Black History Month.

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

 

It's fascinating that you assume a woman couldn't be qualified on merit. Does that apply to different races as well?

It's actually MEN who are fast tracked in teaching, for obvious reasons but strangely there are few articles complaining about that.

Give him a teaching job because he has a penis?

The other thing to point out is that there are benefits to promoting careers to people who don't have cultural inroads there.  Would you rather have a qualified person work in a well paid profession or have them as a busboy and import that worker... extreme hypothetical analogy there.

We promote domestic people and industry for mutual advantage.

[Perspektiv]

48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Would you rather have a qualified person work in a well paid profession

I would want the best qualified person for certain jobs. If competence isn't necessary,  you have a point.

I have never thought to myself boarding an aircraft: "Wow, sure could use a more diverse workforce regarding the pilots".

Its automatically assumed the best possible candidate got the job.

Fill your race quotas in the airport. 

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Woman's work performance is what I hope you meant.

No, I meant a woman's work. 

1 hour ago, herbie said:

And the only black woman I know is a school principal.

What's your point? I know plenty of overqualified women who dominate in male dominated fields. Thats my point. They earned their positions.

I don't care if my plumber is female or male. I care that they are qualified. If that makes them female, fantastic.

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

Exhibit A for why DEI programs are needed.

Clearly why it isn't. Qualifications should be the priority. Not skin color. You're otherwise hiring based on race.

My wife is insanely qualified at nursing and business. She could go toe to toe with a man, and win.

Her being hired because she's Asian, negates her skillet that she could and has found high paying work with on its own merit. You're essentially telling her she's inferior, and needs a leg up, and are calling me:

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

What a caveman.

Yeah, okay.

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

It's fascinating that you assume a woman couldn't be qualified on merit.

Equally fascinating how you twist what I said. Women should be hired on merit. Not based on what is between their legs. 

 

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Give him a teaching job because he has a penis?

Or her having a penis. Equal opportunity. 🤡

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. I would want the best qualified person for certain jobs. If competence isn't necessary,  you have a point.

 

1. Generally, it's not clear who is best qualified.  For teaching especially, you have your education and a few comments on your student placement which are generic.

Black kids sometimes respond better to a role model that is from their culture.  So if the staff is 100% white women, what do you think the decision might be?

 

[Black Dog]

24 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Clearly why it isn't. Qualifications should be the priority. Not skin color. You're otherwise hiring based on race.

My wife is insanely qualified at nursing and business. She could go toe to toe with a man, and win.

Her being hired because she's Asian, negates her skillet that she could and has found high paying work with on its own merit. You're essentially telling her she's inferior, and needs a leg up, and are calling me:

Yeah, okay.

Equally fascinating how you twist what I said. Women should be hired on merit. Not based on what is between their legs. 

 

I don't know how you guys look at "we should promote and incentive women and minority groups to be part of fields in which they are underrepresented" and think that means "unqualified people should be given jobs because of their race/sex/gender."

 

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Well the issue is a lot of fields (STEM for example) have done a poor job of providing those opportunities on their own.

No one is doing that.

And there's women who want to be auto mechanics who don't become auto mechanics because that's a field that has been hostile to women. 

Recruitment isn't the right words so much as the people who choose to immigrate from these societies are ones with the resources to do so. 

You don’t think that STEM and traditionally male dominated fields have been made amenable to women?  You need to visit job fairs.

You don’t think that there are differences between men and women, or that there are cultural differences between ethnicities? 

It doesn’t mean people can’t enter fields less associated with their gender or culture, but you’re not going to make Asians become poorer students or have men dominate the nursing profession.  Not everything is a result of social conditioning.  Men can’t give birth or breastfeed.  It’s one of the reasons more men than women are on corporate boards: Many women leave the workforce for extended periods. Or do you chalk it all up to “the patriarchy”, which you think can and should be dismantled?  Do you think the state should take over reproduction so that all men and women can equally participate in some worker’s paradise?  

Edited March 7 by Zeitgeist

[Perspektiv]

48 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I don't know how you guys look at "we should promote and incentive women and minority groups to be part of fields in which they are underrepresented" and think that means "unqualified people should be given jobs because of their race/sex/gender."

 

Then why not incentivize hiring based on the best possible candidates?

Why can't we socially accept that a plumber will likely be male? A receptionist will likely be female?

An engineer will more than likely be male. So on. 

If you need a "leg up", then to me you didn't earn the job.

You illegally entried your way to job prosperity. All others had to earn their way in. Good for you.

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Black kids sometimes respond better to a role model that is from their culture. 

Just about all my teachers were white. I don't think I get your point. 

If the teachers are good at their job, I don't understand how it makes a difference.

[Black Dog]

38 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You don’t think that STEM and traditionally male dominated fields have been made amenable to women?  You need to visit job fairs.

Historically no. That's only changed because of a concentrated effort to get more women into those fields.

Quote

You don’t think that there are differences between men and women, or that there are cultural differences between ethnicities? 

I think men and women are socialized differently, yes.

Quote

It doesn’t mean people can’t enter fields less associated with their gender or culture, but you’re not going to make Asians become poorer students or have men dominate the nursing profession.  Not everything is a result of social conditioning.  Men can’t give birth or breastfeed.  It’s one of the reasons more men than women are on corporate boards: Many women leave the workforce for extended periods. Or do you chalk it all up to “the patriarchy”, which you think can and should be dismantled?

Women having to interrupt their careers to have children because men aren't expected to stay home and look after the kids is actually a great example of the patriarchy in action.

Quote

 Do you think the state should take over reproduction so that all men and women can equally participate in some worker’s paradise?  

I don't think women should be punished for having children and the state should have family-friendly policies to facilitate equitable participation in both the workforce and childcare.

13 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Then why not incentivize hiring based on the best possible candidates?

Why can't we socially accept that a plumber will likely be male? A receptionist will likely be female?

An engineer will more than likely be male. So on. 

If you need a "leg up", then to me you didn't earn the job.

You illegally entried your way to job prosperity. All others had to earn their way in. Good for you.

Why should we?

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Just about all my teachers were white. I don't think I get your point. 

2. If the teachers are good at their job, I don't understand how it makes a difference.

1. What don't you understand?

2. How do you know that they'll be good before you hire them?

My point is that people are coming back with a principle that either doesn't apply or isn't being contradicted.

 

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

Historically no. That's only changed because of a concentrated effort to get more women into those fields.

I think men and women are socialized differently, yes.

Women having to interrupt their careers to have children because men aren't expected to stay home and look after the kids is actually a great example of the patriarchy in action.

I don't think women should be punished for having children and the state should have family-friendly policies to facilitate equitable participation in both the workforce and childcare.

Why should we?

Can you tell us more about “the patriarchy in action”? Where was it invented and who’s responsible?  Or is it a problem with men in general?  Are men toxic?  What must be done?

Edited March 8 by Zeitgeist

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Women having to interrupt their careers to have children because men aren't expected to stay home and look after the kids is actually a great example of the patriarchy in action.

"The patriarchy?" Seriously.

You sound like those seniors who talked about electronics hearing your voice, so needing to be quiet:

"The television" can hear you.

You couldn't articulate what you mean, because you clearly don't have a clue in the world.

What is this patriarchy, exactly?

Something holding women back?

What is holding women back? Choosing to have a child and choosing to take the paid leave?

Seriously? 

What is stopping a woman from success in society, today? Men? How?

"The patriarchy" doesn't mean anything. What specifically is stopping women from ascending regarding success, because am not seeing it.

Statistically, it also doesn't add up.

If a woman is willing to dedicate herself to a craft, I don't see how she can't be just as if not more successful than a man at it.

If you can't dedicate yourself the same, don't cry for me Argentina, but life is unfair.

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

I think men and women are socialized differently, yes.

Men and women are also different, so shouldn't the opportunities most go for reflect this? How is this a bad thing?

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

I don't think women should be punished for having children

How is a woman punished for having children? Financially?

Can I terminate a pregnant woman, who is a permanent employee?

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Why should we?

Don't accept it, statistically speaking, it just will continue to be.

Most girls aren't going to naturally be driven to clean s*** out of the toilet bowl.

I don't see the wrong in this.

[Moonlight Graham]

11 hours ago, Black Dog said:

I've never actually seen any evidence this happens.

DEI is taking opportunities from people from one or more groups and giving them to people from another group(s) perceived as less advantaged.  That's literally the entire point.  If this wasn't the case then DEI wouldn't exist.

[Moonlight Graham]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well that's what I thought but I couldn't find evidence.  Of course we recruit highly educated people, which leads to strange racist tropes like "Chinese people are really good at Math"...

 

But I could not find a cite.

The immigration system doesn't "target" any specific countries or ethnicities.  They receive applications from anyone in the world who wants to immigrate and then assesses each applicant based on a points system of different criteria.  Applicants are ranked based on things like education, work skills, language ability etc.  If more Korean or South Asian people get in over other ethnicities it's because either their criteria just happens to be better and/or more people from that ethnicity apply over others:   https://ircc.canada.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/crs-tool.asp

Then you have Canadians sponsoring spouses/children, plus refugees, neither which have any of the above mentioned entrance criteria besides criminality and medical checks.  In the case of spouses/children or refugees sponsored privately the Canadian sponsor needs to have enough income to support the applicant for a certain # of years.

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

DEI is taking opportunities from people from one or more groups and giving them to people from another group(s) perceived as less advantaged.  That's literally the entire point.  If this wasn't the case then DEI wouldn't exist.

Exactly. 

It does make it look good on paper, but you're literally forgoing someone who had higher qualifications, to meet race quotas.

You're robbing that person who did everything right of an opportunity. 

I see it like an immigrant doing everything right, forced to wait two years to become a permanent resident or to get a visa confirmed.

You know, vs someone who just walked in past an unprotected part of a border, got pregnant and now is a victim who can't get kicked out.

What's the point of laws, to begin with or respecting them?

Its a bad look if a white student said anything about this, and you're literally reverse racism-ing your way to "equality".

This is what I call slacktivism. Instead of fighting the issues at their source, its easier to make white people scapegoats, and handing jobs to people, ripped from peoples hands. But they are white, so its only fair.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

DEI is taking opportunities from people from one or more groups and giving them to people from another group(s) perceived as less advantaged.  That's literally the entire point.  If this wasn't the case then DEI wouldn't exist.

We're at the point in the discussion where we need some examples and an overall view also.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We're at the point in the discussion where we need some examples and an overall view also.

 

Example is every DEI policy.  Like the new Oscar award nominee rules, or the black only scholarships shown in this thread.

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Example is every DEI policy. 
2. Like the new Oscar award nominee rules, or the black only scholarships shown in this thread.

1. Ok.  Well - what about additional spaces created in enclaves to integrate diversity into a domain ?  What about simple awareness raising and education ?
2. I wasn't aware of these.  Quick Google search has NYT describing:

"To qualify, films must show that they meet two of the four main categories of representation: onscreen (actors, plot), offscreen leadership (set designers, makeup artists), training programs and marketing."

I'm not in favour of quotas on art but on the other hand it seems pretty easy for any movie to achieve these goals.  They have set them for their own movies, which you don't have to submit to.  Also, isn't it hypocritical for Hollywood to criticize society for prejudices when they won't take their own medicine ?  Seems like it to me.  If an industry decides that you have to meet moral criteria to be part of their club then that's how it's been since forever.  

Is it right ?  There will be films that don't even try to meet these criteria and we'll be able to watch them.  The "Branded" Hollywood films are more about consumer product than art so I'm ambivalent frankly.  So that's MY opinion.  If you want to expound on my points, go ahead.

[Perspektiv]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

We're at the point in the discussion where we need some examples and an overall view also.

This is nothing but reverse racism.

You're punishing white people, for things on a generational level, that they have nothing to do with currently. How else is this not punishing current white people for existing, racism?

Some of these university think tanks label white people as oppressors. Especially white men.

Black people are oppressed.

All this does is further divide people.

Black, white. Oppressed, oppressor. Privileged, socially castrated.

I don't understand how this is progress.

[Perspektiv]

I was raised to think woke. 

When I realized there isn't a single cop that stole from me. Not a single white person. 

Only people who had, shared my skin color, I realized as a child that I had been lied to.

In Black communities I grew up in, nobody talks to anyone. Not even the police.

I was used to knocking on a friend's door, and seeing their parents trauma come out as they would crack their side window curtain a little, and you'd see part of a face poke through, scanning you prior to remotely consider opening their heavily deadbolted and alarm chain having, door.

We blame the easy scapegoat, but know our communities are so f***ed up, we can't even trust a soul in them.

I knew I had made it, when in the suburbs, someone noticed I had dropped my belongings on my car hood, and a neighbor apologized to me for grabbing it, but wanted to hand it to me, personally.

Then they introduced themselves to me, all while my spidey senses were going off. 

All neighbors would say hi, and I had to retrain my mind to accepting that my neighborhood was safe.

Again. We tell ourselves white people are the danger, but in my neighborhood cops smile and say hi to you. 

Generational issues are often community based.

Edited March 8 by Perspektiv

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. This is nothing but reverse racism.

1. Well, people were talking past each other so I think the intelligent thing to do is look at details.  
 

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

"To qualify, films must show that they meet two of the four main categories of representation: onscreen (actors, plot), offscreen leadership (set designers, makeup artists), training programs and marketing."

And people wonder why so many movies have tanked at the box office, recently.

Movies like this, who take it to the limit, are essentially lecturing you, when they should focus on entertaining you.

For that movie, I felt I wasted hours of my life I couldn't get back. Literally most of it was BLM flags, and wokespeak, and the lead character correcting peoples politically incorrect ways of talking. 

You just cringed.

Many female heroine movies, instead of empowering the woman, will take power away from men, because of course--woke. And men are the patriarchy.

 

[Black Dog]

15 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Can you tell us more about “the patriarchy in action”? Where was it invented and who’s responsible?  Or is it a problem with men in general?  Are men toxic?  What must be done?

Start another thread on it if you want.

10 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

DEI is taking opportunities from people from one or more groups and giving them to people from another group(s) perceived as less advantaged.  That's literally the entire point.  If this wasn't the case then DEI wouldn't exist.

Whether that's true or not it has nothing to do with the question I asked.

[Black Dog]

14 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

"The patriarchy?" Seriously.

You sound like those seniors who talked about electronics hearing your voice, so needing to be quiet:

"The television" can hear you.

You couldn't articulate what you mean, because you clearly don't have a clue in the world.

What is this patriarchy, exactly?

Something holding women back?

What is holding women back? Choosing to have a child and choosing to take the paid leave?

Seriously? 

What is stopping a woman from success in society, today? Men? How?

"The patriarchy" doesn't mean anything. What specifically is stopping women from ascending regarding success, because am not seeing it.

Statistically, it also doesn't add up.

You say I don't have a clue, but you're the one asking all these questions about what patriarchy is? I dunno man, maybe read a book or something.

Quote

 

If a woman is willing to dedicate herself to a craft, I don't see how she can't be just as if not more successful than a man at it.

If you can't dedicate yourself the same, don't cry for me Argentina, but life is unfair.

 

But you don't think women should dedicate themeslves to fields that aren't for women.

Quote

Men and women are also different, so shouldn't the opportunities most go for reflect this? How is this a bad thing?

I think it's a bad thing when people are told they can't do things or enter careers on the basis of their sex.

Quote

 

How is a woman punished for having children? Financially?

Can I terminate a pregnant woman, who is a permanent employee?

 

Women with kids are less likely to be hired for jobs, to be perceived as competent at work or to be paid as much as their male colleagues with the same qualifications. Women who decide to have kids and have to take time off to do so are less likely to get raises and promotions.

Quote

 

Don't accept it, statistically speaking, it just will continue to be.

Most girls aren't going to naturally be driven to clean s*** out of the toilet bowl.

I don't see the wrong in this.

 

Not changing something is accepting it. I think excluding 50% of the population from a field is bad.