I understand your points, but I don't think that a person's racial background or gender means they will be more likely to make level-headed decisions. White male or otherwise. This should not be a factor in determining (or favoring) employment. Affirmative action is real.
Secondly, I'm mainly taking irritation with the fact that a feministic agenda is what drives certain people to fight for women being in combat positions, while simultaneously disregarding the problems associated, and going so far as to act like men are being selfish for it. I personally don't care if they want to serve much either way, but putting this feminist spin on it pisses me off. Like increasing the odds of taking a bullet is an exclusive club. I know what it's like to be in a mortar and rocket attack, it isn't fun, or something I want to keep like a privilege.
Lastly, again, it's not eliminated, you're right. However, many blacks point to past slavery in the US and use it as a crutch, often while simultaneously adopting a life style which would make MLK roll over in his grave.
It isn't about making level-headed decisions necessarily, but about having better instincts in different situations. Having a range of people with different experiences will mean you're more likely that one of those people will be able to draw on experience to solve a problem. Greater ethnic and gender diversity creates a group of people with a wider range of experiences, so greater diversity is a good thing.
If it's something that a certain group of people are barred from doing (regardless of their merit, which you seem so keen on), it is an exclusive club: the exclusive club of people who are allowed the freedom to choose. I'm sorry if that's offensive to you, but it's just true. Again, it isn't about it being fun or enjoyable; it's about *freedom to choose* your role in society so long as you have the merit to fulfill that role. To turn your point on its head, aren't we letting down armed forces by rejecting perfectly qualified people on the basis of their sex?
Maybe some people point to some things, but making some fallacious points does not make their whole cause wrong.
The point I'm trying to make is that it is wrong to hire an otherwise less-qualified minority to a position over a more qualified 'majority member' just to meet a diversity quota. How is that justified? For the miniscule benefit of their different perspective 'possibly' helping solve a company issue? If that's the case, hire a minority who is more qualified and get their perspective. Diversity may very well be a good thing, but it shouldn't disadvantage someone who was born white for career candidacy.
Again, I think we're focusing on different aspects. I do not care if women are in combat. I take offense that some would insult and spit on past people's sacrifices and pretend they were acting pridefully by restricting direct-combat missions to men only. I'd have to write an essay to properly give you an insider perspective from the military, but the grand majority of women are NOT as capable of combat as men, primarily in the physical category. Do you have any idea how heavy some of the equipment we carry is? Now imagine that 150lb female carrying a wounded 200 lb male, his weapon, his armor, her weapon, her armor, her ammo, and who knows what else, to get him to safety under enemy fire. That is an extreme task. Is this not related to merit and qualification? If a woman can do it, fine, I really am okay with it, but sometimes you have to face the biological reality that we are different. Also noteworthy is the military is having a horrible problem lately with sexual assault and harassment cases being on the rise; I don't think throwing women into normally all-male combat units is going to help this problem.
'Some' people? Please don't tell me you're dismissing this as an insignificant fringe-group. Over 90% of blacks voted for Obama. Do you really believe 19 out of 20 blacks voted for him with no racial background basis whatsoever?
I don't think I'll convince you otherwise, so I'll hold my peace from here on between the two of us.
I think you are underestimating the potential benefit of diversity. You'll have to talk to employers about that though; I'm not the one who makes that decision, I'm just explaining the logic of it.
If you don't think many women would have the merit for a front-line military job, why not make women take all the same tests as men? Then you'll know, and you'll be sure that you've only got the very best. I'm not denying a lot of women wouldn't be able to do it, but why stop those who can from trying? Why fail them by default? You keep saying you want merit, but you're not prepared to stand by it if you think women should be failed by default.
Sexual harassment in the military isn't a reason to keep women out of the military; it's a reason to kick sexual harassment out of the military. Keeping women out is shrinking away from tackling a real problem; a disgusting problem that we should be tackling.
Black people vote in a huge majority for Democratic candidates even if the Democratic candidate is white. 88% of black voters voted for John Kerry in 2004, and he was a white candidate. The only reason it was as many as voted for Obama in 2008 is the same reason that John Kerry got fewer votes across the board from people of all groups; he genuinely wasn't judged to be as good a candidate. Race isn't the issue; it's that black people are more likely to be poor in America than white people, and poor people are more likely to vote Democrat. It's the wealth gap that is the issue, not race.
IIN I'm Tired of 'Equal Opportunity' and Reverse Discrimination
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I understand your points, but I don't think that a person's racial background or gender means they will be more likely to make level-headed decisions. White male or otherwise. This should not be a factor in determining (or favoring) employment. Affirmative action is real.
Secondly, I'm mainly taking irritation with the fact that a feministic agenda is what drives certain people to fight for women being in combat positions, while simultaneously disregarding the problems associated, and going so far as to act like men are being selfish for it. I personally don't care if they want to serve much either way, but putting this feminist spin on it pisses me off. Like increasing the odds of taking a bullet is an exclusive club. I know what it's like to be in a mortar and rocket attack, it isn't fun, or something I want to keep like a privilege.
Lastly, again, it's not eliminated, you're right. However, many blacks point to past slavery in the US and use it as a crutch, often while simultaneously adopting a life style which would make MLK roll over in his grave.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
It isn't about making level-headed decisions necessarily, but about having better instincts in different situations. Having a range of people with different experiences will mean you're more likely that one of those people will be able to draw on experience to solve a problem. Greater ethnic and gender diversity creates a group of people with a wider range of experiences, so greater diversity is a good thing.
If it's something that a certain group of people are barred from doing (regardless of their merit, which you seem so keen on), it is an exclusive club: the exclusive club of people who are allowed the freedom to choose. I'm sorry if that's offensive to you, but it's just true. Again, it isn't about it being fun or enjoyable; it's about *freedom to choose* your role in society so long as you have the merit to fulfill that role. To turn your point on its head, aren't we letting down armed forces by rejecting perfectly qualified people on the basis of their sex?
Maybe some people point to some things, but making some fallacious points does not make their whole cause wrong.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
The point I'm trying to make is that it is wrong to hire an otherwise less-qualified minority to a position over a more qualified 'majority member' just to meet a diversity quota. How is that justified? For the miniscule benefit of their different perspective 'possibly' helping solve a company issue? If that's the case, hire a minority who is more qualified and get their perspective. Diversity may very well be a good thing, but it shouldn't disadvantage someone who was born white for career candidacy.
Again, I think we're focusing on different aspects. I do not care if women are in combat. I take offense that some would insult and spit on past people's sacrifices and pretend they were acting pridefully by restricting direct-combat missions to men only. I'd have to write an essay to properly give you an insider perspective from the military, but the grand majority of women are NOT as capable of combat as men, primarily in the physical category. Do you have any idea how heavy some of the equipment we carry is? Now imagine that 150lb female carrying a wounded 200 lb male, his weapon, his armor, her weapon, her armor, her ammo, and who knows what else, to get him to safety under enemy fire. That is an extreme task. Is this not related to merit and qualification? If a woman can do it, fine, I really am okay with it, but sometimes you have to face the biological reality that we are different. Also noteworthy is the military is having a horrible problem lately with sexual assault and harassment cases being on the rise; I don't think throwing women into normally all-male combat units is going to help this problem.
'Some' people? Please don't tell me you're dismissing this as an insignificant fringe-group. Over 90% of blacks voted for Obama. Do you really believe 19 out of 20 blacks voted for him with no racial background basis whatsoever?
I don't think I'll convince you otherwise, so I'll hold my peace from here on between the two of us.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
6
6
I think you are underestimating the potential benefit of diversity. You'll have to talk to employers about that though; I'm not the one who makes that decision, I'm just explaining the logic of it.
If you don't think many women would have the merit for a front-line military job, why not make women take all the same tests as men? Then you'll know, and you'll be sure that you've only got the very best. I'm not denying a lot of women wouldn't be able to do it, but why stop those who can from trying? Why fail them by default? You keep saying you want merit, but you're not prepared to stand by it if you think women should be failed by default.
Sexual harassment in the military isn't a reason to keep women out of the military; it's a reason to kick sexual harassment out of the military. Keeping women out is shrinking away from tackling a real problem; a disgusting problem that we should be tackling.
Black people vote in a huge majority for Democratic candidates even if the Democratic candidate is white. 88% of black voters voted for John Kerry in 2004, and he was a white candidate. The only reason it was as many as voted for Obama in 2008 is the same reason that John Kerry got fewer votes across the board from people of all groups; he genuinely wasn't judged to be as good a candidate. Race isn't the issue; it's that black people are more likely to be poor in America than white people, and poor people are more likely to vote Democrat. It's the wealth gap that is the issue, not race.