''Choosing a man instead of a woman when both have identical resumes is the textbook definition of discrimination, how does this don't prove that women are being discriminated?''
Because employers are aware of the fact that affirmative action policies exist. They aren't idiots. They know the industry.
They aren't discriminating against women, they're discriminating against people who receive affirmative action. The difference is that these people are women, as a result of the affirmative action policies currently in place.
16 comments
''Choosing a man instead of a woman when both have identical resumes is the textbook definition of discrimination"
Wrong. If both are equally qualified, each choice is equally valid. It is only a problem when it becomes a pattern.
As far as I can comprehend the response, it is "the only way women could qualify for a job is positive discrimination". Yes, that is totally not sexist.
I'm not discriminatory against women, I'm discriminatory against people who have a problem with systemic discrimination and express this by doing exactly what they're accusing me of doing!
Both sexist and racist assholes have it in their heads that anybody they don't want working only got the job through affirmative action. So if them having the job ever is affirmative action then you discriminate against them, not the action. Dumbasses.
"They aren't discriminating against women, they're discriminating against people who receive affirmative action."
'I'm not a RACIST! I'm just against getting darkie neighbors out of concern for PROPERTY VALUES!'
Affirmative action can also work to place more men in women-dominated work-places. It's a tool to make sure that you actually get the most qualified for the job, regardless of genitals. Without affirmative actions, you only get the ones most like the person doing the interviewing/screening. Like-minded people can be good, but not if you're in any way into innovations, initiatives, new ideas; then you need people who think differently, who come from different backgrounds, people with different life experiences.
"These people" aren't women as a result of the affirmative action policies, silly-nilly; they are women as a result of whether the sperm carried X or Y chromosome at point of conception.
If both have identical résumés then they're equally qualified to do the job. If I pick the man, it's a textbook case of discrimination; if I pick the woman, it's affirmative action. You lose either way.
No. Choosing a man over a woman when they have identical résumés is not textbook discrimination. At this point, there is nothing to choose between them, so you look at other areas, such as references, performance at interview, publications (if relevant) etc. Textbook discrimination is when the woman is better qualified and you pick the man.
The answer is wrong and silly but so is the question.
The case of the women at the major supermarket chain Asda - who won at that tribunal - which has set the precedent for compulsory equal pay legislation here in the UK.
Asda is owned by the American company Wal-Mart.
Affirmative Action: Whether you want it or not . >:D
So, if you see a man and a woman who are equally qualified, you should always choose the man, because affirmative action policies exist? Is that supposed to make sense?
Oh, and affirmative action policies exist because regardless of your level of qualification, you're more likely to be hired if you're a white man .
If they're identical in every way and you pick the man BECAUSE he's a man, then it's sexism. If they're identical in every way and you pick the man at random, it's just random choice. After all, if they're identical, it doesn't matter which one you pick, for the company the result will be the same.
Also to be frank, I think AA is patronising positively-discriminating bullshit that doesn't actually help, but if it annoys people like you I guess it has its uses.
"They aren't discriminating against women, they're discriminating against people who receive affirmative action. The difference is that these people are women, as a result of the affirmative action policies currently in place."
What was their excuse before there was affirmative action?
When faced with two equally good resumes, the appropriate thing to do is toss a coin.
How in the hell does discriminating against people benefiting from affirmative action make any sense?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.