Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

I think they're saying your ideas are impractical, not that there's anything wrong with giving people jobs and trying to even out demographics.

We all want good representation of every demographic, but literally forcing it isn't a practical way to do so. You'll just get people unqualified for the job. Instead, effort should be expended to even out opportunity. If these minorities have more competent individuals, their representation will follow suit.

[GlyphGryph]

Virex, I don't feel like you have a good sense of repercussions.

Actions have consequences, people respond to incentives.

None of your ideas seem to acknowledge the realities of the situation - we don't live in an ideal fantasy world. If you hire someone who can't do the job based solely on race, your going to get a lot of failed business, lower everyones standard of living, and build up a fuck ton of racial tension (while disincentiving minorities from doing anything productive productive or improving themselves).

Is that really what you're looking for here?

[Darvi]

what an appendix is

It's a type of finger, right?

Also, what Kaiju(sic) said.

[Vector]

That's probably "appendage."

"Blinddarm" auf Deutsch.

[Darvi]

I was kinda joking there... but yeah.

Also, not really, it's "Wurmfortsatz" in German, technically.


[/derail]

[Virex]

Also, what would happen to people like me? I've studied for years to land a job in the development department of a respected medium-sized IT company, and you'd prefer hiring someone who can't program, but does have a vagina? That's discrimination. If you claim to oppose discrimination, you can't condone this without being a hypocrite.

I have never said that I oppose discrimination in general. What I oppose is the oppression of women in particularly and frankly I don't see a way to stop this without beating the attitude out of some people, but since physically beating an idea out of someone is apparently against Human Rights and oppressing women isn't, I'll have to settle for fighting these 'people' on their own level. Now I realize that in most people's eyes this makes me a bigot as well as a hypocrite, but that's something I'm willing to live with.


And to answer your first question, if a company would interview both me and a woman for, say, a research position and chose her over me even though I'm 'objectively' (as if...) the better researcher, then that's something I'll have to suck up for our society.

Virex, I don't feel like you have a good sense of repercussions.

Actions have consequences, people respond to incentives.

None of your ideas seem to acknowledge the realities of the situation - we don't live in an ideal fantasy world. If you hire someone who can't do the job based solely on race, your going to get a lot of failed business, lower everyones standard of living, and build up a fuck ton of racial tension (while disincentive minorities from doing anything productive productive or improving themselves).

Is that really what you're looking for here?

I have to admit that is something I hadn't fully considered yet, I was assuming that someone who applies for a job is at least somewhat qualified. Perhaps a reasonable level of qualification should be required so that for example to become a lawyer one has to at least have finished law school, or whatever would qualify as a reasonable level of education for a lawyer.

[Vector]

Also, not really, it's "Wurmfortsatz" in German, technically.

... Textbook, meet campfire.

That's very annoying.

[Darvi]

Don't worry, only pedants care about the distinction.

[Nadaka]

How is hiring the most qualified applicant for a job oppressing women?

[Vector]

How is hiring the most qualified applicant for a job oppressing women?

Well, for example, a woman with the same credentials can be disqualified for reasons of menstruation, or potential baby-making in the future (no matter what she says now).

[The Merchant Of Menace]

How is hiring the most qualified applicant for a job oppressing women?

Well, for example, a woman with the same credentials can be disqualified for reasons of menstruation, or potential baby-making in the future (no matter what she says now).

So men should be disqualified for reasons of being born with a penis?

[Realmfighter]

So men should be disqualified for reasons of being born with a penis?

Stopping discrimination of women is not oppressing men.

[Vector]

Don't assume that I agree with Virex.

I'm just saying that the "most qualified applicant for the job" tends to be heavily oriented towards men, and that "most qualified" may mean different things to different people.

[The Merchant Of Menace]

I didn't say it was, but the current train of discussion is that women should get an instant in by virtue of being women.

NinjaEdit: My apologies then, and I'm not going to disagree with that fact.

[GlyphGryph]

I was assuming that someone who applies for a job is at least somewhat qualified

I see you have not spent much time trying to hire people. Especially in, say, computer science, where the majority of applicants for any given position will have no ability to program.

or potential baby-making in the future (no matter what she says now).

Which is why the best way to handle this is to structure the incentives so men are as likely and capable of being an equal "liability" to the company.

The reality of the situation, right now, is that a woman is more likely to be a risk because of of that. Since we can't make that risk go away (and we believe the risk itself is an acceptable one), we should consider the alternatives, and seek to distribute the risk among both genders. (The fact that this would have tons of child-rearing bonuses, break down some of the walls holding men back from domestic duties, and allow women to work more are all side benefits).

If breaking this is really your goal, what you should be aiming for is making it law then men need to take at least 6 months off work to care for your children. THEN watch the situation change.

But no, you'd never see anyone pushing for a law like that because it is doable(simple law change, fairly easy to enforce as laws go), effective (it would actually accomplish the stated goals, and fairly quickly), and justifiable (parents SHOULD have to spend time taking care of their children if they decide to have children).