Minority Groups "Special Rights"

[PhantomWolf]

I have been hearing more people talking about the "Special Rights" that minority groups are getting, and how scary it is. We saw this as part of the so called "push back" in the US elections.

What I am confused about though are what these so-called special rights that groups, such as the LGBTQ community, have, actually are? What rights do they have or have been given that members of those groups don't have? What makes these rights special?

Is it the right to be judged as an employee by your work and qualifications and not your gender identity or sexuality?

Is it the right to be served as a customer at any business regardless of race, gender, or sexuality?

Is it the right to rent a home or a room at a hotel or B&B without being denied because of your race, or sexuality?

Is it the right to form a public and officially, legally, recognised and licensed relationship with the person you love regardless of their race or gender?

Is it the right to go to the bathroom of your choosing without being harassed and threatened because you fail to conform to gender stereotypes?

Is it the right to walk down the street without fear of being harassed, attacked, or worse because of your race, sexuality, or gender?

Is it the right not be be arrested and made into a criminal because of who you are or who you love?

What exactly are these special rights?

Perhaps someone on the Right can explain it to me, cause I don't get it.

 

[casebro]

Is it the right of ******* to use the word ******?

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps someone on the Right can explain it to me, cause I don't get it.

I think they may be refering to stuff like Affirmative Action which prioritise minorities and women. Stuff like that, I'd think.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Is it the right of ******* to use the word ******?

I and sure that it's the right of a bunch of stars can refer to themselves as a bunch of stars if they want to.

I think they may be refering to stuff like Affirmative Action which prioritise minorities and women. Stuff like that, I'd think.

How is it "scary" to be including more people into professions that have historically excluded them, are often still closed clubs except to the "right people", and for which there are few role models for minorities to look up to and say "I want to do that"?

I'd also ask how it is a "special right" to be given acceptance into these sorts of professions that have historically excluded them?

 

[marplots]

The right to be FAB-u-lous.

 

[Belz...]

How is it "scary" to be including more people into professions that have historically excluded them, are often still closed clubs except to the "right people", and for which there are few role models for minorities to look up to and say "I want to do that"?

Well, I'm not the one who said it was scary, so I don't know why you're asking me.

As to why I disagree with the idea of Affirmative Action, it's because I agree that discrimination based on race or gender is wrong.

 

[PhantomWolf]

As to why I disagree with the idea of Affirmative Action, it's because I agree that discrimination based on race or gender is wrong.

How would you suggest working to get more minorities into a profession where there is a significant cultural blockage to their doing so?

BTW for me, I'd even like to see a Affirmative Action to get more men into jobs like Nursing and Pre-secondary School Teaching.

 

[Belz...]

How would you suggest working to get more minorities into a profession where there is a significant cultural blockage to their doing so?

Laws and social change. Unfortunately that takes generations, which is why AA is a popular solution. But as I said it is itself discrimination, which means the proponents are sacrificing their principles for their ends. Also, it treats each individual as if they were part of a monolithic group, something I'm opposed to, being mainly an individualist.

BTW for me, I'd even like to see a Affirmative Action to get more men into jobs like Nursing and Pre-secondary School Teaching.

I think that's wrongheaded. It assumes that men and women are interested in every job in equal proportions, something that I find entirely unsupported and, if wrong, is forcing the selection of less competent people just to reach an ideological quota.

 

[rockinkt]

How would you suggest working to get more minorities into a profession where there is a significant cultural blockage to their doing so?

BTW for me, I'd even like to see a Affirmative Action to get more men into jobs like Nursing and Pre-secondary School Teaching.

First I would ask for proof that there actually is a cultural blockage that presently exists in the profession in question. Not a historic one - but a clearly demonstrable present one.
I would then enforce the anti-discrimination laws already in effect in my country to combat the issue.
Penalizing a person today for being the "wrong" race or gender in an effort to right a historic wrong is not the way forward.

 

[Belz...]

Penalizing a person today for being the "wrong" race or gender in an effort to right a historic wrong is not the way forward.

I think so, too. As I said a problem with AA is that it treats each "race" monolithically: if you're black, you are part of the oppressed group, so you need a boost. If you're white, you are part of the oppressing group, so you need to wait your turn. It doesn't matter if you're a dirt-poor white kid or a rich black one, and it doesn't differentiate between shades of black, for example. As soon as you look like you've got melanin, you're it.

What happens if whites become a minority in the near future, as it's expected to happen? Will they reverse course and give whites a pass? I doubt it. I think they'll use the "historic" dominance of white people in the US, for example, to keep going in that direction. It's a dangerous stance to take, and one that runs precisely counter to the idea of equality.

 

[TomB]

It can be argued that affirmative action conflicts with this:

Is it the right to be judged as an employee by your work and qualifications and not your gender identity or sexuality?

Because it involves making employment judgments based on something other than work and qualifications.

The goal is admirable. The means, as Argumemnon said, involves a compromise of the core principle which underlies the goal.

It also gives a plausible foundation to anecdotes/excuses of losing out on a job to someone with lesser qualifications to fill a quota. Even if unfounded, those anecdotes contribute to a resentment that helps create and fuel the alt-right.

Not that I have a better solution, other than to suggest improving education to help equalize qualifications. But that's hard, takes time, and success is hard to gauge.

 

[Belz...]

For me it's all about the principle and the objective. If the principle is "discriminating people based on irrelevant characteristics is bad" and the resulting objective is ending said discrimination, then AA is not needed. The only reason why it's there is that people have confused equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Laws and social change. Unfortunately that takes generations, which is why AA is a popular solution. But as I said it is itself discrimination, which means the proponents are sacrificing their principles for their ends. Also, it treats each individual as if they were part of a monolithic group, something I'm opposed to, being mainly an individualist.

I think that's wrongheaded. It assumes that men and women are interested in every job in equal proportions, something that I find entirely unsupported and, if wrong, is forcing the selection of less competent people just to reach an ideological quota.

First I would ask for proof that there actually is a cultural blockage that presently exists in the profession in question. Not a historic one - but a clearly demonstrable present one.
I would then enforce the anti-discrimination laws already in effect in my country to combat the issue.
Penalizing a person today for being the "wrong" race or gender in an effort to right a historic wrong is not the way forward.

I think so, too. As I said a problem with AA is that it treats each "race" monolithically: if you're black, you are part of the oppressed group, so you need a boost. If you're white, you are part of the oppressing group, so you need to wait your turn. It doesn't matter if you're a dirt-poor white kid or a rich black one, and it doesn't differentiate between shades of black, for example. As soon as you look like you've got melanin, you're it.

What happens if whites become a minority in the near future, as it's expected to happen? Will they reverse course and give whites a pass? I doubt it. I think they'll use the "historic" dominance of white people in the US, for example, to keep going in that direction. It's a dangerous stance to take, and one that runs precisely counter to the idea of equality.

I think that you have a warped view of what Affirmative Action is all about, you seem to believe that it's about quotas.

While some countries and positions use that, there is a lot more to AA that is not discriminatory.

Let's take an example.

Carpentry.

Less than 2% of Carpenters are women. Why?

Well first off, because historically many schools never taught wood working and carpentry as a topic available for girls. If they were never taught it, how would they learn that they liked it and then wanted to have a career in it?

Affirmative Action would be starting Woodworking classes for girls at school. How is this discriminatory? How do boys miss out just because there are classes for girls in a topic? The odds are against there being 30 periods of boys wood working classes, so there should be time free to add classes for girls, or if there is significant demand, have a new classroom added for these classes.

But the problem is deeper than that, even if they learn about it at school and like it, the Industry is not female friendly. From the attitudes of those already employed, to the lack of information being given to female students about the job, the numbers are a reflection of an Industry that doesn't want women involved and employed in it.

If they manage to get an Apprenticeship, one of the lucky ones, most of them don't make it through because of the levels of harassment and mistreatment. Nearly half of women in these trades suffer sexual harassment and more of them have to make their way through a hostile environment with fellow workers who are more then clear they don't want them there.

Add to this that women are often the first ones let go of when the work starts to dry up, and you have an environment where even after 25 years of having a quota they aren't even 1/4 of the way there.

Now the old excuse is that women are interested, but again this appears not to be true. Groups like Chicago Women in Trades are running courses that can attract up to 150 women at a time that want to learn and get jobs in the trades, the thing is that few of them can get through the barriers beyond that training to become fully qualified and employed trades people.

The reality is that there are enough women with the skills who want to train and do these jobs to reach the quote (6.9%) easily. That's not what is holding them back. Waiting on society to change is not a great idea. Can you imagine telling the Reverend Martin Luther King or other Civil Right's Leaders that they should just wait a few generations for society to change?

AA is about making sure that there is opportunity, means of education, and a push to change the culture of workplaces from being exclusionary to being inclusive. Now you might want to call it discrimination demanding that a small percentage of the workforce be minority, but when over 90% of the workforce are not minority are you really going to try and claim that those few at the bottom that "miss" out were really better qualified than the few minorities that got in?

 

[PhantomWolf]

It can be argued that affirmative action conflicts with this:

Because it involves making employment judgments based on something other than work and qualifications.

The goal is admirable. The means, as Argumemnon said, involves a compromise of the core principle which underlies the goal.

It also gives a plausible foundation to anecdotes/excuses of losing out on a job to someone with lesser qualifications to fill a quota. Even if unfounded, those anecdotes contribute to a resentment that helps create and fuel the alt-right.

Not that I have a better solution, other than to suggest improving education to help equalize qualifications. But that's hard, takes time, and success is hard to gauge.

This is only true if you're going to make the claim that those that "Missed Out" were better qualified for the positions than those that didn't. Let's look at the Federal Tradespeople quota. They are supposed to have 6.9% of women on the job. Are you going to claim that it's impossible to find 7 women who want to be a tradesperson and who are able to be as skilled as men in the job for every 93 men accepted? Would including those 7 women really make men who were better at the job miss out?

The reality is that with most "Quotas" all a business needs to do is stop hiring by gender, and they'd met their target easily. For instance women are often overlooked for management positions because they are seen as having family commitments and so they are excluded because of a gender bias. If this is removed and management hired based on performance, more women would be mangers and the quotas would naturally be filled without the need to actively discriminate against men.

It is possible to avoid bias for hiring and actually have a good variety of people, the trouble is that such biases are deeply ingrained and so need to be broken sometimes.

 

[casebro]

What happens if whites become a minority in the near future, as it's expected to happen? Will they reverse course and give whites a pass? I doubt it. I think they'll use the "historic" dominance of white people in the US, for example, to keep going in that direction. It's a dangerous stance to take, and one that runs precisely counter to the idea of equality.

Whites are already a minority in California, and not even the biggest one. And no, there has not been any easing of AA. So, in fact, AA is anti-minority at this point.

I wonder at which point we can start a NAAWP without being considered racists?

Remember, Rosa Parks did not want AA, she only wanted equality. But nowadays, I am expected to get out of the line, not just wait my turn.

 

[TomB]

This is only true if you're going to make the claim that those that "Missed Out" were better qualified for the positions than those that didn't. Let's look at the Federal Tradespeople quota. They are supposed to have 6.9% of women on the job. Are you going to claim that it's impossible to find 7 women who want to be a tradesperson and who are able to be as skilled as men in the job for every 93 men accepted? Would including those 7 women really make men who were better at the job miss out?

The reality is that with most "Quotas" all a business needs to do is stop hiring by gender, and they'd met their target easily. For instance women are often overlooked for management positions because they are seen as having family commitments and so they are excluded because of a gender bias. If this is removed and management hired based on performance, more women would be mangers and the quotas would naturally be filled without the need to actively discriminate against men.

It is possible to avoid bias for hiring and actually have a good variety of people, the trouble is that such biases are deeply ingrained and so need to be broken sometimes.

You seem to have completely missed the point.

A system of preferences creates the appearance of giving an advantage...call it extra credit points...to the preferred group that are based on something other than objective qualifications. Whether more qualified people are passed over or not is irrelevant to the perception that's created, and in some ways perception is as important as reality.

The perception of giving extra points to someone opens the door for the grumbling of "passed over to meet a quota" in a way that a policy of non-discrimination would not. It gives a target and ammunition for scapegoating.

 

[Arisia]

Apparently the ratio of women making it into the ranks of a major orchestra increased greatly when the final auditions became 'blind', the musicians, identified by number not name I'm sure, perform while hidden behind a screen and the women don't wear high heels, since that would be a clue as they walk on and off stage, even behind a screen.
This was the case for the Boston Symphony Orchestra at least. I hope other orchestras have changed their auditions in a similar fashion.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You seem to have completely missed the point.

A system of preferences creates the appearance of giving an advantage...call it extra credit points...to the preferred group that are based on something other than objective qualifications. Whether more qualified people are passed over or not is irrelevant to the perception that's created, and in some ways perception is as important as reality.

The perception of giving extra points to someone opens the door for the grumbling of "passed over to meet a quota" in a way that a policy of non-discrimination would not. It gives a target and ammunition for scapegoating.

And you seem to be missing mine.

AA is not about about giving people in minorities bonuses for turning up, it's about removing the penalty they start with before they turn up.

The thing is that where AA is in place, there are significant barriers to minorities being included. AA removes those by creating a level playing field in forcing people to see past the barriers and making selections without them. You're not being given bonuses, just not starting out with major negatives. This is the thing, when Race and Gender are ignored totally, then any supposed Quotas will fill themselves automatically, there won't be a need to go looking for people to fill them, it'll just happen by itself, but it needs something to break the stranglehold that those barriers currently have.

The reality is that there is no "preferences created" but rather that the current preferences are being broken and removed by those that would otherwise create exclusion being forced to be inclusive and select the best candidates without regard to gender or race.

Now if quotes ever got over the level of the minority in the population, like 70% women or 40% blacks, then yes there could very well be a case for them having preferred treatment, but when, generally, white males still make up 70-90% of the industry such claims are utter BS.

Now yes I can see some people claiming they didn't get a position because a women got it, but they'd be the same ones claiming that Quota's or no, after all how could a woman or a black guy be better then they are?

 

[PhantomWolf]

But nowadays, I am expected to get out of the line, not just wait my turn.

Really? When?

 

[theprestige]

I have been hearing more people talking about the "Special Rights" that minority groups are getting, and how scary it is.

Fascinating. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone talking about this. Who are you hearing this from? Also, who's "more people"? Is it people you already hear from, who have recently switched to this topic? Is it new people you didn't used to hear from, that you're now hearing from? Some other possibility I haven't thought of?

Perhaps someone on the Right can explain it to me, cause I don't get it.

Dude, people on the left can't even explain it to you. In fact, it's beginning to look like you just want to do some explaining of your own, refuting an argument nobody here, and nobody you can be bothered to cite, is actually making. What is that? Mansplaining? Leftsplaining? Blogging? I have been hearing more and more people think this discussion forum is their personal blog. Maybe one of our resident bloggers can explain it to me, cause I don't get it.