Minority Groups "Special Rights"

wobs said:
I could have used any one of quotes from this thread, but this is a good example.

Why should we?
Who's to say that we actually need to change that division?

Are you aware that women are more likely to throttle back on their careers later in life (even when the kids have grown up), when men continue work long hours and work up the career ladder?
Click to expand...

Crikey mate, you're not supposed to let reality & commonsense prevail.

My wife - who by the way, likes to be referred to as my wife and not my "partner", really wanted to bring the kids up herself. She wanted to be a mother. It was her career choice, yet her kind are seen as idle people who don't contribute to society.

People who contribute fully to society send their kids off to daycare for 45-50 hours a week.

marplots said:
This doesn't bother me at all. It's not surprising that holding to a principle will produce different outcomes in seemingly similar circumstances.

The difference here is the meaning of the headwear.
Click to expand...

Alas, in the year 2016, I give no preference to people who do something because they're deluded. Claims of cultural and religious significance can **** off.
 
banquetbear said:
...yeah you did. You recontextualized the act when you replaced "instituting such positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodations as will" with "employers targeted by the Act must".
Click to expand...

That's what laws do: you must do something. What do you think happens to employers who don't?
 
Argumemnon said:
That's what laws do: you must do something. What do you think happens to employers who don't?
Click to expand...

Easy enough to find out, where are the cases of the State prosecuting employers who have failed to do what you claim the act means?
 
Argumemnon said:
That's what laws do: you must do something.
Click to expand...

...employers are required to "instituting such positive policies and practices and making such reasonable accommodations."

This is the requirement of the employer.

The second sentence is the expected outcome of implementing policies/practices and making reasonable accommodations.

Laws do do something. And this law asks employers to institute positive policies, practices and make reasonable accommodation.

Laws are written and carefully crafted so that they do very specific things. When you change what is written, as you clearly and obviously have, they don't mean the same thing.

What do you think happens to employers who don't?
Click to expand...

Are you asking for the law as you've recontextualized it, or for the law as it is actually written?
 
wobs said:
First there are the number of hours worked. So when a wife works longer hours in order to earn more, there is a correlation to unhappiness.
http://asr.sagepub.com/content/81/4/696.abstract

Then, when a wife earns more than the husband, you run the risk of resentment by the wife, as it is contruary to what she expects. You might think this is a societal issue that can be addressed, but actually, it reflects the wife's privileged position of someone with more life choices. With a husband who earns more than her, she has more chance of easing off from her career. When she earns more than her husband, she is under pressure to continue, despite some wish to do otherwise. And when kids arrive on the scene, this can get magnified.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/21/careers-marriage-dating_cx_mn_0821women.html

Anecdotally, I have met career orientated women from our head office wish their husbands earned twice as much as them so they could do just this. By my early 30s, of my friends who married in their 20s only one was still married. All had married career orientated women apart from my friend who married a more home centred woman (who now works in nursery care).

Most of said friends are now either still single, or re-married and stayed married.

The phenomenon of women resenting earning more is something I initially learnt from an Aunt some years ago, who is herself career centred, but can handle earning more than my Uncle. It is something she is well aware of though.

I must emphasis that I'm not saying that marrying a female breadwinner will lead to divorce, but that there are correlations to divorce/unhappiness. If you want to reduce the risk of such things, these are issues one should take into account.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the first citation concludes that under-employment by the male, rather than differences in salary or employment for the female per se, is what correlates with divorce rates? Not really your interpretation. And that the second citation is largely an opinion piece that selectively sites a couple of studies that support the person's opinion, rather than represent a study itself.

There are many issues here but clearly one obvious interpretation is that women who have some level of financial independence are more able/willing to leave unsuccessful marriages than those who are dependent on their husband's income. Logical- right? "I hate this marriage but if I leave I will starve" is a pretty good argument against initiating a divorce; it is extortion, not evidence of the strength of the marriage. And it is not surprising that marriages in which the husband is having employment difficulties (one reason the wife may be working despite both their own and their spouse's preference) are highly stressed and are more likely to lead to divorces.

I don't deny that some very traditional husbands (and wives) still remain whose egos depend on the more classical division of labor, but I have encountered fewer and fewer examples of this type of crap. Gee- people should grow up! No guy is hunting wooly mammoth anymore using a spear while the wife sews furs in the caves. It may require a bit of rethinking, but we are no longer in the Neolithic era.

Personally I was thrilled during the many years my wife made much more money than I did. It didn't shrink my gonads at all and we were even more solid a couple for it all. And counter to your claim, rather than make my wife feel obligated to continue to do so, the money she earned gave her more flexibility to "ease off" when she wanted to.

Yes, we did have kids too (still do).

The real stress on a family (and obligation) is when both spouses must work to earn a minimum income for the family. Instead you make it sound as if choosing to work, and what one gets paid, is just a matter of choice by the wife and husband, rather than a harsh reality often driven by the economic facts. Having both spouses have to work is indeed stressful to a marriage. And I agree that the husband does want to be a bread winner, but he is under or un employed, it will only create more financial and emotional stress. But that is not so much the unequal ratio of earnings as the involuntary failure to play out a perceived role that some in society assign to the husband. Not "My wife makes double what I do" but "I can't find work and my wife has to take this job at the local supermarket to feed our kids" guilt.

Personally I think anyone embarrassed by having their wife earn more than they do is both terribly insecure and does not respect to their spouse. People should be proud of their partner, and that includes the value society attributes to their spouse's earnings potential. Make me prove it- offer my wife a salary double mine!
 
Personally think if you are earning more than your wife or any where near it you have chosen the wrong chick.

[emoji6]
 
PhantomWolf said:
Easy enough to find out, where are the cases of the State prosecuting employers who have failed to do what you claim the act means?
Click to expand...

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the laws are enforced and the employers must hire minorities, or the laws are toothless and ineffective. You have to pick your poison here.
 
Argumemnon said:
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the laws are enforced and the employers must hire minorities, or the laws are toothless and ineffective. You have to pick your poison here.
Click to expand...

No its quite possible that the laws just require businesses to take appropriate steps to ensure theres no discrimination against minorities and that steps are taken to promote the hiring of minorities and when enforced have positive outcomes without forcing companies to hire minorities if they can't find suitable ones.
 
PhantomWolf said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well it may have something to do with this:

" When offered the choice of playing with either a doll or a toy truck, girls will typically pick the doll and boys will opt for the truck. This isn’t just because society encourages girls to be nurturing and boys to be active, as people once thought. In experiments, male adolescent monkeys also prefer to play with wheeled vehicles while the females prefer dolls — and their societies say nothing on the matter."
Click to expand...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1827727

So since there is a hormonal basis for interest in intricate mechanical objects and processes, which was also attested to by a female to male transsexual on NPR's "this American life" episode re: Testosterone (she said once she started taking the male hormone she became interested in science for the first time) we should in fact expect to see a wildly higher number of men in professions like carpentry, computers, mathematics, architecture, etc. and the women we do see, we should expect to be less feminine than is normal for their sex.

Just so happens, that is precisely what we do see.

Griffin Hansbury
Something that happened after I started taking testosterone, I became interested in science. I was never interested in science before.

Alex Blumberg
No way. Come on. Are you serious?

Griffin Hansbury
I'm serious. I'm serious.

Alex Blumberg
You're just setting us back a hundred years, sir.

Griffin Hansbury
I know I am. I know. Again, and I have to have this caveat in here, I cannot say it was the testosterone. All I can say is that this interest happened after T. There's BT and AT, and this was definitely After T. And I became interested in science. I found myself understanding physics in a way I never had before.

[LAUGHTER]

Griffin Hansbury
It's true. It's true.

Alex Blumberg
Wow.

Griffin Hansbury
I did.
Click to expand...

https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/220/transcript

Recently there was a story I saw about Serena Williams deciding she wanted to try to beat a man in a tennis match and she challenged a guy who was raked like 250th and she still got her ass handed to her. And she's clearly packing an atypical amount of testosterone for a woman. This is why there's a recurring theme of she and her sister trouncing far more attractive, feminine challengers.

If there can be that sort of natural inequality between the sexes when it comes to physical activities, only magical wish-thinking could explain anyone thinking equality would exist in other realms like average ability in tasks which require certain types of minds and thinking.

No sane society seeks to get its women more involved in working away their fertile years in potentially dangerous jobs, either. This leads to plummeting birth rates and unhappy, unfulfilled women with misdirected mothering instincts and this translates to "refugees" and being replaced by incompatible third worlders who have intact patriarchies and birth rates. So feminism is quite directly group suicide.

Women have been getting more miserable in recent decades ( http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969) Everything about their instincts tells them to become mothers in their teens/twenties and when this doesn't happen it results in miserable, unfulfilled women on antidepressants. To put it in terms a lib would sympathize with, it's like a gay man denying his orientation and forcing himself into a miserable marriage with a women when it's not what he wants or his nature dictates. Your programs to get girls interested in carpentry and science are exactly as twisted as gay conversion therapy and a culturally enforced closeted lifestyle. Fighting nature because you think you know better, and because you have a grand vision you wish to see realized, and carelessly leaving untold misery in your wake as you pursue it.

Affirmative Action is the promotion of the inferior and the penalization of excellence. Any society which engages in that is committing suicide.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
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.
Click to expand...

While I do object to AA programs partly due to this (I also think they're wildly inadequate, and what we *should* be doing is providing programs for people with low wealth - not income, but actual wealth - to build wealth, like we used to with white people), it's worth pointing out that most of the few AA programs where you can clearly say "this person deserves it less" are actually in college admissions, and the main people who lose out are, in the US, another minority group - that being Asians.

As far as business hiring in the US, it's generally much more difficult to prove discrimination in general - you pretty much need someone to say "I refuse to hire group X.", or have someone look and say "Oh, c'mon, you can't find *any* member of group X to promote in the past 20 years? Something's up." Truthfully, at many large businesses, particularly businesses that do a lot of business with governments, they track *everyone*, but in many smaller businesses, not so much.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
No its quite possible that the laws just require businesses to take appropriate steps to ensure theres no discrimination against minorities and that steps are taken to promote the hiring of minorities and when enforced have positive outcomes without forcing companies to hire minorities if they can't find suitable ones.
Click to expand...

Ok I'm all ears: how do they do this without forcing them to do it if they fail to comply?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I'm not sure the same logic holds for race though. At some point an office with no black employees is surely a statistical anomaly.
Click to expand...

Blacks evolved under very different circumstances from Whites and East Asians. They missed out on the selection pressures of a couple of ice ages, mixing with Neanderthals, thousands of years of living in and changing due to an agricultural lifestyle, the plague, and many other things. I've seen some interesting speculation that the Black Plague alone could have had a significant impact on average IQ.

Blacks have scored consistently for over a century a full standard deviation below whites in IQ tests and these are in line with SAT scores where only the very richest black students just BARELY manage to outscore the poorest White students and that only by a couple of points. Also in line with military test scores, and every conceivable measure of societal achievement.

There are many compelling reasons why you would want to exclude blacks from your living area and your work environment. Their mind blowing levels of criminality, their propensity to scam and sue their employers, the difficulty of firing them without causing issues, etc. all add to the pile.

Then of course there's simple in-group preference which is natural and requires no justification.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
Ok I'm all ears: how do they do this without forcing them to do it if they fail to comply?
Click to expand...

They force them to put the policies in place but that is not the same as forcing them to actually hire minorities as you seemed to suggest.

Compare it with health and safety. The requirement is to have the right things in place not to have some particular accident rate.

If accidents happen then you have to show that you weren't negligent.
 
Mumbles said:
As far as business hiring in the US, it's generally much more difficult to prove discrimination in general - you pretty much need someone to say "I refuse to hire group X.", or have someone look and say "Oh, c'mon, you can't find *any* member of group X to promote in the past 20 years? Something's up." Truthfully, at many large businesses, particularly businesses that do a lot of business with governments, they track *everyone*, but in many smaller businesses, not so much.
Click to expand...

The hilited is where AA comes in. Without something explicitly saying "that's not good enough," it may imply discrimination, but it's not legal evidence of it.
 
Argumemnon said:
Dodge noted. I ask again: what happens if an employer fails to meet these requirements?
Click to expand...

...can I suggest you read my post again?

There was no dodge.

What you quoted was in response to the statement "That's what laws do: you must do something."

My answer to your question "What do you think happens to employers who don't?" was in the part you didn't quote. Why did you quote the wrong bit and then claim I was dodging?

My "answer" was a request for clarification. Once again I will repeat it for you.

"Are you asking for the law as you've recontextualized it, or for the law as it is actually written?"

There are at least three people now in this thread telling you that you have misunderstood the law as written. I can only suggest you go back and read the law again. If you don't understand what it means or how it works: then ask.
 
Here's a good article on why sex disparities in jobs are completely appropriate and feminism will quite literally destroy civilization: http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/11/why-most-high-achievers-are-men/

“One area, the inferior parietal lobe, is 25 percent larger in males.”

I was curious to find out what that part of the brain accomplished, and I found this on Wikipedia:

“Functional imaging experiments suggest that the left anterior supramarginal gyrus (aSMG) of the human inferior parietal lobule exhibits an evolved specialization related to tool use.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom