babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » anti-racism news and initiatives   » Responding to questions about affirmative action

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Responding to questions about affirmative action
dw_ptbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15301

posted 28 July 2008 06:29 PM      Profile for dw_ptbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tonight an aquaintance of mine in passing was complaining that he felt lesser qualified people were getting jobs in his field because of their colour. Today I also heard another aquaintance complain that they could not find scholarships that were not for people of colour or single parents. Both times I explained politely that it was simply policies used by some employers/schools to balance out the unfair practices of denying these people employment/scholarships in the past (and present). Although my explanation seemed to be understood, I left feeling inadequately prepared to explain such things. How do you best explain/justify such programmes?
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 28 July 2008 06:49 PM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It needs no justification at all. It's a necessity, to ensure that the staffing of various professions and institutions adequately reflects the society in which they operate.
From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 28 July 2008 07:03 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You should ask them why they feel this way?
From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
dw_ptbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15301

posted 03 August 2008 09:20 AM      Profile for dw_ptbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
....and then what
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 03 August 2008 09:53 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This issue is one of privileged folks being used and still trying to have social policies "run past them", because the dominant group they happen to be identifying with (be it males, Whites, Xtians, settlers, abled, heterosexuals, etc.) has traditionally been in power. Democracy and eqaulity are all very fine but they want us to accept that if they are "uncomfortable" with any policy, it ought to be shelved - or at least justified to their personal satisfaction (subliminal message: or else). The game is lost as soon as one accepts that one ought to, and allows their unspoken threat to define our attitude toward policy...

[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260

posted 03 August 2008 10:49 AM      Profile for Sineed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It might be worthwhile to ask if the person is certain that there actually is an affirmative action policy in his field. Maybe he's assuming there is when in fact the best qualified people for the positions were people of colour.
From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 03 August 2008 10:50 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
The game is lost as soon as one accepts that one ought to, and allows their unspoken threat to define our attitude toward policy.
So anything that looks like "affirmative action" doesn't need to be justified?

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 03 August 2008 10:52 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
True. But isn't that conceding implicitly that if an affirmative action policy or effort is indeed in place, than that is unfair? Or that if they are for some reason dissatisfied, then that indicates unfairness and requires action?
I want a world where it becomes natural to answer any privileged group member who complains that h/she is "uncomfortable" with anything: "Good."

[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 August 2008 10:56 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't understand why a "lesser qualified" person should not get the job. If both are qualified, who cares that one is more qualified than the other?

Jobs should be handed out fairly - not to the "best". Where did this notion come from anyway?

Do we send the "best" kids to school?

Do we provide health care to those who can "best" afford it?

Maybe our society does some of these things - but should it?

If we have deprived some individual or group unfairly of certain rights or advantages for a long time, should we not temporarily give them more in order to right the balance?

These are the things I would say to your friend. Everyone needs a place in life. Not just the "best".


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 03 August 2008 10:59 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Jobs should be handed out fairly - not to the "best".
Excellent point. But you can see where this is finds its justification: the drive to maximum productivity... for the bosses.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 03 August 2008 11:01 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
True. But isn't that conceding implicitly that if an affirmative action policy or effort is indeed in place, than that is unfair? Or that if they are for some reason dissatisfied, then that indicates unfairness and requires action?
No, not at all.
quote:
I want a world where it becomes natural to answer any privileged group member who complains that h/she is "uncomfortable" with anything: "Good."

This is a recipe for creating a large and unnecessary amount of resentment against the underprivileged minority. Most fair minded people will understand and accept the need for such policies wehen they are explained properly.

An "in your face" response to legitimate questions is completely counterproductive.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 03 August 2008 11:15 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Who says we have to agree with their conceit that these questions are "legitimate"? You are ceding the ground from the get-go. Can't we understand and integrate to our strategy that such questions come from within a false consciousness that accords excessive importance to the uncomfort of the privileged, that throws up constinuously paranoid false truths about the oppressed, especially when they start making inroads in the dominants' privilege? We DON'T have to run things past them unless we are simply scared of their might? But if we "fold" before even trying to call their unconscious bluff, the game is lost, without even impinging on that false consciousness.
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 August 2008 11:34 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Martin, with all due respect, has it ever occurred to you that the enemy of the minority isn't necessarily the majority? Of coloured, the whites? of females, males? Of Jews, Gentiles? That the liberation of one comes through the liberation of all?

That doesn't mean the "dominant" have to be kept "comfortable". But it does not mean either that they have to be constantly convinced that the rights of the oppressed are their downfall.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 03 August 2008 11:40 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Every working class person has an interest in combatting all forms of oppression, including racism. When someone asks "Why does this particular policy exist?" I think it's reasonable to give them an answer. If they don't accept the answer then move on.

I don't look down my nose at anyone who dares to question why things are the way they are and tell them to fuck off because I don't think their question is legitimate. That's petty-bourgeois elitism.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 03 August 2008 11:44 AM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
This is a recipe for creating a large and unnecessary amount of resentment against the underprivileged minority. Most fair minded people will understand and accept the need for such policies wehen they are explained properly.

An "in your face" response to legitimate questions is completely counterproductive.


Hell, yes.

FOAD responses to legitimate questions make the person who issues them feel good for a few minutes. I'm glad that the OP has a sense of duty to humanity rather than only to himself.


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 03 August 2008 11:54 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
When someone asks "Why does this particular policy exist?" I think it's reasonable to give them an answer.
Of course, and I do. But that is pointedly not the 'complaining' situation described by the OP and which we all very well know. To acknowledge this dynamic of the privileged complaining about the little rights the underprileged have is IMO paramount to answering his or her question. And yes, unionist, I do believe that the privileged are - objectively, if not in their mind that refuses to clutter itself with anything approaching responsibility for its position - the enemy of the underprivileged: I believe that the only times where things have changed is when this has come closer to being acknowlkedged, over and above defense/denial reactions.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
dw_ptbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15301

posted 03 August 2008 06:28 PM      Profile for dw_ptbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks Unionist and M.Spector for your responses. I don't want to be confrontational, I want to be able to educate people so that they don't resent other people. I appreciate your putting it into words so well Unionist. I think I'll find it much easier to explain next time. Thanks.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 03 August 2008 06:36 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, even if we didn't make the 'thank you' list, you may want to look into sineed's suggestion when she wrote: "It might be worthwhile to ask if the person is certain that there actually is an affirmative action policy in his field. Maybe he's assuming there is ..."

A friend tells me that "...Ontario (i don't know about the rest of Canada) has never had an affirmative action policy, it was called employment equity, and it was legal for a time, then just for government and gov't funded places, now it's voluntary. So not much has been done in terms of raising women's wages, so really, the powers that be, and their dupes on babble, have nothing to fear. those nasty people of colour won't be coming for "their" jobs."

[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 August 2008 06:41 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Martin, your friend is truly an ass. Not only does s/he know less than nothing about Employment Equity (which s/he confuses with pay equity, an entirely separate and absolutely mandatory rectification of gender-based salary discrimination), but s/he needs to get on babble and post a little, rather than hurling around stupid insults. Please send her/him this message for me, will you?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 03 August 2008 06:42 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You have a "friend" who talks about "the powers that be, and their dupes on babble"?

Instead of just spreading second-hand smears of the entire babble community, why don't you invite your friend to post on babble and we can deal directly with his/her concerns?

ETA: yeah, what unionist said.

[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 03 August 2008 06:56 PM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Hey, even if we didn't make the 'thank you' list...[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Don't feel so special, neither did I---and mine was the the most uber-arrogant reply, too!

Wut-oh, my FBI beeper just went off...this reply will self-destruct in 30 seconds.

[ 03 August 2008: Message edited by: Robespierre ]


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 03 August 2008 06:57 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
unionist: ...pay equity, an entirely separate and absolutely mandatory rectification of gender-based salary discrimination...

Gee, a lot of women must be not only underpaid but clueless about it.
quote:
M.Spector: You have a "friend" who talks about "the powers that be, and their dupes on babble"? Instead of just spreading second-hand smears of the entire babble community, why don't you...
Who said anything about the "entire" community?

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 03 August 2008 07:09 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Gee, a lot of women must be not only underpaid but clueless about it.

Women as a whole are underpaid as compared with men.

With friends like yours to advise them, they would definitely stay that way. Employment Equity is a mild-mannered form of affirmative action. It basically involves tracking the hiring of women, disabled persons, so-called "visible minorities" (their word, not mine), and workers of Aboriginal descent. The only mandatory thing about it is usually reporting and keeping stats. It's essentially useless.

Pay equity, on the other hand, is legally enforceable federally and in other jurisdictions. It is, at bottom, the prohibition against discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, as per the CHRA. It has meant billions in judgments and settlements for women subject to historic job ghettoization and pay discrimination.

If you know "a lot of women" (as you say) that are "clueless" about this simple distinction, I strongly urge you to refer them to any of the tens of thousands of women trade unionists who have fought and won these battles over the years.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 03 August 2008 07:09 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Who said anything about the "entire" community?
Why? Does it sound better if I say "second-hand smears of the babble community"?

Why don't you respond to the substance of what I posted instead of just criticizing my choice of words?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 03 August 2008 08:44 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
M.Spector, I addressed the substance of the OP; there isn't much substance to be found in your whine about bablers being smeared. (If you think there is, take it to the mods.) I relayed what I felt was an appropriate comment about the few of us who would indulge reactionaries whining about the few measures that claim to get us close to equality between women and men, non-whites and whites. etc.
Unionist describes pay equity as an unmistakable reality; I think that some women have made some gains, but that many more remain underpaid and locked in jobs that pay little money - if any - vis--vis men. I doubt he will deny that and some women's disaffection for his blanket optimism.
He makes the point that pay equity is different than employment equity, which he calls useless. (Women and other minorities who got jobs thanks to EE will appreciate.) The point is that OP is the one who raised EE schemes and selective scholarships. We all know that opponents of such equity measures will whine about either, so I see no problem in discussing opposition to EE and PE and what to tell such opponents in the same breath (even if it makes some heads spin).
G'nite, folks.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
dw_ptbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15301

posted 04 August 2008 01:24 PM      Profile for dw_ptbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
M.Spector, I addressed the substance of the OP; there isn't much substance to be found in your whine about bablers being smeared. (If you think there is, take it to the mods.) I relayed what I felt was an appropriate comment about the few of us who would indulge reactionaries whining about the few measures that claim to get us close to equality between women and men, non-whites and whites. etc.
Unionist describes pay equity as an unmistakable reality; I think that some women have made some gains, but that many more remain underpaid and locked in jobs that pay little money - if any - vis--vis men. I doubt he will deny that and some women's disaffection for his blanket optimism.
He makes the point that pay equity is different than employment equity, which he calls useless. (Women and other minorities who got jobs thanks to EE will appreciate.) The point is that OP is the one who raised EE schemes and selective scholarships. We all know that opponents of such equity measures will whine about either, so I see no problem in discussing opposition to EE and PE and what to tell such opponents in the same breath (even if it makes some heads spin).
G'nite, folks.

As much as I am pessimistic about society, most people are simply ignorant, not willingly oppressive of the groups who equity policies are directed at. A polite explanation of why we have these policies is for many people all it takes for them to understand the importance of these measures. I do not see the value in unnecessarily making people uncomfortable, although when it becomes clear that they do not wish to change their assumptions about others, a more aggressive approach in dealing with them does indeed become necessary.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 05 August 2008 02:32 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is a good ploy to delay implementation of progress. We have to 'splain it to folks. If they haven't figured it out yet, I'm not wastin' my time.

I guess I should suggest they take time to learn about history if this is high on their priorities and not a fleeting moment. And genuine concern would lead to genuine discourse.


From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 August 2008 02:41 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
It is a good ploy to delay implementation of progress. We have to 'splain it to folks. If they haven't figured it out yet, I'm not wastin' my time.

No, RP, you don't have to delay implementation of anything, but you must explain it to folks while it's being implemented - if you actually have anything to do with real live folks, that is. Otherwise, you can just arrogantly sit with your superior understanding, and then throw your hands up in dismay when you and your cause are incomprehensibly left without any allies.

Everyone needs allies, or else they need potential enemies neutralized. Arrogance doesn't work.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 05 August 2008 03:17 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for leaving out the rest of my post where I admitted my faulty thinking.

And yes, my real life is such that I witness, educate and repeat as many times daily as possible. Doesn't leave as much time to post here as I would like but hey we all don't have that luxury.

Glad you think I'm arrogant and will be left without allies.

If it was about allies for me it would be much easier to play the uninformed white dude.


From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 05 August 2008 03:32 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Also thought I'd point out that Ontario's Pay Equity legislation also benefits a privileged white male like me so it's not exactly the greatest thing since sliced bread.
From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 05 August 2008 04:06 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
double post

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]


From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 August 2008 04:18 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
Also thought I'd point out that Ontario's Pay Equity legislation also benefits a privileged white male like me so it's not exactly the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The same could be said of the 40 hour week and health and safety legislation and medicare. But in the real world, we learn to distinguish between progress and regress, and we learn not to mock progress.

Anyway, the only way a "privileged white male" could benefit is if he were doing a job which was mostly or traditionally performed by women. You won't find too too many "privileged white males" in such jobs, otherwise the struggle for pay equity would never have been necessary in the first place.

Since a number of posters appear to have no clue about these concepts (and claim that others are "clueless" as well), why not take five minutes and look before you leap.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 05 August 2008 04:33 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm well aware of the legislation since I administer it. Why doesn't it target woman specifically and get them above 80% of male's earnings? But enough thread drift.

Back to the OP. 2 incidents in 1 day is troubling but not shocking. However, the first case, even though anecdotal, doesn't even shed light how they thought they were more qualified. The second is blatantly ignorant as there are plenty of scholarships available to white folk and going back to my arrogance, I'm not going to waste my time doing the simple google work to show that.


From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 05 August 2008 04:40 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unionist, I'd like to thank you for pointing out that I do need to do a better job of learning and not lobbing comments. I'm just disappointed that even trying with my loved ones, it's frustrating.
From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 August 2008 06:25 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
I'm well aware of the legislation since I administer it. Why doesn't it target woman specifically and get them above 80% of male's earnings?

It can't target women specifically, because then a male sewing-machine operator working alongside 50 women would get paid less than the women doing the identical job after a favourable pay equity analysis comparing the operator's job to some clerical or cutter's function etc. You should understand that, given your familiarity with the application of the legislation.

As for bringing women above 80%, that can't happen through legislation. The very fact that there are so many female-predominant job ghettoes is the biggest part of the problem, given that in light of human rights legislation, most employers don't dare pay different wages for the same work (although the real challenge continues to be, "work of equal value", a questionable concept but better than SFA).

The issue for women (as for the disabled and Aboriginals and workers of colour) is to eliminate the real less tangible barriers to employment in better-paying jobs. That requires combatting sexism and racism and "able"-ism in society as a whole. It also necessarily means affirmative action, which has never been legislated in this country (contrary to some not very well informed comments upthread). But it can't just be "legislated", as for example we legislate against blatant discrimination in hiring or promotion etc. on the basis of the prohibited grounds in human rights legislation.

A really good example of the challenges involved is found in Action travail des femmes v. CN. In short, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found systemic sex discrimination by CN Rail in hiring in its rail repair shops in the St. Lawrence Region (basically Quebec). These are better-paid skilled trades positions. In an unprecedented ruling (probably before or since), it ordered CN to hire one woman for every four men in that region.

That was 1984. After court appeals, the Supreme Court upheld the decision in 1987. One in four may not seem like much, but considering that the ratio of women in these jobs was probably around 1% (that's a pure guess - you'd have to read the original decisions), it was enormous.

Well, 20 years later, there are still a tiny percentage of women in the CN skilled trades. Why? Layoffs by inverse seniority over the years have surely been one reason. But the principal one is that not enough women apply. They are "screened out" by vocational schools, by their churches, by their "boyfriends", by their families, by their education, by Cosmo and Strut and music and movies and art and... by society as a whole.

Our society needs "affirmative action", but not in the heavy-handed wash-our-hands approach of legislators and jurists. We need a social revolution. We need to free people from the shackles of economic, psychological, physical, social, and I don't know what other kinds of discrimination.

And it won't happen without lots and lots of talk and laws and marches and strikes and movements and more talk.

quote:
Unionist, I'd like to thank you for pointing out that I do need to do a better job of learning and not lobbing comments. I'm just disappointed that even trying with my loved ones, it's frustrating.

Don't thank me. I suffer from exactly the same problem. I just don't see it as a virtue.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 05 August 2008 07:46 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why must you conflate it to be a "virtue". I get what you're saying, no need to be hyperbolic.
From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 August 2008 08:27 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fine. Any views on the rest of my post?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 06 August 2008 05:53 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Fine. Any views on the rest of my post?

I agree, 100%.

To clarify, I'm upset with the OP and the audacity of saying there's no scholarships for white folk.


From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca