The general decline in standards today

[PoohBang]

Hi

I think that a large portion of the attitudes against some controversial subjects including women in combat and gay marriage is NOT the actual subject itself, but the way in which the US Federal Government usually executes such ideas.

Or perhaps, people who actually have attitudes against controversial subject, actually have attitudes against controversial subjects.

And maybe people who blame the government for them use those subjects as a crutch because it's really they don't like the government...

 

[hatophile]

Hope not, bu let me tell you - this one can take care of herself. And the best part is that she looks like a little Barbie - she ain't! Her class is mostly women, and it's USC, so I have hopes that she'll be fine. Plus, she's been working in the emergency room for years now with these guys. But yes, the world still isn't fair. Likely never will be...

Good for her, tell her not to take any ------ from those guys!

 

[Edward]

Hi

I think that a large portion of the attitudes against some controversial subjects including women in combat and gay marriage is NOT the actual subject itself, but the way in which the US Federal Government usually executes such ideas.

Its much easier for the Government to use the term "equal opportunity" to mean that each company has to include (Numbers yanked from thin air as an example) 49% men, 51% women, 20% of the men and 25% of the women must be gay, 19% of the men and 23% of the women must be Afro-American, etc. It's much more difficult to prove and disprove in court that a company used reasonable entry criteria to end up with a bank that included 89% black hetero men and 11% Eskimo hetero women.

If you have set entry criteria for jobs, then it shouldn't matter what the religion / race / gender / marital status / ? of the eventual employee is.

Later

I can't speak to US law as I have no experience of it in this respect, however.... Over here in the UK, among those who oppose fair employment legislation there is an extremely common misconception that it's all about quotas and having a certain number of [insert race/religion/gender/sexuality here] persons working for you. In fact, this has nothing whatever to do with it: the only requirement is that no suitably qualified person is ever turned down for a job on the basis that they fit into one of those groups (typically categories of person who have been on the receiving end of such prejudice over the years). The law does not remotely require someone to employ a gay guy, or a black guy, or whatever - simply not to decline to employ that person for the simple reason that he is gay or black. A middle class, male WASP who is better qualified for the job has nothing to fear. Of course, in my own experience, many of the people over here who carry the aforementioned misconception about the law are often simply bitter that they didn't get jobs to which they felt entitled, but the selection committee disagreed. Some people just like to have a comfortable scapegoat that doesn't lay responsibility at their own door, I guess.

 

[C-dot]

In fact, this has nothing whatever to do with it: the only requirement is that no suitably qualified person is ever turned down for a job on the basis that they fit into one of those groups (typically categories of person who have been on the receiving end of such prejudice over the years). The law does not remotely require someone to employ a gay guy, or a black guy, or whatever - simply not to decline to employ that person for the simple reason that he is gay or black.

I'm glad to hear the UK is keeping their heads about the issue. Contrarily, the US and Canada had a real onslaught of "affirmative action" in the past 10-12 years. Here in Canada, it's a common joke that you need a turban to get a government job, particularly as a police officer (all kidding aside, this is what a recruiter for the provincial police said to my fully qualified cousin when he applied for a job.) The feds are broadening that scope, wanting to institute programs to help very new immigrants get jobs in our extremely downtrodden market. This is as far as I can take it without getting political, but its goes to show how things have changed, though not necessarily for the better.

 

[1961MJS]

Hi

After the Iranian hostage crisis in the early 1980's, an Egyptian friend of mine refused an IRS job when they told him he'd have to go to people's house armed with a .357 Magnum. To quote, "I said, are you nuts? Half the guys around here would kill any Arab that came to their door with a gun."

Edward, here in the US, the misconception that we have quotas extends to job seekers, employers, and those who "support diversity".

Later

 

[Pompidou]

The impression that there are legal quotas come from the idea that in order to prove that you're not hiring a particular straight, white, middle class male over an alternative, you've got to have at least one representative of each minority on the checklist. See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveTokenBand - the only way to guarantee nobody thinks you'd ever use race, orientation, gender or handicap status as a qualification for hiring is to use race, orientation, gender and handicap status as a qualification for hiring. One of each - and make sure they're in a group photo on your company propaganda. I'm exaggerating a bit, but that is the common perception.

 

[Undertow]

The impression that there are legal quotas come from the idea that in order to prove that you're not hiring a particular straight, white, middle class male over an alternative, you've got to have at least one representative of each minority on the checklist. See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveTokenBand - the only way to guarantee nobody thinks you'd ever use race, orientation, gender or handicap status as a qualification for hiring is to use race, orientation, gender and handicap status as a qualification for hiring. One of each - and make sure they're in a group photo on your company propaganda. I'm exaggerating a bit, but that is the common perception.

I believe there was an issue along these lines brought before the US Supreme Court regarding a Michigan Law School and students claiming reverse discrimination due to quotas. I'm not sure of the outcome unfortunately, and I don't currently have the time to look this up. But, if anyone else is interested...!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Legally-imposed quotas are allowed in the US only under specific circumstances in which an established pattern of discrimination has been proven, and only under the direct order of a Federal court. There have been very few instances where such quotas have been imposed. What most people who throw up "quotas" as a boogeyman are thinking of are in fact private company or institutional policies, not anything mandated by Federal law.

 

[C-dot]

Legally-imposed quotas are allowed in the US only under specific circumstances in which an established pattern of discrimination has been proven, and only under the direct order of a Federal court. There have been very few instances where such quotas have been imposed. What most people who throw up "quotas" as a boogeyman are thinking of are in fact private company or institutional policies, not anything mandated by Federal law.

They seem to be mandated more socially than legally. Like Pompidou says, you need a few of each to avoid discrimination claims. If you've ever worked for a human rights lawyer, you'll know these claims are tossed around often, and with fervor.

 

[Pompidou]

They seem to be mandated more socially than legally. Like Pompidou says, you need a few of each to avoid discrimination claims. If you've ever worked for a human rights lawyer, you'll know these claims are tossed around often, and with fervor.

Yeah, it's less a government mandate, than a legal protection from lawsuits. Even if a company "wins" a lawsuit, they still lose, what with public relations and legal costs. Anyone remember the movie "War Games" with Matt Broderick? The only way to win was not to play.

 

[C-dot]

Yeah, it's less a government mandate, than a legal protection from lawsuits. Even if a company "wins" a lawsuit, they still lose, what with public relations and legal costs. Anyone remember the movie "War Games" with Matt Broderick? The only way to win was not to play.

OT: I loved that movie!

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I believe there was an issue along these lines brought before the US Supreme Court regarding a Michigan Law School and students claiming reverse discrimination due to quotas. I'm not sure of the outcome unfortunately, and I don't currently have the time to look this up. But, if anyone else is interested...!

I should know this as I am in Michigan and employ people. But I just do not recall the outcome of that.

I can say I have never placed anyone into a negative choice on hiring due to where they may be from, or race or color. However, bluntly, if a person is a radical in any form, or a drunk, or trouble maker, they will not be hired, period. I do hire by what a person is all about, and do have individuals that work for me that are non white not male employees. They do their jobs, I pay them and treat them very well not any different than any other employee. Now further on the topic, I do not have anyone telling me I need to hire someone that is non white for any reason. Maybe if I had a larger work force, some agency would take notice and review my businesses, but even if they did, I would not be worried. In the long run, I would never pass up anyone to hire someone else based upon race or those types of things. If you can do the work and have a clean background and want to be a good worker, you got the job!

 

[LoveMyHats2]

The sad thing I've come to realize is that many highly educated people are far more sexist than less educated people. I am still amazed by how many highly educated people who will outright say things that are obviously sexist.



Agreed totally. The reason why such standards are in place is for safety reasons and they shouldn't be lowered. Somebody shouldn't be denied if they meet the standards, just because of their biological sex. I've known women who could lift and carry 200 pounds down a flight of stairs and I've known men who couldn't. I'm pretty sure that anybody getting rescued isn't going to stop the rescuer and ask what sex that person is.

That is true. I think in some degree of reality, society has to come to terms with what is fair to everyone. However, as badly as this may sound I have to say it.

Do you want your Mom, or your Sister to be in a combat situation, being splattered by the guts, blood, brains of a fellow soldier, or that of an enemy troop? Would that be something you would welcome your Wife to have to go through? War and other extreme things that may happen in life, just do not relate to the "average" female having to be put through. Not that it is all hunky dory for a Man to have to go through it, but as a race, a human race, there will be and has been wars. No matter what, there is going to be someone sent to the battle field. Do I think some women can handle it? Yes. Do I want to see some women handle it? No. Do I think I am sexist for my views? No. Not at all. I do not think it is sexist to desire to spare a Woman from the horrors of war. I consider it a "humane" view point. As for a Woman being a fireman, emergency person, that is a far different situation.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I think it's just as bad to say that you have to hire someone because of race, religion, gender, orientation, etc as it is to say that you would refuse to for the same thing. It's not equality either way, it's just tipping the scale the other way.

When I was management at K-Mart, they once suggested giving my position to an African-American man who had just started there. I asked if he was more experienced, or had been transferred from another store, to which they said no. I asked why they would do that then and I was told it would "Make the store look better" because he was the only minority employed there. I think that's just as wrong as denying him a job there because of his ancestry.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I think it's just as bad to say that you have to hire someone because of race, religion, gender, orientation, etc as it is to say that you would refuse to for the same thing. It's not equality either way, it's just tipping the scale the other way.

When I was management at K-Mart, they once suggested giving my position to an African-American man who had just started there. I asked if he was more experienced, or had been transferred from another store, to which they said no. I asked why they would do that then and I was told it would "Make the store look better" because he was the only minority employed there. I think that's just as wrong as denying him a job there because of his ancestry.

I know that does happen and it is wrong all the way. It never helps to "kiss up to" any one group of people or give them a "free ride" to a higher paying job. If you already had the position, then it was filled. They can find some other way to uplift the other guy into a position based upon his/her merits and ability.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Everybody should have to 'pay their dues' and work your way up. It doesn't matter to me what your story is, if you can do the job, do it well, and have the qualifications to do it. It shouldn't be handed to you for any reason.

 

[Travis Lee Johnston]

There's a saying I heard once, "The only good movement is a bowel movement".

Organizations may start out with good intentions but usually end up just holding themselves and others back with their agenda and political correctness.

 

[Pompidou]

That is true. I think in some degree of reality, society has to come to terms with what is fair to everyone. However, as badly as this may sound I have to say it.

Do you want your Mom, or your Sister to be in a combat situation, being splattered by the guts, blood, brains of a fellow soldier, or that of an enemy troop? Would that be something you would welcome your Wife to have to go through? War and other extreme things that may happen in life, just do not relate to the "average" female having to be put through. Not that it is all hunky dory for a Man to have to go through it, but as a race, a human race, there will be and has been wars. No matter what, there is going to be someone sent to the battle field. Do I think some women can handle it? Yes. Do I want to see some women handle it? No. Do I think I am sexist for my views? No. Not at all. I do not think it is sexist to desire to spare a Woman from the horrors of war. I consider it a "humane" view point. As for a Woman being a fireman, emergency person, that is a far different situation.

A few arguments (the tone below is light, but still spirited - I fear it might come across too hard)

Do you "want" your father, or your brother to be in a combat situation...etc? Probably not.

Do you want to see men handle it? You probably don't want to see anyone have to handle it.

Who do you think you're sparing? You're not sparing Rue, because she didn't want to be a soldier, and thus, didn't join the military. You didn't spare my mom or my sister, because they didn't want to be soldiers, and didn't join the military. You aren't sparing anyone - not one single person. They don't need you to spare them. If they're the patriotic type and want to risk their lives for their country, they volunteer for the role. Sparing? Denying is the more accurate term.

Somewhere in the argument against women in combat positions is this idea, however unfleshed-out, that, should women be allowed in combat positions, that they'll be forced into combat positions, that, should the rules change, we'll be dumping school-girls into Iraq by the truckload as cannon fodder. That's not the case. Men are allowed in combat positions, and we're not in combat.

All we're doing to women is saying they're not good enough, and not only that, but they're not smart enough to know what's best for them - that the rule is in place because they'd be just dumb enough to do it if it weren't and they'd regret it. I don't think they'd regret it any more than your male soldier would/does. They want to serve their country in every way a man is allowed to. They know what they want to do, and don't need men making decisions for them by disallowing them from making certain decisions. Almost like Saudi women and no-driving/confinement to the house, etc - ask a man there and they'll tell you it's for the woman's own good. Is it?

What if the roles were reversed, and women were making rules that men couldn't do X, Y or Z because women know what's best and it's for our own good? I'd hate it. If there's one thing I hate, it's having an arbitrary restriction imposed on me.

 

[Mojito]

Women have often been criticised for wanting all the positives of equality, but not the negatives. When the Titanic sank, suffragettes had to put up with gibes because of the "women and children first" policy of the loading the lifeboats - it was said women wanted equality when it came to voting, but not when it came to giving up their lives...that "Votes for Women!" became "Boats for Women!"

I don't particularly want to go to war. I have no desire to kill or be killed, or to see anyone at all, male or female, die like that, particularly not my loved ones. But I have always accepted that, if it were necessary, I would serve my country in what way I could. And if that meant I was fit enough to serve in the military, including the possiblity of a combat or support role, then that would be my duty. I would not want to see myself excused from combat on the basis of gender if a male of equal fitness, meeting the same physical criteria for strength, agility, skills etc, was sent to fight. Just as, on a sinking ship, I'd rather see a male who was of lesser physical fitness or who had dependants find a place in a boat before me.

So while I appreciate the chivalry of the gesture, I'd rather take full responsiblities as an equal citizen...even if there is a very high potential price to pay. I'd feel rather hypocritical otherwise.

 

[ButteMT61]

Can't sleep and listening to the radio. Story on women in the Obama white house upset and calling it like "Mad Men". Can't wait to hear more in this one!
Not going political. But it fits perfectly with this thread in its current state.
More to come.