Anonymity

This is a part of our Cambodia forums to chat about anything Cambodia-related. This discussion forum is at the top of our site because it's usually the busiest part of the expat community chatter with random topics on just about everything, including expat life, Khmer politics, Cambodian blogs we have or have come across, or whatever else our members want to discuss. Whether you're an expatriate, tourist, Cambodian or random traveler just passing through South East Asia, you are welcome to talk about anything or start new topics yourselves.
User avatar
Joon
Expatriate
Posts: 568
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 3:02 pm
Reputation: 3
Location: M'Penh.
Cambodia

Re: Anonymity

Post by Joon » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:03 am

Tim Linkinwater wrote:
Joon wrote:What the "anonymity" of Internet discussion has taught me is to focus on a person's reasoning, thoughts, ideas and opinions without taking into account gender, age, race, professions, and so on.
Good point this.
Since working out that you are a woman I have found your, anyway excellent, posts even more interesting.

What is that: a kind of benign sexism, positive discrimination?

I only have two close black friends and they both despise positive discrimination, or whatever the term is.
I also don't condone positive discrimination or quotas even for women or people of "colors" (which is a ludicrous phrase in my book, because "white people" are people of color too) because I'm a firm believer of "meritocracy."
Whoever is best fit for the job should be the one to do it. However, it means that the circumstances of being a woman, man, or a non-white person shouldn't work against their chances if they have the merits to do it.
Positive discrimination in my view is insulting for women, people of color or handicapped people or other groups that are prejudiced against because it says that "you'll have an advantage just because of your situation, no matter if you're the best qualified and most suitable candidate or not."
Disclaimer: I don't actually look like my avatar.
User avatar
Satiated Parrot
Expatriate
Posts: 547
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 7:25 am
Reputation: 36

Re: Anonymity

Post by Satiated Parrot » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:21 am

Joon wrote:
Tim Linkinwater wrote:
Joon wrote:What the "anonymity" of Internet discussion has taught me is to focus on a person's reasoning, thoughts, ideas and opinions without taking into account gender, age, race, professions, and so on.
Good point this.
Since working out that you are a woman I have found your, anyway excellent, posts even more interesting.

What is that: a kind of benign sexism, positive discrimination?

I only have two close black friends and they both despise positive discrimination, or whatever the term is.
I also don't condone positive discrimination or quotas even for women or people of "colors" (which is a ludicrous phrase in my book, because "white people" are people of color too) because I'm a firm believer of "meritocracy."
Whoever is best fit for the job should be the one to do it. However, it means that the circumstances of being a woman, man, or a non-white person shouldn't work against their chances if they have the merits to do it.
Positive discrimination in my view is insulting for women, people of color or handicapped people or other groups that are prejudiced against because it says that "you'll have an advantage just because of your situation, no matter if you're the best qualified and most suitable candidate or not."
It also creates the assumption that any of those people are in a position because of it.

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk
User avatar
ali baba
Expatriate
Posts: 692
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 3:27 am
Reputation: 34

Re: Anonymity

Post by ali baba » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:06 pm

Meritocracy works well if the society has a high level of equality. I'd support positive discrimination for blacks in post-apartheid S Africa and USA because it would have taken blacks decades to catch up with whites if the playing field wasn't tilted in the opposite direction for a time.

Quotas for women are more complicated. There were studies in Scandinavia that showed companies with higher rates of female participation outperformed those with lower rates and the patriarchy discriminates against women in many subtle and insidious manners- glass ceiling, old boys network, etc.

I guess I support some positive discrimination for women but not as strongly as for oppressed racial groups because the discrimination is more subtle and women's emancipation can be achieved via economic and social forces.
Scarier than malaria.
User avatar
Joon
Expatriate
Posts: 568
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 3:02 pm
Reputation: 3
Location: M'Penh.
Cambodia

Re: Anonymity

Post by Joon » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:26 pm

Instead of positive discrimination, I'm more in favor of anti-discrimination measures. I argued this with a friend and while he saw my point, his argument was that to enable a level playing field, a system needs to give it a push with positive discrimination measures.

But in my view, quotas and %-targets are unrealistic and misguided indicators of progress against discrimination.

We are going on a tangent there though. So this could be a thread on his own. :)
Disclaimer: I don't actually look like my avatar.
User avatar
StroppyChops
The Missionary Man
Posts: 10598
Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 11:24 am
Reputation: 1026
Australia

Re: Anonymity

Post by StroppyChops » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:32 pm

This is a tough issue. I have an Australian aboriginal mate who has been given (his words) a house, 4WD, unlimited education costs for he and his family, health benefits, and 'no-expectation' job by one of the multinational mining corporations as part of their "community investment" quota. He's not alone, most of his extended family can access these benefits, just for making a token effort of showing up to work a few times a year. Positive discrimination? No way - this is purely buying land rights from the indigenous councils. But this guy's attitude is brilliant - he tells anyone who listens that he's been given this opportunity simply because he's a black fullah, but he takes on the responsibility of doing the absolute best he can do with it to change his and his family's lives, otherwise it would be shameful. He's a great guy.
Bodge: This ain't Kansas, and the neighbours ate Toto!
User avatar
Satiated Parrot
Expatriate
Posts: 547
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 7:25 am
Reputation: 36

Re: Anonymity

Post by Satiated Parrot » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:50 pm

StroppyChops wrote:This is a tough issue. I have an Australian aboriginal mate who has been given (his words) a house, 4WD, unlimited education costs for he and his family, health benefits, and 'no-expectation' job by one of the multinational mining corporations as part of their "community investment" quota. He's not alone, most of his extended family can access these benefits, just for making a token effort of showing up to work a few times a year. Positive discrimination? No way - this is purely buying land rights from the indigenous councils. But this guy's attitude is brilliant - he tells anyone who listens that he's been given this opportunity simply because he's a black fullah, but he takes on the responsibility of doing the absolute best he can do with it to change his and his family's lives, otherwise it would be shameful. He's a great guy.
Exactly, that's more of a location-specific, give-and-take scenario. If companies are taking something from inside a community's land, and give back in those terms, I don't have a problem with it (as, again, it's a give-and-take thing).

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AndyKK, lagrange, orussey98, PSD-Kiwi, tathom, whatwat, xandreu and 254 guests