Our Shared Shelf discussion

Archive > Thoughts on positive discrimination

Comments Showing 1-50 of 70 (70 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Ross (new)

Ross | 1444 comments This threas was promoted for acticals in the i newspaper equality section.

A UK labour MP Jess Philips has called for a ban on men being banned form standing in all future by-elections until half the party's MPs are female. So the select committee would only chose form female candiates to run in elections to be MPs.

This may seem draconian but is it. Canada has 50/50 representation. There Prime Minister and parliament decided to do it and did. We in the UK continue to delay on the imbalance of female repsentation.

In the same section of the paper it was reported the conservative party would not introduce all-women shortlists as it members would resent women selected under such circumstances. This from the party chairman.

Putting politics aside for this debate what are your thoughts is it time for postive decrimination for women.

message 2: by Winston (new)

Winston | 180 comments Positive discrimination happens a lot, in the US one of the best examples is affirmative action for college applications. It's an often debated policy but in my opinion, positive discrimination's goal should be this:

If the group you're assembling will benefit from diverse and varied input/members, then candidates that bring diversity should be valued marginally more to reflect that goal.

In colleges, a diverse group of students from all different cultures and backgrounds will benefits all the students. They will be exposed to more people, and different views/ideas will merge, blend, and conflict. Therefore, to reach that ideal mix, college will select students based on ethnicity/culture/other intangibles over standard strong applications.

Your particular example Ross, seems a little on the extreme end; but it still stands that if Canada's Parliament values gender diversity that highly, and thinks greater female representation will benefit the Parliament in being more representative/more effective at governing, I don't think positive discrimination is bad.

message 3: by Ross (new)

Ross | 1444 comments Emma wrote: "any time I hear discrimination I immediately think bad"

I agree Emma the semantics are problem, would they be if we were talking about men, but that is another topix.

But assuming we chose the correct phasing it is a good idea. If you have a situation like I describe where one party as proven something is possible but another has failed to do the same thing in the same circumstances is not some afimative action warranted.

I do not suggest this lighty there are issues as Wilson illustrated in his comments but what alternatives do we have if the system does not allow for equality naturally then I feel we have to apply constraints to make it do so.

message 4: by James (new)

James Corprew Personally i dont think you can contradict a movement like that. Nobody would take it seriously if all of a sudden we started discriminating against men (in this case). While im not sure what the ultimate answer is i cant say i agree with forcing men to not participate is the right approach. If that happened in America i would start to lose faith in what gender equality (feminism) would be about. Off the top of my head i would have to look at the current status of American politics. Right now nominees are basically chosen by how much money they can campaign with while other candidates eventually have to drop out. I would like to see an even platform for nominees where the funding is all the same and the top candidates all contribute to the national debates to state their case.

message 5: by Mark (new)

Mark | 12 comments I have always been against any form of discrimination, whether positive or negative. It doesn't matter what prefix you put in front of the word, the action still causes injustice and inequality to a person or group, in favour of another person or group, it widens the division between and creates resentment between the groups. The very opposite to which gender equality (feminism) stands for.
It also wouldn't address the causes as to why there is an imbalance of representation of women in the political system or any other system in our society where this imbalance exists.

message 6: by Ann (new)

Ann Girdharry (anngirdharry) | 89 comments Positive or affirmative action is a powerful means of addressing imbalances, where other actions have failed to do so.

If there were alternative means to achieve fast and lasting change, then I think I'd go for them, but most of the time the strategies put in place don't seem to make headway, or if they do, it's too slow to redress the historical imbalance that is already in place.

I do, also, agree with the points made above that positive action can generate a backlash but I think that backlash is unjustified (though understandable) when you look at the bigger picture.

Whilst it's not a direct comparison to the issue of political elections first raised here by Ross. I once did know a man who was turned down for a senior position in the UK government.

He had gone through several rounds of recruitment and, in the end, he scored equally with a woman candidate. They chose the woman on the grounds of equal scoring and affirmative action.

He was a great friend and a staunch advocate of women's rights and equality. He was also a career high-flyer and the decision came as a difficult pill for him to swallow when it actually came down to a personal experience.
As a person of colour, I have frequently experienced discrimination, and I suppose, it was the first time he'd really experienced anything vaguely similar himself.

message 7: by Gerd (last edited Oct 14, 2016 05:18AM) (new)

Gerd | 428 comments Mark wrote: "It also wouldn't address the causes as to why there is an imbalance of representation of women in the political system or any other system in our society where this imbalance exists ..."

That's a point I would tend to disagree with, by forcing political parties to include more women in their ranks - if for the sole purpose of not loosing representation - it would force a change in the system and thereby, in a circumvent way, address the cause.

It's never going to make you popular, but sometimes you have to force a change on people to get them to realize that some change is truly for the better.

message 8: by Mark (new)

Mark | 12 comments Gerd wrote: "Mark wrote: "It also wouldn't address the causes as to why there is an imbalance of representation of women in the political system or any other system in our society where this imbalance exists ....."


I fail to see how bypassing, ignoring the causes would do anything about solving those causes that can lead to gender imbalances in our political or any other systems.

Also you seem to be suggesting that the result justifies the means of employing a discriminatory process, such as the one suggested in Ross's post. I would disagree with that.

For a group, movement, campaign that has at its core the aim of gender equality for all genders, to advocate a policy that discriminates purely on the bases of gender surely compromises and leads to invalidity of that main aim. It is a hypocritical policy, that damages the whole campaign and what you are trying to achieve by it.

More importantly a policy of positive discrimination is likely to lead to greater discrimination where that already exists, and where it doesn't that resentment caused by this kind of policy could lead to new discrimination or at least make it harder for people of different genders to work together. When we should be looking for ways to work closer together and supporting each other.

message 9: by James (new)

James Corprew Mark wrote: "Gerd wrote: "Mark wrote: "It also wouldn't address the causes as to why there is an imbalance of representation of women in the political system or any other system in our society where this imbala..."

Well said, you have conveyed my thoughts much better than i have. Feminism already has a lot of work to do regarding gender equality. To have a system in place where it purposely creates discrimination would strip all that hard work away and make the movement itself take a step back in progress.

message 10: by Ross (new)

Ross | 1444 comments Mark and James:

The problem with your argument is that gender equality and more pertinent gender inequality is a fact as well as a principle. We have therefore as I see to take some form of action to address the imbalance if we are ever to achieve equality.

Affirmative action is not perfect but at least has some chance of making real change.

message 11: by James (new)

James Corprew Ross wrote: "Mark and James:

The problem with your argument is that gender equality and more pertinent gender inequality is a fact as well as a principle. We have therefore as I see to take some form of action..."

Except affirmative action takes away freedom of choice. At the end of the day discrimination is discrimination. There is no "good" discrimination just like there is no "good" racism or sexism. To force people to only choose one particular sex goes against everything that feminism stands for and would totally discredit the movement itself.

message 12: by Gerd (new)

Gerd | 428 comments Not that I don't see where you are coming from, but I guess it's worth to reminding that much the same arguments have been brought forth against the forced liberation of slaves.

The sad truth is, we can't tell if things would work out themselves or not, nor can we tell if enforcing a gender balance in the representation of politic seats is in the long run going to hurt or aid the cause.
Somethings you just have to tackle, and hope you are doing it the right way.

message 13: by Mark (new)

Mark | 12 comments Gerd wrote: "Not that I don't see where you are coming from, but I guess it's worth to reminding that much the same arguments have been brought forth against the forced liberation of slaves.

The sad truth is, ..."

I'm not familiar with those arguments regarding the salve trade, perhaps you would like to elaborate? I fail to see however, how a calling out of a discriminatory policy can relate to a calling for a continuation of the salve trade.

I am not arguing for less MPs, or against an increase in MPs, just that a policy of positive discrimination doesn't deal with the problems, inequalities and possible discrimination that may exist in getting selected as a candidate, and to attempt to increase the intake of female MPs through a policy of discrimination flies against the central stated aim of the feminist movement in achieving gender equality.

Gender quality is more than just numerical equality, it is the position and influence members of a gender have in society in representing the group as a whole, it is equality of opportunity, and it is how a gender group and individuals of all genders groups are treated within society. Sorry if I have missed out anything.

So whether a feminist agenda would benefit from an increase in female MPs is dependant on many other things, and is not necessarily reliant on the quantity of female MPs

message 14: by Mark (new)

Mark | 12 comments Ross wrote: "Mark and James:

The problem with your argument is that gender equality and more pertinent gender inequality is a fact as well as a principle. We have therefore as I see to take some form of action..."

I don't think that either James or I are denying that gender inequality exists in our society or that gender equality also exists in places and at times. Nor are we denying that gender equality is a principal quite the opposite in fact. Though I'm not quite sure you meant to class gender inequality as a principal.

I am not against the election of more women MPs, and I don't think it actually matters whether there are more than 50% female MPs or not, as the main job of an MP is to represent all their constituents what ever gender they are, and to campaign on matters of inequality and injustice which pretty much all the MPs do to a very high standard.

The point is not to raise or attain a 50%-50% level by a politically expedient and discriminatory policy as positive discrimination is. I don't think that the policy will make "real change" as it doesn't deal with any of the problems that currently cause the numerical imbalance. Instead it probably could have the opposite effect.

message 15: by Paula (new)

Paula S (paula_s) | 29 comments There is a story about how a famous orchestra had trouble finding female musicians good enough to hire, until they started auditioning behind a curtain. When they couldn't see if the person playing was male or female and had to judge by their performance only, then there turned out to be plenty of excellent female musicians.

I also heard about a radio station that were asked why they only (or mostly) used male experts in the studio. They hadn't realized they were doing that, and started working towards a more even gender balance, and as a side effect the programs became more interesting because they couldn't use the same small group of men anymore.

I wish affirmative action wasn't needed, but sometimes it is only by forcing some organisation to include more women (or any other minority) that they can find out that it actually is possible to find competent women. Of course it is better when they themselves start working towards a better balance, as in my two examples. Where prejudice is very strong against women that might be too slow, though.

message 16: by Ross (new)

Ross | 1444 comments Mark:

I have to disagree again calling on Paulas example above to illustrate the real impact of gender inequality is critical that politics particularly is 50/50 if only to work to eliminate the now accepted phenomenon of unconscious bias.

In a lot of cases women are under represented how then do we correct this if not by forcing the issue. Unconscious bias is a negative discrimination should we not be willing to use affirmative action to counter it.

And as I said in the opening to this thread it has been done in other countries with positive benefits with no reported determent.

message 17: by James (new)

James Corprew I can only speak for myself when it comes to this topic but i would never be on board with something like that. Im just not comfortable stripping away other people's rights just to fix a problem that can be handled a different way. It goes against every principle that i stand for and would send a very wrong message when it comes to feminism. If that happened in the states i would disassociate myself from feminism altogether. Ive stated it above, there is no good discrimination.

message 18: by Ross (new)

Ross | 1444 comments James:

Evening the scales is not agains anyone it is for someone. As I have mentioned it has been done in Canada without a problem. If womencan not even get a fair hearing (no pun intended) for an octestra place then we already have a decrimination that has to be addressed.

Temporary change of seletion of MP candidates to address the imbalance for a short time seems viable and fair option.

message 19: by James (new)

James Corprew Ross wrote: "James:

Evening the scales is not agains anyone it is for someone. As I have mentioned it has been done in Canada without a problem. If womencan not even get a fair hearing (no pun intended) for an..."

Im all for evening the scales, just not forcing the scales. If you want to have a balance of candidates for jobs/positions, etc than im 100% for it. If you are using discrimination and excluding a particular sex or race than i cant accept that. Im sorry, we will just have to disagree on this particular method.

message 20: by James (new)

James Corprew Unfortunately by using this method it clearly comes across as discrimination is bad but only when it applies to women. When i first became a HeForShe'r it was on the basis that what Miss Watson spoke about was to men be inclusive. To squash out discrimination and sexism regarding both sexes. What has been proposed here and apparently is already going on in Canada clearly goes against everything that feminism and what Watson was talking about. Discrimination is why we have gender inequality to begin with, to now use that method to try and right some wrongs is contradictory to the message that is being laid out by feminism.

Ive seen countless threads on here where people talk about feminism not being about man-hating. But when you force something like this where it purposely excludes men than thats the message that feminism itself sends. Either feminists want to be inclusive or they dont. You cant half ass it in my opinion. You cant make exceptions just because its not working fast enough for you. You cant cut corners and become what it is that set you back to begin with.

Forcing sexism on the public would only destroy any progress that feminism has worked hard for in terms of bringing men and women together for gender equality. While i want gender equality i also want to continue to have a choice as a individual. I do not want it forced upon me. I dont know how Canada works in regards to voting/creating their laws. I dont know if the population of Canada voted to have that particular law put in place. If they did and they voted for it than great, thats how democracy works. But if it was something they didnt have any say in than i feel bad that they were never given the choice.

message 21: by Ross (new)

Ross | 1444 comments James:

The problem is we do not have equality. Women are not treated as equal so we have to address this imperfect options are all we have. Emma said she believed this inequality is a problem for men and women and asked for men who felt the same to come forward.

You and I are two such men how took up the invitation what we do with it is up to us. I feel we as men should be willing to give up some privileges even if only for a limited time to address the imbalance in the treatment of women as opposed to men you do not.

I would like to know what others think as we seem to be at a. Impasse.

message 22: by Amanda (new)

Amanda Navas | 26 comments I think a main problem here is how people imagine that affirmative action would put an excellent candidate aside in order to give the job to a mediocre one just because he/she belongs to a certain minority. In most cases the decision in affirmative action is made between candidates that have proven themselves to be excellent for the position.

I think something people frequently miss when thinking about affirmative action as discrimination is how unbalanced the system is to begin with. From blatant to unconscious discriminationn there are many ways in which the system favors giving certain candidates a better chance at landing a job than it does to others. For example, it can happen that you get two nearly perfect applicants for a job, with very similar backgrounds and experience, but with a key difference in their gender (one is a man, the other a woman). Say that in this case, the company offers the job to the man. When this happens once it is not a problem at all. After all, both candidates where equally qualified for the job, so it would be a matter of luck who actually gets it. The problem comes when it stops being a matter of luck and it starts being a matter of bias (maybe that profession almost always has men in their ranks, for example), and then the choice becomes influenced by factors that should not be important (gender, race), and it ends up changing a random process into a biased one. If this case happens once or twice it's no big deal. Once it happens a thousand or ten thousand times you get entire working fields that are almost solely occupied by men, even though equally capable women were available for all those same jobs.

It isn't a matter of actually discriminating against men, but rather reducing the unfair advantages that they have when applying to certain jobs. In a way you could also see it being applied backwards if a certain profession (like, say, kidergarten teacher) is mostly dominated by women and men are being excluded from it because of bias favoring women as better caregivers. In such a case affirmative action would actually act to give more jobs to equally qualified guys in order to balance the gender ratio and help to fight discrimination against men in those kinds of jobs.

This is the reason why I wouldn't really call balancing the field an act of discrimination, neither towards men or women. It simply consists of putting our own unconscious biases aside in order to give a fairer chance to people applying for certain fields and professions, and maybe diversifying our communities and decision-making committees. Hopefully such a change would lead to affirmative action being less and less necessary as people get their own biases and prejudices out of their minds when selecting a candidate for a job.

message 23: by Jessica (new)

Jessica | 149 comments As a woman, I would not be for positive discrimination. I agree that is discrimination is wrong no matter the justification. To me, something that is worth doing is worth doing right. But then again, I also don't agree that equality means that we need equal male and female representation in politics or other careers. To me equality is the ability to make those decisions myself.

message 24: by Amanda (new)

Amanda Navas | 26 comments Jessica wrote: "As a woman, I would not be for positive discrimination. I agree that is discrimination is wrong no matter the justification. To me, something that is worth doing is worth doing right. But then agai..."

However the issue here is not one of ability. You might have all the skills necessary to do a certain job, but if the person deciding who gets the job unconsciously believes women to be less capable of performing the job, then they might just pass you over and pick a male applicant instead. That is what affirmative action tries to combat. It isn't a way to give unfair advantages to minorities, but rather to set up a playing field where those unconscious biases are made more even. If there are different solutions out there it might be good to use them too, but for now this seems to be the best one people have come up with.

message 25: by James (last edited Oct 19, 2016 08:58AM) (new)

James Corprew Well, i think there is a vast difference between affirmative action and what we are seeing taking place in Canada. As you pointed out in message 24 Amanda when you have a woman and a man with the same qualifications applying/competing for the same job and the woman is awarded it due to affirmative action than that is affirmative action working by its design.

However, when you disallow another gender to even participate or compete for said job you are not then using affirmative action and actually being discriminatory. I think the other thing that is going unnoticed or even taken into account is race. By disallowing men to participate for the MP positions in Canada you are not only discriminating against a certain gender but then also discriminating against POC who happen to be men also.

I think we have to be careful when we go out to champion the rights of women that we do not in the same process trample on other people's struggles when it comes to minorities who are fighting just as hard for representation.

message 26: by Jessica (new)

Jessica | 149 comments Amanda wrote: "Jessica wrote: "As a woman, I would not be for positive discrimination. I agree that is discrimination is wrong no matter the justification. To me, something that is worth doing is worth doing righ..."

I wasn't referring to skills by saying "something that is worth doing is worth doing right." It's a phrase suggesting that one should take their time and not cut corners.

I know what the justification for affirmative action is. I've been lectured on it by my mom. My reasons for disagreeing with affirmative action have nothing to do with believing that it gives unfair advantage to minorities. First, I find it devaluing. It implies that I am not capable of doing something without help. And the other reason, is because they always be some sort of imbalance that will need to be corrected, these laws will never sunset. Third, I don't agree equality is about proportionality- its about being able to make my own choices

message 27: by Ann (new)

Ann Girdharry (anngirdharry) | 89 comments One thing I'd like to add is that men also benefit from affirmative action, in my view.

I feel that when the unconscious biases that act against women being selected for various positions are challenged (for instance by affirmative action) everyone gains.

How can this be so? Well, I think it's because men are also pressured by stereotypes, restricted by society and maybe don't have the freedom to be who they want to be. I'd say this is especially relevant to the workplace.

If we look at it narrowly, ok, so positive action means that more capable women would get jobs that would have gone to their equally capable, male counterparts. If we look at it that way, it seems that men loose.
But if we look at the wider picture of releasing everyone from oppressive stereotypes - both those relating to women and to men - then everyone wins.
For me, that's the wider picture and affirmative action, in the right place at the right time, for equally capable candidates - is an important step in this direction.

message 28: by Vance (new)

Vance Gibson Can you give an example of a man benefitting from affirmative action by being freed from gender stereotypes? You gave an example of how women benefit and said men benefit too, but you didn't give an example of how.

message 29: by Ross (new)

Ross | 1444 comments Vance, men have the benefits of the current state of affairs over women in almost all cases. That is why we are here is it not. It may well be the case men have lose out sometimes to address the imbalance. It may not be fair but may well be necessary.

message 30: by Ann (last edited Oct 26, 2016 01:29AM) (new)

Ann Girdharry (anngirdharry) | 89 comments hello Vance,
Vance said, '...and said men benefit too, but you didn't give an example...'

I'm not here to argue points or to persuade you and I can't answer that question for you.
In my post, I don't believe I tied the two issues together so closely or perhaps I wasn't clear because I didn't intend to.

What I think, is that on an individual level, I don't see a direct correlation between affirmative action and an individual man benefitting because one man will not get a job or a promotion.

I'm talking about the wider level, the group level - where everyone gets freed up, for instance to spend more time with their children, to not be so pressured at work, to find a good home-work balance, to have more of a mixed workplace with more creativity and wider ideas (which are aspects I believe that having more women around will bring).
These are wider issues above and beyond the individuals who didn't get a job.

On an individual level, as Martin said over on another OSS thread
'There are moments in life when you have to place your values above your interests...'

All I can say is that when people put their values above their own interests, I believe that is an advantage to them - I can't quantify that. But doesn't it make us feel better? Doesn't it give us a boost? Not something financial. Not something tangible and that's why I can't pin it down and give concrete examples.

And I suppose it's only an advantage in that way if the action is in line with one's own values.

message 31: by Vance (last edited Oct 27, 2016 06:04AM) (new)

Vance Gibson The problem with agendas is that they don't give a damn about individuals losing out, as long as the agenda is advanced. Who cares if reverse discrimination and reverse sexism is wrong as long as it advances the agenda. My ideal world is a world that operates on facts and figures, quantitative factual data. Too much violence and killing happens, and wars are started because of feelings and emotional perceptions. We need the standard of absolute truth, not just an array of opinions. This is what all science is based on. I'm a physicist, by the way.

message 32: by Ross (new)

Ross | 1444 comments Vance, there is no suggestions that we reverse the inequality between the genders just that we take action to correct the inequlity women suffer. That being said we have to take action the inequality is a life and death matter.

One such option is afimative action where a delibrate attempt is made to put female candidates first to compensate for the forces which lead to them almost inevitably being last.

But full disclosure if the balance as to tip the other way a little I think has men we should be willing to do that we owe a debt for the world we created and have benefited most from at womens cost.

message 33: by Vance (last edited Oct 27, 2016 08:02PM) (new)

Vance Gibson I, for one, DO NOT, wish to be targetted for reverse discrimination or sexism. I already HAVE been. It has NOT made me sympathetic, only angry, bitter and resentful toward women. If I am passed for a job or a promotion simply because of my gender to allow a female the job or promotion, I WILL be getting the best lawyer I can afford and SUING!!!! It will go all the way to SUPREME COURT if necesary. I'm not yelling. I'm just emphasizing (the capitalization).

message 34: by Vance (last edited Oct 27, 2016 08:16PM) (new)

Vance Gibson Furthermore, I don't owe them $#*+! I never oppressed anyone. But they've been pretty nasty to ME for the last twenty or so years! You see, for the last twenty years I've been the target of a harrasment/character assassination campaign and manhating "feminists" have been part of it. Yeah, they want to get the "bad man"! I haven't done $#*+ to anyone!

message 35: by Robert (new)

Robert (robertgilescampbell) Ross wrote: "Vance, there is no suggestions that we reverse the inequality between the genders just that we take action to correct the inequlity women suffer. That being said we have to take action the inequali..."

Very well said and I completely agree.

That said I do not like reverse discrimination in the long run. I'm not sold that its something that should be kept in place. Its a great tool to start the ball rolling though and getting females or males into positions where they were previously unwelcome and to help change peoples mindsets. Hopefully in the future people would just start doing the right thing and not assuming someone of a certain sex cannot do a job.

So what I mean is the policies that say things like women or men need to make up a certain % of employees in a certain job or whatever the case may be, politicians for example....those policies, I think, need to be rescinded once the tides change and a balance is struck.

message 36: by Vance (last edited Oct 28, 2016 03:46PM) (new)

Vance Gibson The problem is that people expect percentages that do not reflect the percentages of the demographic. If, for example, in a given state the demographic of women to men is 30:70, then mathematically, the ratio of women to men in jobs should be 30:70. The same goes for racial ratios too. Affirmative action, however, doesn't take these ratios into consideration. I live in a state that's 90% black. Blacks here cry racism and racial profiling because they make up 90% of the prison population and are pulled over 90% of the time over white drivers. But they'ye not victims of racism. They're victims of MATH!!! Isn't science awesome? Physics, love it! Furthermore, in a given state that has a ratio of 70:30 women to men, and thusly in the workforce, would it be right and fair to impose a universal affirmative action with one set percentage goal of female employees to be hired on top of those alteady in the workforce creating a severe discrimination against the men? What about if the Affirmative Action goal is a flat 50% percent female workforce. Let's say there's a 40:50 ratio of women to men. One quarter of those women decide to be homemakers and raise children. That only leaves 30% of women left. So where are the other 20% going to come from? Affirmative Action doesn't work. It's inherently flawed.

message 37: by Ross (new)

Ross | 1444 comments Vance: The problem with your argument is people are not integers. Also you have not factored in the prejudice women do not apply to every job men do, there careers are impacted by child birth.

Both women and men have social and democratic factors effecting the jobs they can and do apply for. But be that as it may the preponderance of data supports that in an interview situation women are less likely to be offered post if an equivalent male candidate is available. The pay gap for women doing the same job at the same level is, according to the latest figures 9% less than men.

The problem exist, the maths and science have provided incontrovertible proof of that hence it is time for action to correct it.

message 38: by Timothy (new)

Timothy Chism | 6 comments Vance, I agree that affirmative action is not the answer to many of the problems. The answer began, in the first place, to ensure that underrepresented - although qualified - people would get the job, if said person qualified for the job and was inappropriately unqualified because of "x".

What Affirmative Action has begun is to place unqualified people into positions just because of gender / race because those positions haven't been filled.

I agree, this is ridiculous. People ought not get those positions unless they are deserving. The government, however, wanting to make these problems go away - has a political answer. Politicians want these under-qualified people to take over because it looks better on a picture.

Emotions can cause heartache, but so to can spreadsheets. Like I've always said, it is a bit more arduous to make equality happen than people like to think.

Equality is having a standard that everyone lives by. Just because there are .1 % of women in Special Forces doesn't mean we should drop the standard to become Special Forces. But, we ought to have the program available for the 1 % percent of women who are able to make it - make it.

Women should be able to do anything their hearts desire - period - so long as they make the standard. That is what the true paradigm of equality should be - if you can make it - make it. Not - you are a woman (and because of this) you can be (x) because your vagina gives your superpowers which pre-supposes said standards - until you get captured and tortured because you weren't able to deal with said problems - then life should give you an escape clause because enemies weren't acting in accordance to american law - because terrorist are supposed to ac t in accordance to american law, and they didn't. . .

Ross: I also agree that people are not integers. There is a prejudice against women, however, the standard must not change. It only should change if the standard ought to change,

women are not prejudiced because of the standard - they are limited because of the ideologies associated with women accomplishing the standard. This faux - bullshit about a man does 'x' becomes grossly underestimate because 'x' is devalued because a woman can do similar things.

Complete bullshit; however, people believe this.

Life is odd.

message 39: by Vance (new)

Vance Gibson The feminists keep saying they have these quantifiable numbers and data to support their claims that women are discriminated against and are paid less then men. They refer to "studies" often. I want to see these figures and studies for my self. I challenge the feminists to produce factual scientific studies and data proving their claims, including who did the studies, how the studies were done, whom they were done on, where they were done, how long the studies lasted, aparatus used, names of researchers, etc. Emma Watson recently gave a speech and made claims, more like inuendos and hypotheticals, about American universities and colleges that were completely off track with reality. What "study" did she base THAT on? Or, is she just trying to plant nonexistent crap in peoples' heads to gain sympathy to advance an insidiously malign agenda?

message 40: by James (new)

James Corprew Vance wrote: "The feminists keep saying they have these quantifiable numbers and data to support their claims that women are discriminated against and are paid less then men. They refer to "studies" often. I wan..."

You seem like a pretty sharp dude Vance but i do find it hard to take everything you say seriously. Im not sure what stats or documentation Watson used to make her statements but it is pretty common knowledge that rapes on campuses are not taken seriously a majority of time and cases like what happened with the Stanford kid getting off lightly doesnt help matters when it comes to perception.

The other problem i will say though is cases like the Duke Lacrosse team a few years ago, the college football player who went to prison for a few years due to a fake claim, and the Rolling Stone/Virginia case that turned out to be false has not made matters in this area to improve. But i dont think we can seriously pretend that rape isnt happening or that it isnt a problem. We are starting to find out that also a big problem on the high school level .

In the long run i do think we need to address this issue and hold college faculty and owners accountable when they do not act serioulsy enough on reports that are given.

message 41: by Vance (last edited Oct 29, 2016 02:14PM) (new)

Vance Gibson James. I wasn't talking about the rape issue. I was talking about the statements she made: "SUPPOSE universities everywhere made women unwelcome to teach courses. SUPPOSE universities everywhere made women unwelcome in administrative and alumni(?) positions, etc. She kept using the word suppose. That's because she was deliberately trying to plant an idea into peoples' minds that a situation exists that doesn't and she has no facts because there aren't any to support that idea. Now, the rape issue. Again, I want to see crime stats on college and high school rapes yearly across the country and compare with the overall rate of rape occurances. I'm willing to bet that there is no significant increase in the rate of rape occurance on campus or in high school. I'm also willing to bet that there is no significant rise in the rate of rape occurances yearly nationwide over the last since the 1960's and thusly no rape culture exists. I'm waiting for someone to produce the actual crime statistics. Until then.... Oh. Walmart has roughly equal numbers of women empliyees to men. Congratulations. However, most of the female employees get passed by for promotions while they are given primarily to their male coworkers. Also, Walmart forces it's female employees of certain asthetic qualities AND their children to pose for ads without compensating them, illegally. Emma Watson's current boyfriend, William Mack Knight is real good chums with all the execs of Walmart. Isn't that interesting? Here's a scientific prediction for you. Very soon I'm going to be kicked out of this book club. I'm confronting falsehoods, claims, propoganda, and biased opinion, with reality and truth. People with agendas don't like that as general rule. Another thing, when Emma was done her speech she was seen walking off stage with some "official" with a nifty looking booklet tucked under her arm with what looked like a bar graph ON THE COVER for all to see. Nice prop.

message 42: by Ross (new)

Ross | 1444 comments Think I finally know what mansplaining truly is. I formally apologize to every woman I did it to in the past I never meant to but will make sure never to again.

James. Vance, Juniper green. I think you have made the case for affirmative action better than Jess Phillips MP ever could.

message 43: by Vance (last edited Oct 29, 2016 06:37PM) (new)

Vance Gibson What the hell is "mansplaining"? How dare you insult me like that! The rules here are to keep it civil! I have NOT "mansplained" anything! I spoke my peace using facts, the application of the scientific method, crititical thinking and analysis. As far as the sources mentioned, I will most certainly study very careful, AND check them against OTHER reliable sources of information and check them for bias. I am NOT just interested in "stirring the waters" and I RESENT the insinuation. I am waiting for someone, anybody's thoughts on the fact that Walmart overlooks it female employees for promotions, giving most of them to the males instead, forces their attractive, according to accepted societal norm, female employees AND their children to pose for their afvertisements ILLEGALLY AND WITHOUT COMPENSATION and that Emma Watson, champion of feminism and equal rights and owner/creator of this club, is currently the girlfriend of megarich William Mack Knight who is chummy chummy with all the corporate execs of Walmart. ANYBODY'S thoughts on that? Prediction: Responses will be more outbusrts of namecalling having nothing to do with the questions I've raised and no quantifiable facts to validly prove me wrong. Mansplaining indeed. Please.

message 44: by Vance (new)

Vance Gibson "Mansplaining". Wow. Just the kind of hateful rhetoric you'd expect from MANHATERS!!! It's interesting that when someone cannot win a debate validly he or she resorts to ad homonyms.

message 45: by Ross (new)

Ross | 1444 comments Vance, the views expressed are mine please refrain form involving others who have not made comment. I would like to get back to the original point and if possible give others a chance to comment so I shall refrain form further comment on this thread for now.

message 46: by Jo, Our Shared Shelf Moderator (new)

Jo (jo_9) | 373 comments Mod
Vance wrote: "Here's a scientific prediction for you. Very soon I'm going to be kicked out of this book club..."

Well, that's down to you. You need to calm your temper, always angry & arguing.

Vance wrote: "It has NOT made me sympathetic, only angry, bitter and resentful toward women."

This probably isn't the best group for you to be a member of then? :-\

message 47: by Sandra (new)

Sandra | 269 comments vance, may i respectfully suggest that you do some research on your own if you are so enamored of facts and figures. the internet is available to you as easily as to anyone else on this forum. have at it, my friend.

message 48: by Ashwin (new)

Ashwin (ashiot) | 215 comments Can we please not talk about Emma's, or for that matter anyone's, private life?

On the topic, I don't agree with the idea of reservation. I think it is a 'fix' rather than a 'solution'.

message 49: by James (new)

James Corprew This thread took an ugly turn.

message 50: by Vance (last edited Oct 30, 2016 11:20AM) (new)

Vance Gibson Oh, this group should only have as members people of one opinion, the group mind's opinion?-so everyone happily agrees with each other, congrats each other for the good points they make and pat each other on the back? As for the internet--full if garbage, ran by one liberal biased conglomerate. As for myself doing research on my own---I HAVE and DO, or haven't you any comprehension, OR is it that your attacking me to defend your position? I have forwarded the studies mentioned to my email for later study, according to my word. STILL nobody has addressed the fact that Emma Watson is carrying on with a man who's friends with execs of a corporate entity that OPPRESSES women and ABUSES those same women and their children!!! THIS qualitative data is VERY revealing about the nature of the people in this club!!!!

« previous 1
back to top