Any equealist in house?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't know.

Anyone who is qualified for something shouldn't be overlooked for a job, a scholarship or a school, etc.

I don't think that athletes whose sports do not generate the same revenue should be paid the same as athletes who generate huge revenue. For instance, the female soccer players vs the male soccer players. They don't draw the same crowds, they can't demand the same pay.

I am for the new 'female parking' closer to entrances, to help combat violence against women in dark parking garages, parking lots, etc.

There are just too many variables. So, I don't know what that makes me.

^^Makes you a thoughtful person who's decided to make your own mind up on these topics instead of asking someone else to do it for you, that's what.

I fear that the stance of regardless just saying that the best person for any job is that ignores the fact that there can be biases in the culture that are not accounted for with things like recruitment, even if one simply says they are treating everyone fairly on merits of ability rather than anything else. It ends up becoming a sort of just don't mention race or gender thing, rather than being able to account biases. That cultures could be changed that genders or races are not an issue to the job.

It is pretty easy to say that everyone is equal, that sexism and racism is gone, but then years later you would look back and see that things had improved. Even when laws against discrimination are signed, it is not like everything is magically fixed.

Thanks for linking John Rawls, interesting read!

I don't identify as any -ist myself. Every -ism I know can be taken too far, yes, even centrism can when instead of thinking of solutions you routinely calculate a median.

Equalism taken too far is e.g. diversity denial.

I go along with Bradleigh and Borromeo on this one. I agree with the sentiment, but believe it is often disingenuous and is used to deny true equality.

On this, I think there is an important distinction to be made.

There are basically two forms of soccer - club soccer and international soccer. The vast majority of money in men’s soccer comes from club soccer, which is the main employer of top players. Top men’s club soccer matches are broadcast around the world, with TV networks paying large amounts of money for the rights to the matches and sponsors paying large amounts to have their logos displayed prominently on club shirts or billboards. Top clubs will play 50-60 competitive matches a year. While international soccer matches can attract even larger television audiences, they are held much less often, and the really big matches are only held every two years. The revenue is also distributed very differently, and match day revenue is a tiny fraction of what most associations make.

Top players only make a tiny amount of their total money from international football. For example, Paul Pogba received £343,000 from the French FA for winning the 2018 World Cup, but receives £290,000 EVERY WEEK from playing for Manchester United just as his basic wage - there will also be substantial bonuses for playing matches and so forth. He is also paid £3.4m a year by Adidas and will have other sponsorship and image rights deals. To him, £343,000 is a drop in the ocean which is also far less than the revenue his World Cup win will have generated for France.

For women it is a different story. If they are an international player then international match fees will be a big part of their salary. And it is at international level that women’s teams are asking to be paid equally. While there is very little connection between pay and revenue at this level - football associations are non-profit organisations that have huge cash reserves - it should be noted that at least the American FA (US Soccer) makes slightly more ticket money from the women’s team than the men’s team, although the difference (about $1m a year) is again pretty negligible for such a large organisation. Also, TV rights and sponsorship are packaged at international level (I.e. you can’t pay for women without paying for men) so it stands to reason that compensation should be too.

So my view is that the overall disparity between men and women soccer players is fair. However, at international level, major associations should be paying their women players at least as much per match as an equivalent male player is paid for their international performances. To my knowledge, that’s basically what actual soccer players have asked for.

Sorry for going all British on the topic!

If I post ads for a job opening requiring an electrical engineer with a four-year EE degree and five years' experience, and the only people who even apply are all wealthy, white, protestant cis-males, am I in the wrong for hiring one of them?

Do you expect me to go door-to-door until I find someone qualified who is neither wealthy, white, protestant, nor cis-male?

No and no. The onus is upon the qualified people to respond to the ads, and not on the employers to look for them.

Being a woman in STEM, I wholeherteadly agree.
We should encourage diversity but forcing it by agressive pairity policies defeats its purpose. Giving a girl additional points in Math for being a girl prolongs a stereotype that girls are worse in Math.
And then what? She gets a job winning over a more competent male because of her additional points? It prolongs a stereotype of incompetency even further!
Nope, I want just equal policy. Fighting stereotypes should happen on cultural and infrastructural levels, not on favoring laws.

A company can prioritize either "Equal Opportunity" OR "Affirmative Action", but not both. They are opposite practices. The first is strictly merit-based, without regard to race, sex, or gender; while the latter give preference to people of specific races, sex, and/or genders. So, if you see a company that claims to prioritize both equally, then it may be a good idea to look elsewhere for employment. That company is just pandering to the social justice warriors.

Magz, Fnord, the sanity is refreshing.

This is a very lopsided argument to what I said. I gave an example of biases in hiring process, and you translated that into only " wealthy, white, protestant cis-males", it is like you don't believe in the scenario that a black woman could be passed over for no other reason other than being who she is, over the white man hiring a white man. It is like you are reacting like "wealthy, white, protestant cis-males" are under attack, rather than being the class with the most power.



Isn't that pretty much what I said? Without really passing laws you can give incentives to different fields to change their culture, such as through inclusive hiring. That is how you move a lot businesses from being things like boys clubs. The study I always point to for the facts about math were the ones that showed girls performed worst if given some sort of message like they were naturally worse at it, showing a cultural expectation had an impact on performance. So equality could be reached by getting more into the field as to remove the bias.

I understand that the pushes to give groups like women an easier time to get into certain fields, can appear like they are getting a handicap, which some can view as an acceptance that they are actually naturally inferior, but I think that is garbage that ignores the fact they are disadvantaged for the opposite reason.

I wholeheartedly disagree, because there can be a lot more factors involved. Affirmative action can be equal opportunity. As an example, I am pretty sure that on average black families are poorer, and financial resources can be a big factor in without influence getting into higher fields, regardless of the effort of the individual. It is why you get things like scholarships that can act as affirmative action to members of certain communities, and provide equal opportunity. And these different levels of opportunities can become ingrained in these different cultures, races, and sexes/genders, with affirmative action as a way to change that.

If a scholarship or hiring policy is "Males Only" or "Whites Only", then females and blacks are being discriminated against. Changing the wording to "Females Only" and "Non-Whites Only" does not make the policies any less discriminatory. "Affirmative Action" is not "Equal Opportunity". The two concepts are mutually exclusive, no matter what the SJWs may say.

I'm confused. The OP asked if we think people should have equal human rights regardless of gender or race.

To me, "human rights" means the legislative and constitutional rights and freedoms of people who live in one country, as protected citizens.

In the USA that would mean that all citizens have equal human rights according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In Canada that would mean that all citizens have equal human rights in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the UK that would mean that all citizens have equal human rights protected by the Human Rights Act.

Do people actually disagree, and think there should be systemic discrimination by gender and race?

Do you even know what a minority group is? Or are you just so busy acting superior by calling me an SJW to use some nuance.

You seriously don't see how a science scholarship for a black person, specifically for one from a poor background, is different to a scholarship that said it was for a white person only? Next you are going to tell me that Black Lives Matter is an implication that White Lives do not, and that blue lives, and that an inflation of Blue Lives Matter is not a fair counter chant when police in America on average are more likely to harm or kill innocent black people. Or think the people who are calling for things like Straight Pride Parades are serious people with good points, rather than clowns who have no understanding of the significance for LGBT people having their pride community.

I feel like Affirmative Action was needed in its time.

Ultimately, though, it would be much better for all if there was an equal playing field for all.

I think the important distinction is how it is implemented. Like say if suddenly Black people went from being treated as slaves, to then on paper saying that they then had equal rights, would it really be all equal at that moment? If women went from being unable to vote, to being able to, and even allowed on paper to work in any field, would they suddenly be equal?

No, you have a lot of cultural baggage you need to unload, and policies to push that they would all get things like equal opportunity and fair treatment, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation.