Woman Denied Gov't Job Because of Race

[Bonam]

The profound stupidity of the barely-decipherable idea aside...this is plain, old-fashioned poor writing.

What is so poor about it? It is sure to invoke strong emotion in people who take the statement at face value, and sure to inflame those who vehemently disagree, and sure to pass as irrelevant and go unnoticed by people who have brains, exactly as it is meant to.

[msdogfood]

I knew this was going on but maybe not so blatently, reverse discrimination or affirmative action is wrong, what happened to qualifications and meritocracy?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/07/20/14772656.html

leve it the way it is!!.

[Wild Bill]

Did the ad say "no White people need apply?" Because if it didn't you whole premise comes off the rails. Again. As usual.

Here we see how the bureaucratic mind thinks differently, Angus. The ad did not say "No White people need apply". However, it did say that only non-white categories will be accepted!

Simple logic says that this statement means exactly the same thing! There are no other explanations or possibilities, after all. To the bureaucrat or lawyer, logic is a delusion and math is something they dropped as early as possible in their education, likely Grade 9. They would have no idea of the answer if you integrated e to the xth!

To such a person, the Binomial Theorem has something to do with sexual equality.

[charter.rights]

Here we see how the bureaucratic mind thinks differently, Angus. The ad did not say "No White people need apply". However, it did say that only non-white categories will be accepted!

Simple logic says that this statement means exactly the same thing! There are no other explanations or possibilities, after all. To the bureaucrat or lawyer, logic is a delusion and math is something they dropped as early as possible in their education, likely Grade 9. They would have no idea of the answer if you integrated e to the xth!

To such a person, the Binomial Theorem has something to do with sexual equality.

Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill.

You make my case that logic is a delusion.

Here you say:

"However, it did say that only non-white categories will be accepted!"

There is you make-believe - your delusional creations - your fanstasy!

It said nothing of the sort. In fact if you can find a copy of the job posting maybe we can all look at together and see what is says EXACTLY, and not some made in your mind "logic".

But then if logic did play a role int you turn logic into some delusional nightmare.

If we "speculate" the it is highly likely ( and I draw from my experience of seeing these types of applications" it will say something like:

"This is a position targeted for aboriginal and visible minorities"

Your delusions are just plain stupid.

[GostHacked]

Affirmative action and the like should be trashed completely.

I want a person qualified for the position. I don't want the position filled because of a 'race' quota needing to be filled. Hire the best qualified person for that job, nothing less.

[charter.rights]

Affirmative action and the like should be trashed completely.

I want a person qualified for the position. I don't want the position filled because of a 'race' quota needing to be filled. Hire the best qualified person for that job, nothing less.

People ARE being hired on qualification. But all things being equal, being in a targeted group tips the scale in favour of the aboriginal or visible minority. That is the whole point.

[Remiel]

I want a person qualified for the position. I don't want the position filled because of a 'race' quota needing to be filled. Hire the best qualified person for that job, nothing less.

While I am a believer in the use of affirmative action, I think it desperately needs to be divorced from the use of quotas. I do not think that affirmative action should override truly exceptional qualifications, but is of more use in areas where who is more qualified is ambiguous. Qualifications are somewhat like statistics, I think: they are subject to someting like standard deviation.

[Argus]

Really?

Canada School of Public Service - Language Training Programs and Courses

Wow! I mean, WOW! There's a Canada School of Public Service! Like, OMYGOD! Who would know!? And they have a list of language training programs! Wow! SHocker!

Oh but sooory, you can't apply. No, not this year, not next year, not ever. So sorry.

I don't know why you think that posting a few links somehow contradicts my statement. I didn't say there was NO language training in the government. I said it had been severely curtailed and just about the only people who get it are managers and executives and senior people in positions where they have hard to find skills. And even for them its extremely difficult. I know people in several departments, managers, who've fought for years to get their language training, even though they're in bilingual positions, and then had to try to learn the language with the aid of the third rate schools with amateur teachers the government does contracts with.

Maybe you're just not smart enough to figure out that there's the way things look on paper, and then there's the way things work in the real world.

[Argus]

People ARE being hired on qualification. But all things being equal, being in a targeted group tips the scale in favour of the aboriginal or visible minority. That is the whole point.

Yeah, that's nonsense. What they've done is to eliminate the points and grading systems which used to exist on government tests. It used to be that when you took a test you're mark would be compared to everyone else who passed and you'd be on a numbered list and offered jobs in relation to how high on the list you passed. But they got bad publicity for offering jobs to non-white people who finished 253rd on the list while leaving the white guys who finished 12th alone. So they changed the system so that anyone who passes gets into a "pool" who are all considered equally qualified.

Thus if you get 51% you're considered every bit as good as the guy who got 100%, and this allows them to select those who just scraped past because they're more uh, colourful.

[Shwa]

Wow! I mean, WOW! There's a Canada School of Public Service! Like, OMYGOD! Who would know!? And they have a list of language training programs! Wow! SHocker!

Oh but sooory, you can't apply. No, not this year, not next year, not ever. So sorry.

I don't know why you think that posting a few links somehow contradicts my statement. I didn't say there was NO language training in the government. I said it had been severely curtailed and just about the only people who get it are managers and executives and senior people in positions where they have hard to find skills. And even for them its extremely difficult. I know people in several departments, managers, who've fought for years to get their language training, even though they're in bilingual positions, and then had to try to learn the language with the aid of the third rate schools with amateur teachers the government does contracts with.

Maybe you're just not smart enough to figure out that there's the way things look on paper, and then there's the way things work in the real world.

The federal government has virtually no language training programs any more

Naw, you just got shot down yet again and all you can muster is weak anecdote and baseless opinion. When you can actually prove something - you know, like "the public service is drawn largely from the area around Ottawa" - then maybe your opinion will gain some credibility.

[bloodyminded]

What is so poor about it? It is sure to invoke strong emotion in people who take the statement at face value, and sure to inflame those who vehemently disagree, and sure to pass as irrelevant and go unnoticed by people who have brains, exactly as it is meant to.

It's poor writing because it is grammatically poor.

[Liberals] adore pornography and the mechanization of sex because man is just an animal, and they are gods.

Arguably, she doesn't understand the word "mechanization"; inarguably, she doesn't understand that pronouns can be confused through sloppiness. ("MAN is just an animal, and THEY are gods"...surely you see the error here.)

Further, it's logically stupid, even meaningless: "Liberals" love porno and "the mechanization of sex" because they think themselves gods?

So if someone who isn't a liberal likes porno, than he too thinks himself a "god"...or is merely ruled by these self-styled liberal gods?

And they aren't "man"...because....um......

She doesn't even know what she's talking about.

Edited August 1, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Bonam]

It's poor writing because it is grammatically poor.

Arguably, she doesn't understand the word "mechanization"; inarguably, she doesn't understand that pronouns can be confused through sloppiness. ("MAN is just an animal, and THEY are gods"...surely you see the error here.)

Further, it's logically stupid, even meaningless: "Liberals" love porno and "the mechanization of sex" because they think themselves gods?

The pronouns are somewhat imprecise as you say, however, they cannot, in this case, be mixed up, since there is only one plural subject "liberals" which the pronoun "they" can be referring to.

As for the meaning of the statement, it is not really meaningless. Liberals (in this case, by extension communists, etc) are alleged to view humans as nothing but a means to an end, a tool, an animal. From this viewpoint, humans having sex is no different than the rutting of pigs, or other livestock, and is by implication compared to this in a derogatory way.

"Mechanized sex" in this context, as of farm animals, only matters to the extent that it has some impact on the farmer (who runs the farm), who is a metaphor for the liberal social engineer god who fancies himself to be as far above the masses that he wants to rule as the farmer holds himself above his cows and pigs. That impact can be reproduction to get some desired population. Or in the case of porn and humans, the right winger might see the liberal as wanting to undermine the family unit in order to allow the state to assert a greater influence, or pornography might simply be considered a way to keep the masses happy and obedient while in reality the modern liberal society decreases their interaction with other humans.

This stands in opposition to the religious/conservative view of sexual intercourse between human beings (a man and his wife) as something that is meant to be spiritual, or at least meaningful, rather than casual or irrelevant.

Now, I'm certainly not agreeing with Coulter here, but I do believe that the meaning is quite clear. Much of it is left to implication, and these themes are familiar in some types of literature.

So if someone who isn't a liberal likes porno, than then he too thinks himself a "god"...or is merely ruled by these self-styled liberal gods?

Ok if you are gonna spend a whole post criticizing someone's grammar, using the wrong word just because it sounds the same isn't gonna help your cause...

Edited August 2, 2010 by Bonam

[Molly]

What?

[Jack Weber]

Naw, you just got shot down yet again and all you can muster is weak anecdote and baseless opinion. When you can actually prove something - you know, like "the public service is drawn largely from the area around Ottawa" - then maybe your opinion will gain some credibility.

Careful...

You'll make Argus the Magnificient angry...

[bloodyminded]

The pronouns are somewhat imprecise as you say, however, they cannot, in this case, be mixed up, since there is only one plural subject "liberals" which the pronoun "they" can be referring to.

That's true, but the mixing up of person when using pronouns--"they" standing in for the singular--has become so common in everyday usage that it is now more important to avoid confusion; helpfully, through proper pronoun placement and usage. In other words, getting one aspect correct doesn't solve the other mistake. If anything, it makes it worse, as it looks like she's confused the person and the number (even though she actually got the number right).

She should have repeated "liberals" rather than using "they." While this can read a bit awkwardly, in this case it sounds fine, as there's sufficient spatial separation between subject and pronoun to make it work.

As for the meaning of the statement, it is not really meaningless. Liberals (in this case, by extension communists, etc) are alleged to view humans as nothing but a means to an end, a tool, an animal. From this viewpoint, humans having sex is no different than the rutting of pigs, or other livestock, and is by implication compared to this in a derogatory way.

"Mechanized sex" in this context, as of farm animals, only matters to the extent that it has some impact on the farmer (who runs the farm), who is a metaphor for the liberal social engineer god who fancies himself to be as far above the masses that he wants to rule as the farmer holds himself above his cows and pigs. That impact can be reproduction to get some desired population. Or in the case of porn and humans, the right winger might see the liberal as wanting to undermine the family unit in order to allow the state to assert a greater influence, or pornography might simply be considered a way to keep the masses happy and obedient while in reality the modern liberal society decreases their interaction with other humans.

This stands in opposition to the religious/conservative view of sexual intercourse between human beings (a man and his wife) as something that is meant to be spiritual, or at least meaningful, rather than casual or irrelevant.

Now, I'm certainly not agreeing with Coulter here, but I do believe that the meaning is quite clear. Much of it is left to implication, and these themes are familiar in some types of literature.

The meaning is clear in the sense that "pigs have six legs" has a clear meaning. But since her entire premise is preposterous, and for more than one reason, "meaningless" is a fair enough attribution. And I don't agree that it's clear in implication; pretend you knew nothing else of Coulter's views, and read the sentence again...it's remarkable for its lack of transparent implication.

At any rate, she presumes (dishonestly) that "liberals" partake in pornography, whereas "conservatives" do not. You, me, and Coulter are all unambiguously aware that this is not the case.

(In fact, pornography, which is a big business--which is WHY it is "mechanized," not a matter of ideology but of capitalist enterprise--is a notoriously conservative form of entrepreneurship. The world's most popular pornstar, whom I heard interviewed on CBC, said the industry is mostly run by an old boys' club of Republicans! )

But never mind that--think of porn's massive audience. In Coulter's world, it is a bunch of liberals, who (according to you) are using it in the sensibility of communists.

Man, this is some wild conspiracy theory. The conservatives who partake in pornography are of a monumental number, obviously.

Ok if you are gonna spend a whole post criticizing someone's grammar, using the wrong word just because it sounds the same isn't gonna help your cause...

I don't think a minor spelling error (on a message forum) is quite the same as a grammatical error in a book.

Besides, a spelling error is not a grammatical error....unlike the following, which is:

The pronouns are somewhat imprecise as you say, however, they cannot, in this case, be mixed up, since there is only one plural subject "liberals" which the pronoun "they" can be referring to.

You need a comma, or some other demarcation, between "subject" and "liberals," since "liberals" constitutes an explanatory expansion. If you had written "the plural subject," it would be fine as is; but since you wrote "one plural subject," it's incorrect.

Also, "however" does not generally separate clauses using only commas. The semicolon is the most common way to fix this.

(I'm only being so pedantic because you are being (defensively) pedantic, taking the discussion out of the realm of criticizing a professional writer's published grammatical mistakes, and then admonishing me personally for a spelling mistake. Personally, I don't criticize other posters' grammar unless they go on the attack first.)

Edited August 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[madmax]

I knew this was going on but maybe not so blatently, reverse discrimination or affirmative action is wrong, what happened to qualifications and meritocracy?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/07/20/14772656.html

Yes, there was a time when Women and Minorities were kept out of the workforce when they were qualified. Then women fought for equality. That equality has forced women into law, police, firefighters etc. which have normally been the strongholds of white males. Today we see women in equal roles and it was because of employment equality laws not inspite of them.

I watched as Law schools went to 50/50 enrollment at a time when that was hard to achieve. They started grabbing at 2nd year University students to fill the classes. Sure some men etc were denied into the University because of this practice. But prior to this others were denied.

The world ain't fair.

You can complain one way and then complain the other when it goes against you.

As for that Female Law student taken from 2nd year... She went on to be a mover in Shaker in the United States.

[g_bambino]

That equality has forced women into law, police, firefighters etc.

With lower qualification standards than men. Oops, not equal.

[Shwa]

With lower qualification standards than men. Oops, not equal.

Because the "higher" qualification standards were devised by men for men. Oops, back to equal.

[madmax]

With lower qualification standards than men. Oops, not equal.

A long time ago, before dinosaurs were born, I was an applicant for a Police Cadet Position. 2 Positions were advertised back in 1982. 350 People applied and its likely, most of them were local. I knew most of the people who applied in one way or another. Within this group were 2 women who I did not know. After 6 months of testing, physicals, more testing etc. the final 20 had those same two women.

I recall overhearing the head of the police at the time saying he is going to make the next physical testing brutally hard so that those two birds don't fly. The number of pushups, toe touching etc increased and the weight lifting increased and became more repetitive. They still made it. Finally, clever as they were, a NEW FAT test was applied. Not to the guts of men going over their trousers, but to the rear thighs. Not that I was fat but there were still a few portly men in the final 18. The one woman was a bonerack. But Skinny women have more fat on their thighs then fat men have on their thighs.

I laughed when I saw those caliphers come out and i knew I was in.

I made it to the final five.

They ended up taking 3. Two large (One heavily steroid using) young men, and a Chinese Guy who was 5'5" and normally unable to make the grade because of height. He was able to benchpress 370 pounds and was my Gym Partner. I was proud for him and he did get that job because of his ethnicity and we both knew it. He could also do the job just fine and I never held it against him. Infact because he was a minority the police of the day were able to make a case to take on three.

About 5 months after that 2 women (DIFFERENT) were hired on directly as constables. I never saw the process or procedure, but we got our first women ever on the police force that year.

At the end of the day, the entry skill required to be a Policeman, isn't that high. You must be physically fit and capable of learning. Some can go to college prep courses etc, but to do the job a High School diploma is whats needed and the ability to think. Before high school, grade 10 wasn't required. Infact a police record check or drug testing wasn't required.

Requirements change over time.

They will change again in the future.

[PIK]

Women old 54% of the PS jobs?? Is that right and if so, is that not wrong.

[g_bambino]

Requirements change over time.

They will change again in the future.

Perhaps they will, but the physical tests for women wanting to enter the Toronto Fire Department are less demanding than those given to the male applicants. My sister recognised that this delineation was aimed at filling politically correct quotas rather than real-world emergency situations and refused to be judged on the women's tests; she entered the force knowing she could pull (or haul or push) the same weight as the boys.

[Mr.Canada]

Because the "higher" qualification standards were devised by men for men. Oops, back to equal.

So you would be ok if one of your loved ones died in a fire due to the female being unable to lift them out whereas a man perhaps could've. Women must be taken over men at all costs even at the cost of human life.

Interesting.

[Guest TrueMetis]

So you would be ok if one of your loved ones died in a fire due to the female being unable to lift them out whereas a man perhaps could've. Women must be taken over men at all costs even at the cost of human life.

Interesting.

Unless you have numbers showing women have caused people to die in fires because they couldn't lift them this is all speculative b#llshit. Despite what you think, people aren't all that heavy and if you know the proper techniques it not all that hard to carry people.

Of course firemen don't actually lift victims anymore, trade secret, in a fire smoke rises meaning lifting people actually puts them in more danger. The preferred method is to drag a person in the supine position, and obviously dragging is a lot easier than carrying.

[Bonam]

Unless you have numbers showing women have caused people to die in fires because they couldn't lift them this is all speculative b#llshit. Despite what you think, people aren't all that heavy and if you know the proper techniques it not all that hard to carry people.

Of course firemen don't actually lift victims anymore, trade secret, in a fire smoke rises meaning lifting people actually puts them in more danger. The preferred method is to drag a person in the supine position, and obviously dragging is a lot easier than carrying.

Nonetheless firefighting is a very physically intensive task, and physical strength and endurance can prove important factors in many situations that firefighters could potentially encounter, whether it is moving debris out of the way, running up stairs with heavy equipment, or whatever else may be required.

[charter.rights]

Nonetheless firefighting is a very physically intensive task, and physical strength and endurance can prove important factors in many situations that firefighters could potentially encounter, whether it is moving debris out of the way, running up stairs with heavy equipment, or whatever else may be required.

I was a volunteer firefighter and before qualifying had to take a physical and stress test at York University. I can tell you that the women that took the test along with me (as well as a colleague who changed careers and ended up with the Vaughn Fire Department)are all capable of meeting the challenges - including dragging a 200lb dummy around a 50 foot obstacle course. Women are hired because they are capable and I would have no trouble going into a burning building with any of them at my side.