing their favored status.

When would that be Loren?

Your response has almost nothing to do with what I said. However, it amounts to saying that discrimination against white males is unimportant.

The corollary is that discrimination against blacks is unimportant. Quit fighting for equality.

 

[bigfield]

Cue argument over definition of Affirmative Action.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's true! The pride of holding down a job and being a provider for the family has been known to take families down, especially black ones. They (dem colored folk) are better off not having jobs that pay sustainable wages and offer health care, relying instead on government provided food, housing, medical assistance, and then being called leaches because they don't work hard at all.

Because in the end, if a white person is more qualified because of arbitrary tangible data, who are we to offer an opportunity to someone else to see if they can do the job just as well? Because we all know if someone got a job because of AA, they must suck at the job. Kind of like if you don't get into MIT, you must have sucked in High School and you are going no where in life.

Who hires based on "arbitrary tangible data"?

Who doesn't? What qualifies a person for a job? A test score, previous experience, grades? The word in the post that led to my response was "inferior". That is a strong word implying the AA candidate is wholly unqualified for the job.

AA is about helping a person getting a job. The person is on their own in earning the right to keep it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You really do not read what you post, do you?

So you're belief is that the injustice for people suffering from inequality should continue for however long it takes for the people benefitting from that injustice not to feel bad about losing their favored status.

When would that be Loren?

Your response has almost nothing to do with what I said. However, it amounts to saying that discrimination against white males is unimportant.

The corollary is that discrimination against blacks is unimportant. Quit fighting for equality.

Doesn't answer the question posed specifically to you. As usual.

When will historically and currently marginalized people have waited long enough for the feelings of more privileged demographics not to be hurt, for their lives not to be inconvenienced, for human beings to be worthy in the eyes of people like you Loren to be treated like human beings?

Scared to answer the question, Loren?

Don't be. I think you will find, whatever truth about yourself you think you are hiding from others, you are really only hiding from yourself.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You really do not read what you post, do you?

So you're belief is that the injustice for people suffering from inequality should continue for however long it takes for the people benefitting from that injustice not to feel bad about losing their favored status.

When would that be Loren?

Your response has almost nothing to do with what I said. However, it amounts to saying that discrimination against white males is unimportant.

And our children and our children's children will damn us all to hell for AA discriminating against white men. Seizing from them the an opportunity (from many) to be hired for a job.

The corollary is that discrimination against blacks is unimportant. Quit fighting for equality.

If we looked at hiring practices in a vacuum and ignored everything else, your corollary would be a reasonable interpretation. However, we aren't in a vacuum, we are still dealing with the long term generational effects of discrimination in hiring practices and collegiate entrance practices that this nation held until what... the 60s or 70s?

People seem to be either intentionally obtuse or just flat out oblivious to the reality of AA. AA gets you in the door, it doesn't make you successful. The student or employee must do that on their own. And if they do... that means they were as capable of the entrance to college or employment as that white male, an "inferior" candidate wasn't selected.

 

[laughing dog]

One would not expect the top level positions to match the gender distribution of society because of the mommy track.

Thank you for reminding us of the tacit gender discrimination. You just added another rationale to Clementine Ford's argument.

 

[bigfield]

Who hires based on "arbitrary tangible data"?

Who doesn't? What qualifies a person for a job? A test score, previous experience, grades?

Those things aren't arbitrary.

AA is about helping a person getting a job. The person is on their own in earning the right to keep it.

I'm not sure what you think AA entails; the meaning of the term has evolved over the decades. Some people equate it with hiring quotas for minorities and preferential treatment for underrepresented demographics; others equate it with hiring practices unbiased by race, sex, religion etc. It's all "helping a person getting a job" in one way or another, but so is nepotism and "jobs for the boys".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Who doesn't? What qualifies a person for a job? A test score, previous experience, grades?

Those things aren't arbitrary.

The value they hold is arbitrary. They are supposed to be markers to determine if a candidate is going to do the job well. Lacking those markers isn't necessarily a sign that the applicant isn't going to be good at school or in the position of employment.

AA is about helping a person getting a job. The person is on their own in earning the right to keep it.

I'm not sure what you think AA entails; the meaning of the term has evolved over the decades. Some people equate it with hiring quotas for minorities and preferential treatment for underrepresented demographics; others equate it with hiring practices unbiased by race, sex, religion etc. It's all "helping a person getting a job" in one way or another, but so is nepotism and "jobs for the boys".

It is about offering an opportunity to someone who's race was unfairly held back by several decades (centuries) of discrimination. If you want to consider that along side nepotism (though I'm not certain you are), that would be your prerogative, but I wouldn't consider that fair at all, seeing that nepotism is about keeping jobs amongst 'friends', where as AA is about spreading job opportunities outward among people who would otherwise have lacked certain arbitrary markers that would have prevented them from obtaining that opportunity.

And as I repeat, this is about an opportunity to perform, not simply step in, get the job, and perform like crap and hold onto the job because of their skin color.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup. Attempting to bring about equality too quickly results in inferior candidates being selected and a backlash from those in the disfavored group that quite rightly see themselves as being discriminated against.

Any evidence AA has harmed anyone (as in hurt or killed)? Any fires that killed people because inferior blacks were hired instead of supreme whites?

You're setting an impossible standard.

- - - Updated - - -

AA hurts individuals and society, including the groups that ostensibly benefit from it.

But couldn't anyone turn what you've said around, and ask "any evidence that power and privilege being extended overwhelmingly to the sons of wealthy white Protestant men only 'harmed' anyone (as in hurt or killed)?"

It's a bad idea to discriminate against people based on irrelevant and immutable 'membership' in groups.

AA doesn't hurt people, it scares people. namely people who want to keep an unjust status quo in place, or worse, to return to a time when not just the television shows were in black and white.

Then discrimination against blacks didn't hurt anyone, either.

You just want to replace an unfair system with another unfair system.

- - - Updated - - -

Your response has almost nothing to do with what I said. However, it amounts to saying that discrimination against white males is unimportant.

The corollary is that discrimination against blacks is unimportant. Quit fighting for equality.

Doesn't answer the question posed specifically to you. As usual.

When will historically and currently marginalized people have waited long enough for the feelings of more privileged demographics not to be hurt, for their lives not to be inconvenienced, for human beings to be worthy in the eyes of people like you Loren to be treated like human beings?

Scared to answer the question, Loren?

Don't be. I think you will find, whatever truth about yourself you think you are hiding from others, you are really only hiding from yourself.

So long as we continue this campaign of discrimination the problem will persist. You're trying to fight the fire with gasoline rather than water.

- - - Updated - - -

One would not expect the top level positions to match the gender distribution of society because of the mommy track.

Thank you for reminding us of the tacit gender discrimination. You just added another rationale to Clementine Ford's argument.

Mommy track isn't discrimination. It's women choosing to spend more time with their children rather than in the labor force.

For this not to have an effect on their career would be major discrimination. As it stands it's not discrimination at all.

 

[laughing dog]

Mommy track isn't discrimination. It's women choosing to spend more time with their children rather than in the labor force.

Historically, why has that been?

For this not to have an effect on their career would be major discrimination. As it stands it's not discrimination at all.

Of course it has been a form of discrimination. Women were expected to take care children. Women were demeaned or demoted for trying to balance work with child care or bullied into quitting. Last week's Economist magazine had an article on how women in the work force in South Korea were harassed or bullied if they got pregnant or married.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yup. Attempting to bring about equality too quickly results in inferior candidates being selected and a backlash from those in the disfavored group that quite rightly see themselves as being discriminated against.

Any evidence AA has harmed anyone (as in hurt or killed)?

AA inherently hurts every applicant of the non-preferred race. Not getting job or promotion causes very real harm to people. The harm is much greater when the reason for not getting it is your race rather than lack of qualifications or efforts. The harm done to a white applicant not hired because their group is "over-represented" is the same as the harm done to a black applicant because the boss doesn't like "niggers". There is no consolation to the individual and their dependents due to whether the group level differences in representation were reduced rather than increased as a result of their not getting hired.
The fact that you doubt harm of AA only shows how blind your ideology makes you to actual human beings, who they are as people, and what impacts them. It is all just a numbers game to you, with the goal of making sure the stats in the spreadsheet that divides people into race and gender columns looks "balanced".

In addition, since AA inherently devalues consideration of relevant skills (no consideration of race could not do that), there is no reasonable doubt that harm to others impacted by job performance occurs. They only way this could not be true is if the relevant skills to do a job were never known and/or had no impact on job performance. The burden is on you to show evidence for such an extremist assumption that negates most of what is known in behavioral science.
You may want to discount this objective harm as something you don't think anyone should care about, but that says more about your lack of concern for people than anything else.

 

[laughing dog]

AA does not necessarily devalue skills. It depends on how it is implemented. Searching for qualified (i.e. skilled) applicants in a certain demographic does not devalue skills.

 

[ronburgundy]

AA does not necessarily devalue skills. It depends on how it is implemented. Searching for qualified (i.e. skilled) applicants in a certain demographic does not devalue skills.

Yes it does, because it limits the pool of applicants to particular minority groups, and as a simple statistical fact, the most skilled persons are least likely to be among sub-groups that are a numerical minority of the general population. If any person that is hired is not the person that would be hired if an open search using nothing but skills as the criteria, then skills were inherently devalued and the person hired is less skilled as a result. IOW, either AA during hiring decisions has no impact on who is hired and is useless, or it devalues skills and is harmful to any outcomes impacted by skill level.
The only procedure that wouldn't devalue skills is one where race plays zero role in determining who is allowed to apply or who is selected among the applicants, but extra out-reach is conducted to increase the applicant pool and number of minority applicants without decreasing the number of applicants from other groups.
IOW, procedures where there is nothing resembling AA that occurs from the time applicants are sent in through the decision.

 

[laughing dog]

AA does not necessarily devalue skills. It depends on how it is implemented. Searching for qualified (i.e. skilled) applicants in a certain demographic does not devalue skills.

Yes it does, because it limits the pool of applicants to particular minority groups, and as a simple statistical fact, the most skilled persons are least likely to be among sub-groups that are a numerical minority of the general population....

Searching for qualified people (i.e. people with the skills) in a demographic does not value skills. Moreover, searching and hiring are literally different activities. Looking harder for a qualified minority candidates does not mean one is only looking for qualified candidates from a minority. So, it really does depend on how AA is implemented.

 

[Rhea]

Historically, why has that been?

For this not to have an effect on their career would be major discrimination. As it stands it's not discrimination at all.

Of course it has been a form of discrimination. Women were expected to take care children. Women were demeaned or demoted for trying to balance work with child care or bullied into quitting. Last week's Economist magazine had an article on how women in the work force in South Korea were harassed or bullied if they got pregnant or married.

Moreover - many women stayed home with the kids _because_ they got paid less.
Women staying home is effect, not cause. Or certainly can be and therefore matters.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Your response has almost nothing to do with what I said. However, it amounts to saying that discrimination against white males is unimportant.

And our children and our children's children will damn us all to hell for AA discriminating against white men. Seizing from them the an opportunity (from many) to be hired for a job.

The corollary is that discrimination against blacks is unimportant. Quit fighting for equality.

If we looked at hiring practices in a vacuum and ignored everything else, your corollary would be a reasonable interpretation. However, we aren't in a vacuum, we are still dealing with the long term generational effects of discrimination in hiring practices and collegiate entrance practices that this nation held until what... the 60s or 70s?

People seem to be either intentionally obtuse or just flat out oblivious to the reality of AA. AA gets you in the door, it doesn't make you successful. The student or employee must do that on their own. And if they do... that means they were as capable of the entrance to college or employment as that white male, an "inferior" candidate wasn't selected.

Hell Jimmy, AA doesn't even get you in the door, it just opens it and says "We won't sic the dog on you if you come in."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Any evidence AA has harmed anyone (as in hurt or killed)?

AA inherently hurts every applicant of the non-preferred race. Not getting job or promotion causes very real harm to people. The harm is much greater when the reason for not getting it is your race rather than lack of qualifications or efforts. The harm done to a white applicant not hired because their group is "over-represented" is the same as the harm done to a black applicant because the boss doesn't like "niggers". There is no consolation to the individual and their dependents due to whether the group level differences in representation were reduced rather than increased as a result of their not getting hired.

I asked if anyone was actually hurt or killed by AA related hiring.

The fact that you doubt harm of AA only shows how blind your ideology makes you to actual human beings, who they are as people, and what impacts them.

You didn't quote me saying AA doesn't cause "harm" because I never said that.

It is all just a numbers game to you, with the goal of making sure the stats in the spreadsheet that divides people into race and gender columns looks "balanced".

You obviously didn't read my posts in this thread, but thanks for playing. Here, have a box Lee Press On Nails.

In addition, since AA inherently devalues consideration of relevant skills (no consideration of race could not do that), there is no reasonable doubt that harm to others impacted by job performance occurs.

Interesting... "no doubt" means no doubt shouldn't be hard to show that is the case.

They only way this could not be true is if the relevant skills to do a job were never known and/or had no impact on job performance. The burden is on you to show evidence for such an extremist assumption that negates most of what is known in behavioral science.

Wait a second... so it is my job to show to a negative?

You may want to discount this objective harm as something you don't think anyone should care about, but that says more about your lack of concern for people than anything else.

Wow... trying to score points there. Have another box of Press On Nails.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Any evidence AA has harmed anyone (as in hurt or killed)? Any fires that killed people because inferior blacks were hired instead of supreme whites?

You're setting an impossible standard.

- - - Updated - - -

AA hurts individuals and society, including the groups that ostensibly benefit from it.

But couldn't anyone turn what you've said around, and ask "any evidence that power and privilege being extended overwhelmingly to the sons of wealthy white Protestant men only 'harmed' anyone (as in hurt or killed)?"

It's a bad idea to discriminate against people based on irrelevant and immutable 'membership' in groups.

AA doesn't hurt people, it scares people. namely people who want to keep an unjust status quo in place, or worse, to return to a time when not just the television shows were in black and white.

Then discrimination against blacks didn't hurt anyone, either.

You just want to replace an unfair system with another unfair system.

- - - Updated - - -

Your response has almost nothing to do with what I said. However, it amounts to saying that discrimination against white males is unimportant.

The corollary is that discrimination against blacks is unimportant. Quit fighting for equality.

Doesn't answer the question posed specifically to you. As usual.

When will historically and currently marginalized people have waited long enough for the feelings of more privileged demographics not to be hurt, for their lives not to be inconvenienced, for human beings to be worthy in the eyes of people like you Loren to be treated like human beings?

Scared to answer the question, Loren?

Don't be. I think you will find, whatever truth about yourself you think you are hiding from others, you are really only hiding from yourself.

So long as we continue this campaign of discrimination the problem will persist. You're trying to fight the fire with gasoline rather than water.

Discrimination is what provided and still provides a need for AA in the first place.

You can twist it all you like for your own need to satisfy whatever demons occupy your mind, but the rest of us will know the truth and go with what we see, hear and experience everyday.