Pondering the "How come" ..

Complainer said:

Pity that you haven't bothered to find out what it means before deciding that you hate it, because you clearly don't understand it.

Click to expand...

Well I do know about it and I hate the phrase and the concept. First, the phrase is bad on the basis that it defends discrimination, or at least portrays that a preference of a gender, race or possibly health over someone of the same experience and education is in some way levelling the playing field. It's not, it's just creating and hiding a very specific form of discrimination among a class of people who have no remit and have no ability to do anything about it: caucasian men.

If there is to be true equality then it has to be on the basis of "blindness". There is no doubt that there has been significant (and still is) inequality, but you cannot fast-track this by introducing a different form of discrimination.

So the term is rubbish and the concept is rubbish.

So, just to explore this further, an employer that provides some screen reading software for an employee with a vision impairment is 'discriminating against a class of people who have no remit and have no ability to do anything about it: caucasian men'.

An employer who agrees to waive requirements for formal education when interviewing a Traveller is 'discriminating against a class of people who have no remit and have no ability to do anything about it: caucasian men'.

Have I understood you correctly?

Complainer said:

Pity that you haven't bothered to find out what it means before deciding that you hate it, because you clearly don't understand it.

Click to expand...

'Positive discrimination' is like a 'merciful beating'.... doing something for the right reasons doesn't make the act right in and of itself.

Positive discrimination has also led to a social situation whereby mainstream TV commercials openly brand the white, middle class, middle aged male as incompetent, unintelligent and incapable of survival without assistance and mainstream comedy (Jo Brand, Jenny Eclair - I'm looking at you) openly attacks men in the same way as was derided as old fashioned (pre-alternative - Jim Davidson etc) and out dated comedy.

Not to mention the Sky Sports debacle that's currently unfolding. Two long standing broadcasters loosing their jobs for what were, to be quite frank, rather innocuous comments.

Imaging the situation is reversed and Sue Barker was caught saying something off-air to Annabel Croft about Sampras' thighs during Wimbledon... I can't see there being the same reaction that Keys and Gray have received.......


Complainer - your two examples are incongruous... providing accessibility is not positive discrimination.

PetrolHead said:

Positive discrimination has also led to a social situation whereby mainstream TV commercials openly brand the white, middle class, middle aged male as incompetent, unintelligent and incapable of survival without assistance and mainstream comedy (Jo Brand, Jenny Eclair - I'm looking at you) openly attacks men in the same way as was derided as old fashioned (pre-alternative - Jim Davidson etc) and out dated comedy.

Click to expand...

How do you conclude that positive discrimination has led to these social situations?

Positive discrimination makes inequality palatable. It allows one group to act in a way that, if the standings were reversed, would be seen as unacceptable whatever the context (workplace / media / etc).

Go back to OP's original list... The unacceptable questions or statements are all attached to what is construed as either a pejorative term or subjugated section of society, whereas those questions or statements (however personal in their nature) on the flipside are seen as ok.

Complainer.... which of these situations is seen as socially acceptable (and be honest)...

A Nigerian saying to a pastey looking Irishman "look how pale you are... I bet you'd nearly glow in the dark..."

An Irishman saying to a black Nigerian "look how dark you are... I bet at night I'd only see your teeth and eyeballs..."

Complainer said:

An employer who agrees to waive requirements for formal education when interviewing a Traveller is 'discriminating against a class of people who have no remit and have no ability to do anything about it: caucasian men'.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this is discriminating against anybody so you'll have to clarify this for me

Complainer said:

An employer who agrees to waive requirements for formal education when interviewing a Traveller is 'discriminating against a class of people who have no remit and have no ability to do anything about it: caucasian men'.

Click to expand...

Again not sure what "caucasian men" has anything to do with it but this is what I would consider an example of positive discrimination. Why should a Traveller (or anyone else) not be subject to the same criteria for obtaining a job as any other applicant.


Perhaps it is you who doesn't understand the phrase? Could you maybe post a link to what you consider an acceptable definition?

My first reaction to the OPs list was that the statements aren't socially acceptable in any public situation, from anyone, to anyone.

My post wasn't in response to the OP

Complainer said:

My first reaction to the OPs list was that the statements aren't socially acceptable in any public situation, from anyone, to anyone.

Click to expand...

That's wrong...

That's your opinion... not society's.



DB74 - I think they're answering me.


.

Complainer said:

So, just to explore this further, an employer that provides some screen reading software for an employee with a vision impairment is 'discriminating against a class of people who have no remit and have no ability to do anything about it: caucasian men'.

An employer who agrees to waive requirements for formal education when interviewing a Traveller is 'discriminating against a class of people who have no remit and have no ability to do anything about it: caucasian men'.

Have I understood you correctly?

Click to expand...

Nope you've just demonstrated that you don't understand what "positive discrimination" actually is.

The first is a perfect example of how equality should and does work and has nothing to do with positive discrimination.

The second is also fine, but only if the the same formal education requirements are also removed for all applicants who can demonstrate an ability to do the work applied for and that the work itself does not require formal education (I suppose you would be ok if the requirements to have a formal education to be a dentist or doctor were removed for the travelling community?)

So while DB74 may indeed be worthy of pity, you may need to just check on the differences between equality and positive discrimination. Just to recap, positive discrimination (or the watered down "affermitive action") is a process whereby specific sets of the population on the basis of gender, race, etc are openly selected are over other candidates of equal capabilities and education but of a different gender and race, i.e. caucasian men would not be selected on the specific basis that they are white and/or male.

It has nothing to do with adapting recruitement processes to take account of disabilities.