That is something that is more complicated than you make it sound.In certain areas, yes. Where I am at, not at all. (That being middle-middle class and above in an urban Northern European setting)
I couldn't say about there. It is here in all classes.
I heard pretty much the same issues brought up by white dudes, "well, if I go in to get a job and I'm more qualified than a black guy, I still won't get the job." I have a lot of issues with such a statement.If the statement is correct right here and now (Or, well, at the time it's made) is your issue with it objectively-ish valid?
It is not, that is why I have issues with it.
For one, for a long time, the "black guy" had zero chance to get a job no matter how qualified he was because people were allowed to discriminate against race.And if that is still the case, that issue may well require addressing, but not at the expense of any fucking body else. If, on the other hand, your use of past tense indicates a past issue, then maybe the current problem is something else?
The problem is still there, the people causing the original problem hove found other ways to discriminate. It's now not so easy to point to an example of it, though those still pop up every once in a while, now it's become a layered thing that is mostly only revealed in aggregate.
And when there are people oppressing other people, to equalize things, it necessarily is at the expense of the oppressors or at least those that the oppressors favor. And of course the ones favor are going to get all butt hurt about it. And I sympathize, it's not exactly all their fault, they were just favored while others were denied. However those that are denied are worse off than bringing down the favored a little bit will be.
So which is more important to me, that I might be more qualified and lose a job opportunity, or that members of my country may never be able to get a job no matter how qualified?I despise using the following statement, but this screams for a "The former president was African American." oO(Especially in light of how the oranger sort of gentleman seems to be going about running the "free world")
I don't see your point. This is also another commonly used statement that lead to a lot of jokes about racism being solved because we had a black president... then a bunch of unarmed black men got shot and their murderers walked free because black people be scary to the pale skinned.
I do recognise the validity of your question, subjective as it may be. Me, I'm a strong proponent of a "Fuck you. Earn it." attitude. That's well-established. Thus, my answer to it would be "If they didn't earn it, it's only fair that they don't get it. If they did earn it, they should have it."
It's not a subjective question. If people are never given the opportunity, they will never grow and then never be able to break into the system. Even now there are people that work for things, and therefore would deserve it, but are denied it because of their race or gender or sexual preference.
Another problem is that being qualified is somehow quantifiable.Not really. I even have a formula for comparing qualifications around here somewhere, with weighing of education, experience, various personality traits, etc. Actually, written recommendations are not worth that much more than the paper they are printed on, according to that. Interviewing former co-workers does yield reasonable results though.
I know a lot of people have systems to attempt to quantify it, but if they truly were quantifiable in such a manner then the error rate would be much smaller, near non-existent.
I get that we want to be able to code and rank things, but I don't see how that is possible. We can't look at the paper trail, so many people with good recommendations, good education, and great looking job history have turned out to be more useless than a high school student.
...this is a non-issue, because one has to assume that a person hired based on some affirmative action scenario would be just as susceptible to poor hiring practices as the rest of them. Just because you have to hire somebody to fill some bullshit government quota, does not mean that that somebody will turn out to be more useful than a high school student. At a certain point, you just take a chance on a person. Sometimes you get lucky. If you do your job right and preferably without interference, you are likely to get lucky more often.
Yes, that is true, but at least under an affirmative action scenario it affords people a chance who would never have gotten that chance otherwise.
The other problem is that even if we could trust the papers, how is someone who is not going to be allowed to work, because of their gender or race, supposed to start creating their own job history and references?Start at the bottom and kiss influential ass all the way to the top, just like the rest of us losers. Well, not necessarily, but this is also a non-issue. I was a useless-ass student without any sort of job history too at one point, and I'm doing OK. I wasn't just handed my victories to either. And I am far - FAR from unique. Most people I've had the misfortune of meeting have followed a similar path. Men, women, whites, Middle-Easterners, Africans... Whoever. You start with nothing - if you are lucky, with whatever your parents give you. If you are very lucky, that also contains a solid network which can propel you along. Then you build on that, one fucking brick at a time. From there, it's the proverbial "Be good, get good or give up."
Affirmative action doesn't just hand people things. Those people still need to have qualifications like education and/or training just like the others. They are not just picking up a random person off the street to make a quota. And it's great that you were afforded the bricks. Some people are not afforded the bricks to build with, and that's the point of it.
I'm not saying that people should just be given a job just because they fall into some group, if you think that or keep trying to argue against that position, then I'm not sure what I can do to correct it after this.
I get that it's not a perfect system, but at times, some intervention is useful to try to get us as a society to a point where we don't need to police people being bigoted assholes.Yeah... At the risk of sounding Republican, that's their bigoted asshole parents' job.
If you're part of a society as we wall are, it's all our jobs to take responsibility for it. Or don't complain when other people try to do something.
It is, but the women oppressing men thing isn't even close to being a problem. It's like worrying about what were going to do when out planet is going into global cooling trend. Like putting the cart before the horse.It's a moot point. People oppressing other people within their society is a problem for me as long as it affects me in any way, shape or form, which it often does (albeit indirectly)
Who is oppressing who and based on what traits is... An artificial issue, I'm inclined to call it. Are you a woman being oppressed by men, or an Asian being oppressed by Indians, or a G being oppressed by an H? I don't give a shit. You've had me at oppressed (If you indeed are, by any standard I am willing to apply to the term)