Anonymity
Re: Anonymity
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."Tim Linkinwater wrote:Good point this.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.
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.
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.
- Satiated Parrot
- Expatriate
- Posts: 549
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 7:25 am
- Reputation: 38
Re: Anonymity
It also creates the assumption that any of those people are in a position because of it.Joon wrote: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."Tim Linkinwater wrote:Good point this.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.
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.
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."
Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk
Re: Anonymity
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.
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.
Re: Anonymity
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.
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.
- StroppyChops
- The Missionary Man
- Posts: 10598
- Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 11:24 am
- Reputation: 1032
Re: Anonymity
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!
- Satiated Parrot
- Expatriate
- Posts: 549
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 7:25 am
- Reputation: 38
Re: Anonymity
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).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.
Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Khmu Nation, Semrush [Bot] and 1180 guests