Affirmative Action (among other things) Revisited

[Humphrey Bogart]

Since the Supreme Court will be taking up affirmative action again I thought it would be a good idea to look at some of these programs. The intentions behind these ideas are obviously well-meaning but what have the results actually been? Thomas Sowell (an unapologetic "conservative") has done some extensive research on these topics. While I've seen many complaints as to his means of expressing his findings I've yet to see anyone seriously find fault with what he actually found. What really shocked me was how old many of the studies are and how they have gone mostly unmentioned in the mainstream.

Three Books:
Preferential Policies
Affirmative Action Around the World
The Economics and Politics of Race

Interview on the latter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxH1pCZi4jw

[Schlosser85]

My personal opinion: Affirmative Action is reverse racism.

I would think any self-respecting African-American would be against Affirmative Action as well. It's not true equality. It's pushing someone to the top of the pile because of their skin color, not their accomplishments or academic merits.

True equality is where college admissions are a completely level playing field, with no one having an edge over anyone else on te basis of their race. Just everyone pulling themselves up by their own boot straps.

[Kelly]

I believe there was a time when Affirmative Action was needed, but IMO, it is past that time...

I think one of the problems is that it has led to mediocrity...because so many of the best and brightest are past up because of their race.

[Matt]

What Kel said. There was a time when the playing field needed leveled. That time has passed.

[Pink Ranger]

And it totally screws Asians. So for purely selfish reasons, it sucks.

[Paradoxium]

There is actual unofficial quotas in many private universities against Asians. Particularly the Ivy League school. So it makes almost no difference on some level.

[terry78]

It varies, as discrimination still exists in many circles, but it's so subtle people view it as non-existent. You'd never be able to prove anything, so I'm of two different minds on it.

[Pink Ranger]

Originally Posted by Paradoxium

There is actual unofficial quotas in many private universities against Asians. Particularly the Ivy League school. So it makes almost no difference on some level.

You're correct about the university thing, but it actually doesn't balance out that way, since the anti-racism movement is very anti-Asian-American, so excluding and discriminating against Asians is actually viewed as a positive outcome for many affirmative action supporters.

[Schlosser85]

since the anti-racism movement is very anti-Asian-American

That's kind of an oxymoron.

[Pink Ranger]

Originally Posted by Schlosser85

That's kind of an oxymoron.

That's part of the tragedy of the situation, and why the anti-racism movement in North America is nothing more than a quasi-Marxist joke.

Asians are viewed as "second class whites" by many of these radical activists.

[terry78]

Originally Posted by Pink Ranger

That's part of the tragedy of the situation, and why the anti-racism movement in North America is nothing more than a quasi-Marxist joke.

Asians are viewed as "second class whites" by many of these radical activists.

Unless you speak broken english.

[Paradoxium]

Thus my joke, in the new "diverse" DC Universe, there are more gays than Asian males (lulz, gay asian male probably more alien than 99% of the GL Corps). DC China consists of Waif-fu women who defies the laws of physics.

But yea I agree. There is a running joke of when a liberal/progressive says Minority they actually mean, "Non-(East) Asian Minority".

[Thundercrack85]

I've found affirmative action in politics quite interesting. Many people are unaware of this, but a number of countries have quotas for their legislative bodies. Usually women.

So X amount of seats are reserved for women.

In the US, it's usually between 16-17%, in the UK it's 22%, in Canada it's 24%, and in Germany it's 33%. By contrast in Sweden it's 45%.

Keep in mind that there are more women than men in the world. And of course the number is fairly irrelevant in a dictatorship, where the legislative body is just there for show.

[Kelly]

Well, if a woman is not elected, she just isn't elected. In my opinion, more women would run for public office in this country if they didn't have to put up with the media **** that women tend to have to go through....I don't think we need that kind of quota.

[Thundercrack85]

In fear of sounding like a feminist, women have faced intense discrimination, and still face discrimination in many countries. So, I certainly see the case they're making.

Even now, they earn less, barely get recognition on the international stage.

Women are still treated as second class citizens in most of the world. If they're treated as citizens at all.

[Webfoot Hero]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

In fear of sounding like a feminist, women have faced intense discrimination, and still face discrimination in many countries. So, I certainly see the case they're making.

Even now, they earn less, barely get recognition on the international stage.

Women are still treated as second class citizens in most of the world. If they're treated as citizens at all.

The US allowed minorities and naturalized citizens to vote before US-born women were allowed to so they were second-class citizens.

[Humphrey Bogart]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

In fear of sounding like a feminist, women have faced intense discrimination, and still face discrimination in many countries. So, I certainly see the case they're making.

Even now, they earn less, barely get recognition on the international stage.

Women are still treated as second class citizens in most of the world. If they're treated as citizens at all.

This is mostly inarguable, the problem we need to explore is whether or not these programs (quota based systems ect) help issues like these. The data seems to be pretty conclusive. It not only doesn't help those who tend to need it, in the long run it actually pushes them further behind.The most insufferable thing about this to me is the fact that everyone wants to jump in with all these lovely programs but there doesn't seem to be as much "enthusiasm" to find out if this stuff actually helped...

[Thundercrack85]

Well, it doesn't address the problem. If you say, preserve thirty percent of seats in congress for women, that doesn't mean that x number of competent candidates will run for those seats. Because there may not be x number of competent female candidates.

In order for affirmative action to "work", you need to already have a degree of equal opportunity.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

In fear of sounding like a feminist, women have faced intense discrimination, and still face discrimination in many countries. So, I certainly see the case they're making.

Even now, they earn less, barely get recognition on the international stage.

Women are still treated as second class citizens in most of the world. If they're treated as citizens at all.

The UN agrees with you...as does 99% of the NGO's and Humanitarian groups out there...doesn't make you sound like a feminist, makes you sound like a human who cares....

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Webfoot Hero

The US allowed minorities and naturalized citizens to vote before US-born women were allowed to so they were second-class citizens.

Yes, and we fought and won that battle...

We still do not get equal pay in many jobs, this is true....BUT, I do not want legislation like what was tried to pass earlier this month as a political ploy to get my vote, like I am stupid.

That legislation would have killed the ability for women who find that having flexible hours to work around the families FAR MORE IMPORTANT than equal pay with men. Polls show this....yet the legislation written earlier this month had no clue what the hell it was talking about, and just to REQUIRE corporations to give equal pay to women, would have wiped out that benefit held so important by women in the workplace. That woman would have then had to work the same hours, longer hours, etc...for that equal pay that the corporation would be REQUIRED to pay her. If they did allow her the more flexible hours, and paid her as much as her male counterpart, then the corporation would have been in trouble with the EEOC because the men would be pissed, and rightly so....

So, yes there are still some battles for women, but IMO, the battle is far more in perception written by the media on women in politics than it is women's opportunities to get into public service of that type.

This organization http://missrep.org/ Miss Representation, understands that perception very well.

[Paradoxium]

I propose we abolish the sexism in sports, no more mens or womens track and field.

Something also needs to be done about conscription. Women were not afforded the opportunity to be conscripted into the military like men. Ladies, lets march down to Washington and demand no male be drafted until equal amounts of women are drafted and killed. For equality is so paramount. Restitution for the past century!

[Paradoxium]

Originally Posted by Kelly

Yes, and we fought and won that battle...

We still do not get equal pay in many jobs, this is true....BUT, I do not want legislation like what was tried to pass earlier this month as a political ploy to get my vote, like I am stupid.

That legislation would have killed the ability for women who find that having flexible hours to work around the families FAR MORE IMPORTANT than equal pay with men. Polls show this....yet the legislation written earlier this month had no clue what the hell it was talking about, and just to REQUIRE corporations to give equal pay to women, would have wiped out that benefit held so important by women in the workplace. That woman would have then had to work the same hours, longer hours, etc...for that equal pay that the corporation would be REQUIRED to pay her. If they did allow her the more flexible hours, and paid her as much as her male counterpart, then the corporation would have been in trouble with the EEOC because the men would be pissed, and rightly so....

So, yes there are still some battles for women, but IMO, the battle is far more in perception written by the media on women in politics than it is women's opportunities to get into public service of that type.

This organization http://missrep.org/ Miss Representation, understands that perception very well.

21st century feminism, not realizing a woman can get pregnant and wants to be a responsible parent.

[Thundercrack85]

That kind of "equality" is unrealistic. Men and women are physically different. Granted, you could argue that they too should be required to take part in some kind of compulsory public service. But men are better suited for combat.

Being the physically stronger of the two sexes comes with some responsibilities.

[Paradoxium]

That's the god damn point. Men gain certain perks at high costs and risks. Why the hell do you think men get killed most of the time on jobs? You can't simply demand equalizing all the rewards without the risks without looking like a raging hypocrite.

So until I see millions of feminists including NOW marching down to Washington demand restitution over conscription, I sure as **** not taking them seriously over their version of "equality".

The honest ones say it is a women's interest group. INTEREST GROUP. NOT EQUALITY. One of my biggest pet peeves on the planet. Because if you against some of their "interests" you are somehow a sexist pig. It's a giant ass **** test on men, and men are failing hard.

[Thundercrack85]

Well, men do take more risks on average. Thank the testosterone for that one.

However, if a man and woman both do the same job (let's say computing for the sake of argument) they should be paid the same. Yet they aren't. We're not talking about long jumping here.