|
On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote:
Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted.
Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society.
I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it.
I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter.
He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on.
|
On January 15 2014 04:32 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:27 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote:
L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence.
Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct. And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions. No you called him a lost cause "since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against." Also her employers were the ones that made the assumption. are you even trying reading comprehension
I meant that he didn't think it was necessary to prove the feminist theories about discrimination, and his belief that it's ok to let theories dictate the law. That's what makes him a lost cause.
Yes, the board who decided to hire that other guy made assumptions. I never said they didn't, and they had the right to make assumptions, because they were involved in the case. They were there to make assumptions. I don't make any assumptions though, because I only know one side of the story. Djzapz seems to believe that he can make assumptions however, despite the fact that he only knows one side of the story too.
|
Employers will hire based on expectations, they can't possibly know everything about the individual, and must therefore generalize based on characteristics, unfortunately womanhood is one of those. The cost to the employer of pregnancy and child care on average is much greater for women than for men. Employers do not make the assumption that women will be inferior to men, when it comes to this, they are simply hiring based on expecations (averages).
You could force employers to hire in some desirable proportions, accepting the market inefficiencies that come with that. However, would it not be much better to focus on reducing the inequality between men and women when it comes to investing in children? Access to daycare, forced and equal parental leave, perhaps some kind of compensation for employers for pregnant workers. Encouraging men to take up more, and, (implicitly) women less, of the child care responsibilities seems like a much better way to reduce this kind of discrimination.
|
On January 15 2014 04:32 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:27 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote:
L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence.
Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct. And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions. No you called him a lost cause "since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against." Also her employers were the ones that made the assumption. are you even trying reading comprehension
It's somewhat similar. He's saying that Dj is biased and not using actual proof for his conclusions. No proof means can't women/blacks are discriminated against, no proof means feminists can't make conclusions about stuff.
On January 15 2014 04:38 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +There are extensive stats showing that at equal competence, black people are less likely to get a job than their male counterpart. And this is WHILE accounting for the fact that black people are on average less educated for various social reasons that are anchored in society (which are subcategories of the general problem of discrimination, which can also be worked on more directly). The same thing can be said about women. They're less to be hired in some places. Our countries have millions of people, so it's no secret that discrimination does happen on a scale. You seem to be arguing that it outright does not exist, but whether small or big, there are instances of discrimination just because of the sheer scale of society. So knowing this, I don't understand how you can still say that it doesn't happen. There are no such studies. In all the studies I've seen, it's been proven false, or there have been details that they overlooked. If there really are studies that can prove that men and whites are favored systematically, show them to us.
Easiest thing for whites is just look at the huge difference in socioeconomic status between whites and minorities. It's pretty gigantic, and shows that while there may not be direct racism against the groups, there does exist some type of racism. It's harder for women, because deciding what measure you want to use can have hugely different effects. Do you take single men vs single women? A husband vs wife? What if a child is brought into the formula? You will probably not see a large socioeconomic difference between the sexes, because there aren't as many combinations to choose from.
|
On January 15 2014 04:50 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:32 ComaDose wrote:On January 15 2014 04:27 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote:
L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence.
Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct. And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions. No you called him a lost cause "since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against." Also her employers were the ones that made the assumption. are you even trying reading comprehension I meant that he didn't think it was necessary to prove the feminist theories about discrimination, and his belief that it's ok to let theories dictate the law. That's what makes him a lost cause. Yes, the board who decided to hire that other guy made assumptions. I never said they didn't, and they had the right to make assumptions, because they were involved in the case. They were there to make assumptions. I don't make any assumptions though, because I only know one side of the story. Djzapz seems to believe that he can make assumptions however, despite the fact that he only knows one side of the story too.
wow haha you are even dumber than i thought. you dont have a right to make the assumption that a pregnancy will impact work. its again the law
An employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work.
|
On January 15 2014 04:50 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:32 ComaDose wrote:On January 15 2014 04:27 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote:
L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence.
Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct. And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions. No you called him a lost cause "since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against." Also her employers were the ones that made the assumption. are you even trying reading comprehension I meant that he didn't think it was necessary to prove the feminist theories about discrimination, and his belief that it's ok to let theories dictate the law. That's what makes him a lost cause. Yes, the board who decided to hire that other guy made assumptions. I never said they didn't, and they had the right to make assumptions, because they were involved in the case. They were there to make assumptions. I don't make any assumptions though, because I only know one side of the story. Djzapz seems to believe that he can make assumptions however, despite the fact that he only knows one side of the story too.
I specifically said that I don't care for their theories repeatedly to you, so I don't know why you're bullshitting now. Maybe you're failing to make a distinction between feminist theories (many of which are bogus, and most of which have no practical use). I care for reality and for the fight against discrimination and inequalities.
As for the recurrent idea that I only have only one side of the story, I repeatedly said that my cousin was in the partner's board. He was there then the deliberations happened. He said it was bullshit. They specifically decided not to give her the partnership on the basis that she was pregnant. You argue that it's ok because capitalism. I say that your argument is bullshit by all civilized people's standards because capitalism is not a good way to justify the morality of something.
|
On January 15 2014 04:45 ComaDose wrote:
He doesn't agree that its morally terrible.
and isn't it also illegal if proven?
How could I agree that it's morally terrible when I only know parts of the story?
|
On January 15 2014 04:46 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote:
Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted.
Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society. I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter. He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on.
You can't really discriminate against someone for their biological differences. I can't complain about a dog not being able to walk along a wire as squirrels often do. The guy above me said something good, in that what is currently unequal (effect of childcare and having the child) could be reduced by the partner taking up equal burden as best as possible. I don't know if he said companies should do this (I really don't feel like re-reading walls of text) but they do do this when making decisions. A place I do find Light is wrong though is when you bring up the existence of inequalities. Inequalities exist which don't have to exist, nor should they. Historical inequalities being carried over are one, and biological ones which can be accounted for easily are another. Just because they're there doesn't mean nothing should be done about them.
|
On January 15 2014 04:54 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:45 ComaDose wrote:
He doesn't agree that its morally terrible.
and isn't it also illegal if proven? How could I agree that it's morally terrible when I only know parts of the story?
What else do you need to know, if I might ask? I repeatedly told you what happened and why. The board made the decision not to give her the partnership on the assumption that her performance would decrease after having a child. I know this because, again, my cousin was sitting on the board. That's the "other part of the story". Their worries turned out to be unfounded, she's a very dedicated woman.
She lost an important opportunity because of her vagina. And capitalism doesn't justify discrimination even though you think it does.
On January 15 2014 04:59 Dark_Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:46 Djzapz wrote:On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote:
Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted.
Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society. I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter. He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on. You can't really discriminate against someone for their biological differences. I can't complain about a dog not being able to walk along a wire as squirrels often do. The guy above me said something good, in that what is currently unequal (effect of childcare and having the child) could be reduced by the partner taking up equal burden as best as possible. I don't know if he said companies should do this (I really don't feel like re-reading walls of text) but they do do this when making decisions. A place I do find Light is wrong though is when you bring up the existence of inequalities. Inequalities exist which don't have to exist, nor should they. Historical inequalities being carried over are one, and biological ones which can be accounted for easily are another. Just because they're there doesn't mean nothing should be done about them.
Is my cousin's wife a dumb squirrel bro? Fucking A. They assumed her performance would be bad because of a biological thing. It is discrimination to assume that.
|
On January 15 2014 04:46 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote:
Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted.
Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society. I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter. He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on.
Pregnancy is not a trait. If it's not acceptable to take a pregnancy to consideration, or maybe a personality flaw, when you're gauging someones future performance, you're also saying that if a female firefighter doesn't live up to the physical requirements, it's discrimation that she doesn't get the job, as long as her physique is strong by female norms. You're saying that we should use different performance standards for men and women, or rather, for men, women and pregnant women, and I completely disagree with you on that. Also, like I've said twice already, if a country have laws that states that being pregnant is never ever relevant to a persons performance, you're creating a system where businesses are unwilling to offer jobs to young women, especially those women who aren't willing to promise that they won't get pregnant in the near future.
|
On January 15 2014 04:52 Dark_Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:32 ComaDose wrote:On January 15 2014 04:27 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote:
L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence.
Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct. And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions. No you called him a lost cause "since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against." Also her employers were the ones that made the assumption. are you even trying reading comprehension It's somewhat similar. He's saying that Dj is biased and not using actual proof for his conclusions. No proof means can't women/blacks are discriminated against, no proof means feminists can't make conclusions about stuff. Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:38 L1ghtning wrote:There are extensive stats showing that at equal competence, black people are less likely to get a job than their male counterpart. And this is WHILE accounting for the fact that black people are on average less educated for various social reasons that are anchored in society (which are subcategories of the general problem of discrimination, which can also be worked on more directly). The same thing can be said about women. They're less to be hired in some places. Our countries have millions of people, so it's no secret that discrimination does happen on a scale. You seem to be arguing that it outright does not exist, but whether small or big, there are instances of discrimination just because of the sheer scale of society. So knowing this, I don't understand how you can still say that it doesn't happen. There are no such studies. In all the studies I've seen, it's been proven false, or there have been details that they overlooked. If there really are studies that can prove that men and whites are favored systematically, show them to us. Easiest thing for whites is just look at the huge difference in socioeconomic status between whites and minorities. It's pretty gigantic, and shows that while there may not be direct racism against the groups, there does exist some type of racism. It's harder for women, because deciding what measure you want to use can have hugely different effects. Do you take single men vs single women? A husband vs wife? What if a child is brought into the formula? You will probably not see a large socioeconomic difference between the sexes, because there aren't as many combinations to choose from.
There have been many studies that shows that kids tends to reach about the same socialeconomic status as their parents. White ppl in the ghettos doesn't have it easier than immigrants in the ghettos, unless there's language differences, which is often the case for 1st generation immigrants, but not for later generations. For instance, we had a lot of immigration from the former Yugoslavia here in Sweden, 20+ years ago, and that culture group had a really bad reputation here back then. Nowadays though, they have pretty much assimilated with the rest of us.
Anyway, I'm talking about Sweden now, where education is completely free. In a country like USA it's different though, so it's not as easy there to rise above your parents socialeconomic class.
|
On January 15 2014 05:18 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:46 Djzapz wrote:On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote:
Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted.
Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society. I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter. He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on. Pregnancy is not a trait. If it's not acceptable to take a pregnancy to consideration, or maybe a personality flaw, when you're gauging someones future performance, you're also saying that if a female firefighter doesn't live up to the physical requirements, it's discrimation that she doesn't get the job. You're saying that we should use different performance standards for men and women, or rather, for men, women and pregnant women, and I completely disagree with you on that.
Sigh, you can measure someone's actual physical requirements... I don't think women should have other physical requirements for being firefighters.
Also, like I've said twice already, if a country have laws that states that being pregnant is never ever relevant to a persons performance, you're creating a system where businesses are unwilling to offer jobs to young women, especially those women who aren't willing to promise that they won't get pregnant in the near future.
In a pure free market capitalism system, which no country has, that's true. Luckily, anti-discrimination laws come with measures which prevent businesses from being driven entirely by profits - because if they were driven entirely by profits, like I said, they employed children to work 80 hours a week and they polluted like hell.
If a country has laws that states that being pregnant is never relevant, and this society is sensitive to human rights, it'll behave itself and benefit from consumer good will.
This isn't 1920
|
On January 15 2014 04:52 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:50 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2014 04:32 ComaDose wrote:On January 15 2014 04:27 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote:
L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence.
Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct. And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions. No you called him a lost cause "since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against." Also her employers were the ones that made the assumption. are you even trying reading comprehension I meant that he didn't think it was necessary to prove the feminist theories about discrimination, and his belief that it's ok to let theories dictate the law. That's what makes him a lost cause. Yes, the board who decided to hire that other guy made assumptions. I never said they didn't, and they had the right to make assumptions, because they were involved in the case. They were there to make assumptions. I don't make any assumptions though, because I only know one side of the story. Djzapz seems to believe that he can make assumptions however, despite the fact that he only knows one side of the story too. wow haha you are even dumber than i thought. you dont have a right to make the assumption that a pregnancy will impact work. its again the lawShow nested quote +An employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work.
Just because it's in the laws, doesn't make it right. The only thing it accomplishes is that it encourages employers to ask their young women applicants if they're going to get pregnant anytime soon, and it encourages employers to come up with bullshit excuses for why they didn't hire a woman. If the businesses aren't as willing to hire pregnant women, it means that the law is siding with pregnant women against businesses, by forcing them to take too much of the responsibility. This law doesn't serve anyones cause.
|
On January 15 2014 05:01 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:54 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2014 04:45 ComaDose wrote:
He doesn't agree that its morally terrible.
and isn't it also illegal if proven? How could I agree that it's morally terrible when I only know parts of the story? What else do you need to know, if I might ask? I repeatedly told you what happened and why. The board made the decision not to give her the partnership on the assumption that her performance would decrease after having a child. I know this because, again, my cousin was sitting on the board. That's the "other part of the story". Their worries turned out to be unfounded, she's a very dedicated woman. She lost an important opportunity because of her vagina. And capitalism doesn't justify discrimination even though you think it does. Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:59 Dark_Chill wrote:On January 15 2014 04:46 Djzapz wrote:On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote:
Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted.
Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society. I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter. He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on. You can't really discriminate against someone for their biological differences. I can't complain about a dog not being able to walk along a wire as squirrels often do. The guy above me said something good, in that what is currently unequal (effect of childcare and having the child) could be reduced by the partner taking up equal burden as best as possible. I don't know if he said companies should do this (I really don't feel like re-reading walls of text) but they do do this when making decisions. A place I do find Light is wrong though is when you bring up the existence of inequalities. Inequalities exist which don't have to exist, nor should they. Historical inequalities being carried over are one, and biological ones which can be accounted for easily are another. Just because they're there doesn't mean nothing should be done about them. Is my cousin's wife a dumb squirrel bro? Fucking A. They assumed her performance would be bad because of a biological thing. It is discrimination to assume that.
If you want to disagree with me, fine, but don't be stupid. If a biological, genetic, etc factor can hold someone back from being optimal, then you obviously want the person who doesn't suffer from that. I'm not saying it's a good thing or a right thing, but it's pure logic. If you want to have laws to try and correct this, then it would be a law reducing the burden of child care and such, so that businesses will look at both men and women equally when a couple has a child. I don't know how to illustrate this without an example, so I'll just put this here this is not a direct comment on your cousin's wife, it's just to illustrate a point. You will assume that water will boil at 100 degree Celsius, and you have goo reason to do so. I would not call this discrimination. A mother has to take of her child (again, I don't know your paternity leave system), and pregnancy generally does have pretty big effects both right before and right after on a woman's body.
|
On January 15 2014 05:43 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 04:52 ComaDose wrote:On January 15 2014 04:50 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2014 04:32 ComaDose wrote:On January 15 2014 04:27 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2014 04:11 ComaDose wrote:
L1ghtning calling people lost causes for believing in discrimination without providing evidence.
Believes assumptions about womens work ethic based on family life are logical and legal.
He have the right to believe in a widespread discrimination without being able to prove that it exists. But for the government (ie all the ppl) to accept it, proof is necessary. That's why he's a lost cause, because he disagrees with my opinion that feminist needs to stay away from the government, until they can prove that their ideas are correct. And I said nothing about her work ethic. I haven't made any assumptions about why she didn't get the job. Doing that would be silly as I've only heard parts of one side of the story. He's the one who have made assumptions. No you called him a lost cause "since you don't need any proof to show that women and blacks are discriminated against." Also her employers were the ones that made the assumption. are you even trying reading comprehension I meant that he didn't think it was necessary to prove the feminist theories about discrimination, and his belief that it's ok to let theories dictate the law. That's what makes him a lost cause. Yes, the board who decided to hire that other guy made assumptions. I never said they didn't, and they had the right to make assumptions, because they were involved in the case. They were there to make assumptions. I don't make any assumptions though, because I only know one side of the story. Djzapz seems to believe that he can make assumptions however, despite the fact that he only knows one side of the story too. wow haha you are even dumber than i thought. you dont have a right to make the assumption that a pregnancy will impact work. its again the lawAn employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work. Just because it's in the laws, doesn't make it right. The only thing it accomplishes is that it encourages employers to ask their young women applicants if they're going to get pregnant anytime soon, and it encourages employers to come up with bullshit excuses for why they didn't hire a woman. If the businesses aren't as willing to hire pregnant women, it means that the law is siding with pregnant women against businesses, by forcing them to take too much of the responsibility. This law doesn't serve anyones cause.
I'm going to assume your wrong because your ignorant and didn't read it not trying to be antagonizing on purpose.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On January 15 2014 05:32 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 05:18 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2014 04:46 Djzapz wrote:On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote:
Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted.
Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society. I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter. He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on. Pregnancy is not a trait. If it's not acceptable to take a pregnancy to consideration, or maybe a personality flaw, when you're gauging someones future performance, you're also saying that if a female firefighter doesn't live up to the physical requirements, it's discrimation that she doesn't get the job. You're saying that we should use different performance standards for men and women, or rather, for men, women and pregnant women, and I completely disagree with you on that. Sigh, you can measure someone's actual physical requirements... I don't think women should have other physical requirements for being firefighters. Show nested quote + Also, like I've said twice already, if a country have laws that states that being pregnant is never ever relevant to a persons performance, you're creating a system where businesses are unwilling to offer jobs to young women, especially those women who aren't willing to promise that they won't get pregnant in the near future. In a pure free market capitalism system, which no country has, that's true. Luckily, anti-discrimination laws come with measures which prevent businesses from being driven entirely by profits - because if they were driven entirely by profits, like I said, they employed children to work 80 hours a week and they polluted like hell. If a country has laws that states that being pregnant is never relevant, and this society is sensitive to human rights, it'll behave itself and benefit from consumer good will. This isn't 1920
But you can't assume that you catch them. And besides, punishing companies for not hiring a less profitable working force doesn't serve anybody. Don't force them to hire pregnant women. That just makes young women into a risk group. You can't expect the companies to make moral decisions. For this reason the government needs to step up. If companies sees a pregnancy as a burden, it's the governments fault, because they've put too much responsibility on the companies.
|
On January 15 2014 06:50 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 05:32 Djzapz wrote:On January 15 2014 05:18 L1ghtning wrote:On January 15 2014 04:46 Djzapz wrote:On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote:
Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted.
Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society. I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter. He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on. Pregnancy is not a trait. If it's not acceptable to take a pregnancy to consideration, or maybe a personality flaw, when you're gauging someones future performance, you're also saying that if a female firefighter doesn't live up to the physical requirements, it's discrimation that she doesn't get the job. You're saying that we should use different performance standards for men and women, or rather, for men, women and pregnant women, and I completely disagree with you on that. Sigh, you can measure someone's actual physical requirements... I don't think women should have other physical requirements for being firefighters. Also, like I've said twice already, if a country have laws that states that being pregnant is never ever relevant to a persons performance, you're creating a system where businesses are unwilling to offer jobs to young women, especially those women who aren't willing to promise that they won't get pregnant in the near future. In a pure free market capitalism system, which no country has, that's true. Luckily, anti-discrimination laws come with measures which prevent businesses from being driven entirely by profits - because if they were driven entirely by profits, like I said, they employed children to work 80 hours a week and they polluted like hell. If a country has laws that states that being pregnant is never relevant, and this society is sensitive to human rights, it'll behave itself and benefit from consumer good will. This isn't 1920 But you can't assume that you catch them. And besides, punishing companies for not hiring a less profitable working force doesn't serve anybody. Don't force them to hire pregnant women. That just makes young women into a risk group. You can't expect the companies to make moral decisions. For this reason the government needs to step up. If companies sees a pregnancy as a burden, it's the governments fault, because they've put too much responsibility on the companies.
Well that's not completely crazy but some of your worries can be dealt with through adjustments whereas doing nothing leads to the old traditions and the old status quo to prevail. Again, your explanations are perfectly fine if we assume supply and demand and pure capitalism to be into play. Sadly for you, this is not the case anymore.
For one, businesses are now expected to have a social conscience.
Also, businesses are expected to hire women and minorities. Putting responsibilities on companies is not a bad thing, especially things like this which are reasonable. Companies are capable of taking it, especially in a progressive society where women are now digging themselves out of the old traditions and whatnot.
I don't have all day so I'll cut this short, but there you go.
|
Let us assume the principles of capitalism hold true, and women are as capable as men in the workforce. Now, there will invariably be a large distribution of companies with varying policies towards women. Companies that give women equal opportunities compared to men, will have a twice the pool of talent to draw from. Thus, it logically follows that they can be expected to oust their competitors that are less keen on such policies. It is a perfectly valid argument.
However, this is obviously not the case, and hence one of our two premises must be suspect. It could be that capitalist principles are not actualised, and it is hard to displace traditional large conglomerates despite their terrible practices. It could also be that women are not capable as men in the workforce for some reason, say perhaps social conditioning from young discourages them from having their own strong opinions.
As long as the economic and educational systems are sensible, such problems will not arise.
|
Boy it's so simple.
Women hold together men don't.
Men fight over whatever stupid things.
Women join together,
Our ancestors must have known because they didn't allow women the right we do.
Our ancestor weren't the kind ones - racist and slavers, but perhaps even today if you use clear mind you realize that people are still slaves to wage and forever will be when there is less property than demand.
It has only began, the real hellfire is yet to come and we better all hide or fight(I assume we will do the former and the leftover "enlightened" women will win the war for all of us).
><
|
On January 18 2014 10:22 LastWish wrote:
Boy it's so simple.
Women hold together men don't.
Men fight over whatever stupid things.
Women join together,
Our ancestors must have known because they didn't allow women the right we do.
Our ancestor weren't the kind ones - racist and slavers, but perhaps even today if you use clear mind you realize that people are still slaves to wage and forever will be when there is less property than demand.
It has only began, the real hellfire is yet to come and we better all hide or fight(I assume we will do the former and the leftover "enlightened" women will win the war for all of us).
><
You must be living on a different planet than me. Women fight just as much as men, but they destroy their enemies from the inside out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
