If it's Trump vs. Clinton ...

[Maria D]

Awesome posts Housecat!

I teach in a high-poverty school district and as part of our professional development we are encouraged to attend workshops that will help us understand the impact of poverty on student learning. Honestly, you would do a FANTASTIC job teaching the course.

 

[Gypsy]

Gypsy,

#3. Re divorces: why exactly is this fair game? Voters have gone through divorces; I'm here to tell you that strategy-wise it doesn't matter how many times a candidate has been married or not. In fact it makes me think worse of the candidate who uses that tactic against another. To bring that up and try to use it against any candidate is seriously rude on your part. It's a tactic that maybe makes you personally feel superior because YOU have been married one time, but girl...that ain't always the case for everybody else. Dang lady. I expected better from you.

ETA: also? sexist and mean. Come on. You're making me sad.

Way to take what I said personally and out of context. Many people get divorces for many reasons. And I do not judge them for that.

But Trump slept with Wife #2 while married to married to wife #1. That's infidelity on his part. And speaks, whether or not you like it, to his character and is ability to stay faithful to his oaths.

The Right SLAMS Hillary for STAYING with her husband though he was the unfaithful one. Why is it sexist that I slam him for his infidelity.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="nala|

DF, the "poor Chinese immigrants" you are lauding use affirmative action to their advantage. Then they use financial aid to finance it. The public universities factor in first generation when they admit their students. So are you still against Democrats and their policies when you are crediting a groups success BC they used affirmative action to succeed?

[/quote]


What affirmative action??... I am referring to immigrants like my parents who doesn't speak any english, but instead of going on welfare they work in restaurant kitchens to support their family.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="House Cat|

I don't expect you to understand DF. You show very little compassion toward anyone. But maybe it is like this... Why aren't all the members of the middle class billionaires? Wouldn't YOU become a billionaire if you could? Is it because you made terrible choices for your life that you didn't become one? What about the rest of us? Are we too stupid? We don't want it enough? What is it exactly that keeps everyone in the middle class from achieving billionaire status? What makes this so elusive to us?

[/quote]


Here are my excuses of why I didn't become a billionaire...
I grew up in a poor neighborhood, attended ghetto public schools with mostly minority groups, english is my second language, and yes I am very stupid...

 

[missy]

Gypsy,

#3. Re divorces: why exactly is this fair game? Voters have gone through divorces; I'm here to tell you that strategy-wise it doesn't matter how many times a candidate has been married or not. In fact it makes me think worse of the candidate who uses that tactic against another. To bring that up and try to use it against any candidate is seriously rude on your part. It's a tactic that maybe makes you personally feel superior because YOU have been married one time, but girl...that ain't always the case for everybody else. Dang lady. I expected better from you.

ETA: also? sexist and mean. Come on. You're making me sad.

Way to take what I said personally and out of context. Many people get divorces for many reasons. And I do not judge them for that.

But Trump slept with Wife #2 while married to married to wife #1. That's infidelity on his part. And speaks, whether or not you like it, to his character and is ability to stay faithful to his oaths.

The Right SLAMS Hillary for STAYING with her husband though he was the unfaithful one. Why is it sexist that I slam him for his infidelity.

Gypsy, FWIW I agree with you. Trump is a misogynist pig who exhibits sexist and disgusting behavior (IMO) and yes infidelity is something I will judge. And there is a big difference b/w being divorced and having slept with others while still married. IMO.

But then again I also judge Hillary Clinton for staying with her husband after all he has done so at least I am consistent.

 

[AGBF]

The Right SLAMS Hillary for STAYING with her husband though he was the unfaithful one. Why is it sexist that I slam him for his infidelity.

Gypsy, FWIW I agree with you. Trump is a misogynist pig who exhibits sexist and disgusting behavior (IMO) and yes infidelity is something I will judge. And there is a big difference b/w being divorced and having slept with others while still married. IMO.

But then again I also judge Hillary Clinton for staying with her husband after all he has done so at least I am consistent.

Why is it anyone's business why the Clintons have remained married?

 

[missy]

The Right SLAMS Hillary for STAYING with her husband though he was the unfaithful one. Why is it sexist that I slam him for his infidelity.

But then again I also judge Hillary Clinton for staying with her husband after all he has done so at least I am consistent.

Why is it anyone's business why the Clintons have remained married?

Deb, I am looking at something deeper than whether a couple stays together or not in this specific case. I don't judge others who are or are not divorced but specifics make this very different IMO.

First of all they are in the public eye and they are going to be scrutinized and I make no apologies for that. And IMO one's character does matter when running for or being President.

To put it bluntly and again my opinion but Bill Clinton is a pig and he has shown who he is in this regard in many ways and many times. Why is Hillary staying with him? IMO their morals and ethics are in question in many different ways and this is but one. "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"...just saying.

And I am speaking of my opinions and conclusions. I judge Bill and Hillary for many things and this is just another example of who they are. Monica Lewinsky for one...

and At least three women—Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey—have accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault or harassment. Clinton has denied all three allegations but settled out of court with Jones. Broaddrick, who accuses Bill Clinton of rape, has said that Hillary Clinton encouraged her to remain silent.

Jan 19, 2016

Tell me that doesn't say something about his character and hers. IMO it speaks volumes.

 

[AGBF]

I disagree with you, missy. I think Hillary has a right to remain married to a man if she loves him, even if he is a womanizer with poor judgement about how he conducts his affairs. I don't think he is a rapist. At least, if he is, it has never been proven and women have been given ample chance to go to court over the years. He is a very public figure with many well-funded enemies who would have been glad to get them high priced lawyers. Like everyone else, he is innocent (of rape and other crimes) unless proven guilty.

AGBF

 

[missy]

I disagree with you, missy. I think Hillary has a right to remain married to a man if she loves him, even if he is a womanizer with poor judgement about how he conducts his affairs. I don't think he is a rapist. At least, if he is, it has never been proven and women have been given ample chance to go to court over the years. He is a very public figure with many well-funded enemies who would have been glad to get them high priced lawyers. Like everyone else, he is innocent (of rape and other crimes) unless proven guilty.

AGBF

Deb, that is true but I am just citing these examples as a few of what I consider to be his lack of character. Or at the very least very poor judgment on his part. I mean that whole Monica Lewinsky affair. What can you say about that? This man was our President at the time. That is not a high quality person IMO.

And just as importantly do we want/need a President who in your own words "is a womanizer with poor judgment" about how he conducts his affairs. I mean he was supposed to conduct our affairs and if he cannot control his own impulses and poor judgment yes I worry. And I worry about what kind of judgment Hillary has by staying with him (for whatever reasons she may have) add that to the rest of her resume yes I do worry and wonder what kind of leader she will be for this country.

However one mistake does not a person make and we are all human. But there are too many examples of what I consider to be poor judgment (at best) on their parts. And I don't believe Hillary Clinton loves her husband and I think she is staying with him for her own political reasons. That is her call and her right of course.

Just sharing my thoughts on this whole affair (pun not intended) and I am not upset you do not agree with me. I am sure many (most?) PSers do not agree with my thoughts about this. That's OK. I know you are cool with me sharing my thoughts as I am cool with you sharing yours. As I wrote a while back we do not have to agree on everything or even most things for me to still like and respect you Deb. I hope you feel the same.

 

[packrat]

Maybe Bill Cosby should run for President.

 

[missy]

Maybe Bill Cosby should run for President.

Ha, exactly. Their judgment is not too different. The 2 Bills that is and perhaps their wives that stay with them and stand by them.

 

[AGBF]

Maybe Bill Cosby should run for President.

Ha, exactly. Their judgment is not too different. The 2 Bills that is and perhaps their wives that stay with them and stand by them.

If Bill Cosby drugged women and had relations with them when they could not consent he did things Bill Clinton has never been accused of doing. Womanizing and raping are very different. Monica Lewinsky may have been young and impressionable and someone Bill Clinton should have had the moral fiber to resist. But many married men succumb to the weakness of using young, impressionable women for their own needs...without thought for the women. That is reprehensible, but a far cry from being a rapist. In fact, it is, in my opinion, typical alpha male behavior.

 

[missy]

Maybe Bill Cosby should run for President.

Ha, exactly. Their judgment is not too different. The 2 Bills that is and perhaps their wives that stay with them and stand by them.

If Bill Cosby drugged women and had relations with them when they could not consent he did things Bill Clinton has never been accused of doing. Womanizing and raping are very different. Monica Lewinsky may have been young and impressionable and someone Bill Clinton should have had the moral fiber to resist. But many married men succumb to the weakness of using young, impressionable women for their own needs...without thought for the women. That is reprehensible, but a far cry from being a rapist. In fact, it is, in my opinion, typical alpha male behavior.

The argument men will be men/ boys will be boys doesn't fly with me personally. And while there have been womanizing presidents in the past isn't it time we hold these men to a higher standard? If one just accepts bad behavior don't be surprised when that's all you get.

And I believe Bill Clinton has been accused of rape. To respond to your comment he has never been accused of similar actions.

 

[yssie]

I'm not commenting on the questions of poverty and general social (in)justices we so often see, because to be honest... I don't know enough to say anything with any degree of authority.

I will comment strictly on affirmative action, because I've experienced it. And its fallout. Not just affirmative action in the strictest sense of first-generation college admissions, etc., but as a philosophy that endorses promoting any group of people over others based on gender, race, culture, religion...

I support affirmative action.
It's not discrimination.

In a zillion or so generations, when we're all equal (yeah right ), I'll stop supporting it.

Affirmative action is known as "positive discrimination". Yep, nothing like having to get [potentially] lesser qualified people working for you just because of their sex or race...

This. Exactly. And ditto to what Packy added as well.

I'm dark-skinned and clearly foreign. People have a difficult time pinning my ethnicity - I'm purebred South Indian with a long South Indian pedigree, so I have no idea how I apparently look Pacific-Islander to many, but there it is - an indisputably "underprivileged" people.
I'm a woman.
I'm well-educated.

I'm a walking f'n brochure.

I work for a tech startup. My last job was for a tech startup... and the one before that? Tech startup.
Had I applied for state/gov't positions there's an excellent chance I'd have gotten most - if not all - of them. My qualifications pale in comparison to the fact that I'm so very good for the brochure - as long as I meet the bare minimum threshold, well, I'm a shoo-in.
I sincerely hope that the companies I've chosen to work for, startups with more product- and time-critical concerns than indulging hangups about gender and race quotas, don't notice anything about me except the quality of my work.

Only, msop, I'll take it a step further: affirmative action isn't positive discrimination. Perhaps it was ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, but now? Now it's what makes people raise their eyebrows when the black woman with half the qualifications of her white male counterparts quickly ascends to the top of the corporate ladder. It's what makes people roll their eyes and sigh when the Latina executive who was recently hired over the objections of the team she's managing turns out to be woefully incompetent. It's why my young cousin grimaced when telling me that no-one had wanted to work with the three black men in one of his last university classes because they'd learnt over the years that those three people, of everyone in the class, couldn't keep up and didn't try.

"You know X is only there because he/she is <insert minority race of choice>".

The problem here is that once someone personally experiences the effects of this sort of affirmative action "positive" discrimination - and yes, of course it happens, and yes, of course it's glaringly obvious when it does - he/she is much more inclined to generalise about all females, or all minorities. That's wrong, morally and ethically, but we're all human and we all judge our environs based on our personal experiences. And I'm in that group, and I do NOT want people looking at me and wondering if I've got where I am because of my colour and gender. I have worked my personal a$$ off and I want my accomplishments, talents, and capabilities to be the sole reason I'm hired, promoted, awarded.

Affirmative action IS discrimination. It's also hugely counter-productive as a long-term solution, which we've turned it into, and those chickens are coming home to roost en masse. We should be fighting to change cultural values across the board, not using discrimination as a tool to end discrimination

 

[smitcompton]

Hi ,

I enjoyed reading the comments from Nala. Personally, I'm so glad you used the programs available to move ahead in your life. Thats what they are there for. I, in time of need have also availed myself of some Gov. programs. And hope that many of them continue to help people. But, for some, the cycle of poverty continues and as nice as the slogan ,"it takes a village" sounds (Hillary may have coined the term for her book.), it takes more than a quaint term like village to add value to help. Parents, whether one or two, make the most difference in our poor childrens lives. I choose the words "supporting roles" for schools, churches, friends, and Gov't. But, these supporting roles are not making a difference. Throwing money at more programs doesn't seem to help to reach the goal that is to end the cycle.

I care very much about the poor children in Chicago. But, the only way out of this, I believe, sits with those parents. Until you make, or teach(bring Home Economics back) the mothers to make breakfast and even, god-forbid, lunch, the cycle will continue.
The teachers cannot do it, the pastors cannot do it , and their friends are from the same set of circumstances

I no longer want to listen to the liberal who hasn't solved it in all these yrs, no matter how much they ring their hands, and tell us how awful life is for the poor. My heart no longer bleeds for those parents or those that excuse them.

I loved the letter from the teacher that KSinger posted. I feel more for the teachers than I ever do for the parents.

We had someone recently who expressed how I feel about poor children. He said,"I wish I had better parents." He turned out pretty good. Annette

 

[AGBF]

Maybe Bill Cosby should run for President.

Ha, exactly. Their judgment is not too different. The 2 Bills that is and perhaps their wives that stay with them and stand by them.

If Bill Cosby drugged women and had relations with them when they could not consent he did things Bill Clinton has never been accused of doing. Womanizing and raping are very different. Monica Lewinsky may have been young and impressionable and someone Bill Clinton should have had the moral fiber to resist. But many married men succumb to the weakness of using young, impressionable women for their own needs...without thought for the women. That is reprehensible, but a far cry from being a rapist. In fact, it is, in my opinion, typical alpha male behavior.

And I believe Bill Clinton has been accused of rape. To respond to your comment he has never been accused of similar actions.

I never said that. I recently heard (here on Pricescope) that one woman accused Mr. Clinton of rape. I have not read up on the details. However, I do know that she settled this. I also know that she did not accuse him of drugging her, which is what I wrote above. I take an accusation of rape seriously, but if a woman drops the charge and a man the is never convicted, how am I to judge what happened? Is every man who was ever accused to stand as if he were convicted? I say: no. In some cases there may have been some animosity and the two parties may have reached a settlement because what took place was not rape, but something less heinous. I am a feminist, but my rush to judgment is not so complete that I leave all reasonable doubt at the door.

 

[hay joe]

I support affirmative action.
It's not discrimination.

In a zillion or so generations, when we're all equal (yeah right ), I'll stop supporting it.

Affirmative action is known as "positive discrimination". Yep, nothing like having to get [potentially] lesser qualified people working for you just because of their sex or race...

This. Exactly. And ditto to what Packy added as well.

I'm dark-skinned and clearly foreign. People have a difficult time pinning my ethnicity - I'm purebred South Indian with a long South Indian pedigree, so I have no idea how I apparently look Pacific-Islander to many, but there it is - an indisputably "underprivileged" people.
I'm a woman.
I'm well-educated.

I'm a walking f'n brochure.

I work for a tech startup. My last job was for a tech startup... and the one before that? Tech startup.
Had I applied for state/gov't positions there's an excellent chance I'd have gotten most - if not all - of them. My qualifications pale in comparison to the fact that I'm so very good for the brochure - as long as I meet the bare minimum threshold, well, I'm a shoo-in.
I sincerely hope that the companies I've chosen to work for, startups with more product- and time-critical concerns than indulging hangups about gender and race affirmative action quotas, don't notice anything about me except the quality of my work.

Only, msop, I'll take it a step further: affirmative action isn't positive discrimination. Perhaps it was ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, but now? Now it's what makes people raise their eyebrows when the black woman with half the qualifications of her white male counterparts quickly ascends to the top of the corporate ladder. It's what makes people roll their eyes and sigh when the Latina executive who was recently hired over the objections of the team she's managing turns out to be woefully incompetent.

"You know X is only there because she is <insert minority race of choice>".

The problem here is that once someone personally experiences the effects of this sort of affirmative action "positive" discrimination - and yes, of course it happens, and yes, of course it's glaringly obvious when it does - he/she is much more inclined to generalise about all female minorities. And I'm in that group, and I do NOT want people looking at me and wondering if I've got where I am because of my colour and gender. I have worked my personal a$$ off and I want my accomplishments, talents, and capabilities to be the sole reason I'm hired, promoted, awarded.

Affirmative action IS discrimination. It's also hugely counter-productive as a long-term solution, which we've turned it into, and those chickens are coming home to roost en masse.

msop and Yssie - Bingo!

When my son was filling out his first college application he asked me how (if I were him) I would answer the ethnicity portion. I told him that I check the other box and write in American. He explained that by using his Mother's race he would gain an advantage and it may even help with funding. (that method was pushed by his public high school) I said that may be true son, but don't you what to be judged by your hard work and accomplishments? I reminded him that he worked hard for this and asked him if he wanted to be let in because of where his grandparents were born and skin color?.... He got into the collage of his choice because of HIS hard work.

We are not equal. He is much smarter than I. None of which has to do with our skin.

Affirmative action is one of the "protected class disorders".

 

[Matata]

Now it's what makes people raise their eyebrows when the black woman with half the qualifications of her white male counterparts quickly ascends to the top of the corporate ladder. It's what makes people roll their eyes and sigh when the Latina executive who was recently hired over the objections of the team she's managing turns out to be woefully incompetent. It's why my young cousin grimaced when telling me that no-one had wanted to work with the three black men in one of his last university classes because they'd learnt over the years that those three people, of everyone in the class, couldn't keep up and didn't try.

And I'm in that group, and I do NOT want people looking at me and wondering if I've got where I am because of my colour and gender. I have worked my personal a$$ off and I want my accomplishments, talents, and capabilities to be the sole reason I'm hired, promoted, awarded.

We should be fighting to change cultural values across the board, not using discrimination as a tool to end discrimination

Something to consider is that the misapplication of affirmative action law is the responsibility of the organizations attempting to implement it and not necessarily a problem with the law. Those situations you speak of in the first paragraph above are due to lazy/incompetent/poorly trained people who make hiring decisions taking the easy way out. And those situations of which you speak are not new to Affirmative Action; they've been used as examples of why it fails since its inception. It's insidious. Hiring poorly qualified underrepresented groups provides fodder for why equal opportunity programs don't work.

I'm a retired HR VP and affirmative action officer. I don't know what is worse -- having people suspicious that a person is where she is because of her color or having that person denied a job for the same reason. I advised hundreds of hiring committees and can assure you that when equally qualified applicants were being considered by our usually white male committees, a person of color would not be hired over a caucasian had I not made the hiring committee rigorously defend why the white person was a better choice. They invariably failed miserably to defend their decision -- because it wasn't based on qualifications, it was based on prejudice. And good gawd, there were so many times when a person of color was better qualified and wasn't the first choice. The excuse for not selecting the person of color was often that the person was not the right "fit" for the department. That was code for "we don't want anybody different from us." And it wasn't only color that made a person the wrong fit -- age, sex, gender played equal parts. A perfectly qualified white woman over the age of 50 was once rejected as the wrong fit for an all-male department. Women were underrepresented in that department. I made them hire her.

One of the exercises I used during affirmative action training was to have workshop participants review a fictitious resume for an actual job in our organization. One applicant's name was caucasian sounding (Robert Smith for example) and one not (Mohammed Ali for example). The majority of the time, Smith would be chosen as a candidate for interviewing for the job. The exact same resume.

You are correct Yssie, that across the board change in cultural values is needed. But it can't happen in isolation. There has to also be cross-cultural integration in the workplace and in educational institutions among many others. That can't happen when legitimately qualified members of underrepresented groups are not hired because of prevailing prejudice. It is just as damaging as when members of underrepresented groups are hired for jobs for which they are not qualified.

 

[missy]

Maybe Bill Cosby should run for President.

Ha, exactly. Their judgment is not too different. The 2 Bills that is and perhaps their wives that stay with them and stand by them.

If Bill Cosby drugged women and had relations with them when they could not consent he did things Bill Clinton has never been accused of doing. Womanizing and raping are very different. Monica Lewinsky may have been young and impressionable and someone Bill Clinton should have had the moral fiber to resist. But many married men succumb to the weakness of using young, impressionable women for their own needs...without thought for the women. That is reprehensible, but a far cry from being a rapist. In fact, it is, in my opinion, typical alpha male behavior.

The argument men will be men/ boys will be boys doesn't fly with me personally. And while there have been womanizing presidents in the past isn't it time we hold these men to a higher standard? If one just accepts bad behavior don't be surprised when that's all you get.

And I believe Bill Clinton has been accused of rape. To respond to your comment he has never been accused of similar actions.

I never said that. I recently heard (here on Pricescope) that one woman accused Mr. Clinton of rape. I have not read up on the details. However, I do know that she settled this. I also know that she did not accuse him of drugging her, which is what I wrote above. I take an accusation of rape seriously, but if a woman drops the charge and a man the is never convicted, how am I to judge what happened? Is every man who was ever accused to stand as if he were convicted? I say: no. In some cases there may have been some animosity and the two parties may have reached a settlement because what took place was not rape, but something less heinous. I am a feminist, but my rush to judgment is not so complete that I leave all reasonable doubt at the door.

Deb, I am not rushing to judgment either. Fact is I don't think it is OK for a womanizer to be president and I don't respect Hillary Clinton for many reasons not just for accepting her husband's bad and disrespectful to her behavior. IMO Bill and Hillary have a very mutually convenient business relationship and it works for them. Who said every marriage needs to have love. But I stand by my comments about Bill Clinton. And honestly, as a self proclaimed feminist, why do you think it is ok to accept that boys will be boys. Do you not see where accepting bad behavior leads to getting bad behavior? Haven't women come further than that in all these many decades? Don't we deserve better? Why do we keep making excuses like boys will be boys?

 

[msop04]

I'm not commenting on the questions of poverty and general social (in)justices we so often see, because to be honest... I don't know enough to say anything with any degree of authority.

I will comment strictly on affirmative action, because I've experienced it. And its fallout. Not just affirmative action in the strictest sense of first-generation college admissions, etc., but as a philosophy that endorses promoting any group of people over others based on gender, race, culture, religion...

I support affirmative action.
It's not discrimination.

In a zillion or so generations, when we're all equal (yeah right ), I'll stop supporting it.

Affirmative action is known as "positive discrimination". Yep, nothing like having to get [potentially] lesser qualified people working for you just because of their sex or race...

This. Exactly. And ditto to what Packy added as well.

I'm dark-skinned and clearly foreign. People have a difficult time pinning my ethnicity - I'm purebred South Indian with a long South Indian pedigree, so I have no idea how I apparently look Pacific-Islander to many, but there it is - an indisputably "underprivileged" people.
I'm a woman.
I'm well-educated.

I'm a walking f'n brochure.

I work for a tech startup. My last job was for a tech startup... and the one before that? Tech startup.
Had I applied for state/gov't positions there's an excellent chance I'd have gotten most - if not all - of them. My qualifications pale in comparison to the fact that I'm so very good for the brochure - as long as I meet the bare minimum threshold, well, I'm a shoo-in.
I sincerely hope that the companies I've chosen to work for, startups with more product- and time-critical concerns than indulging hangups about gender and race quotas, don't notice anything about me except the quality of my work.

Only, msop, I'll take it a step further: affirmative action isn't positive discrimination. Perhaps it was ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, but now? Now it's what makes people raise their eyebrows when the black woman with half the qualifications of her white male counterparts quickly ascends to the top of the corporate ladder. It's what makes people roll their eyes and sigh when the Latina executive who was recently hired over the objections of the team she's managing turns out to be woefully incompetent. It's why my young cousin grimaced when telling me that no-one had wanted to work with the three black men in one of his last university classes because they'd learnt over the years that those three people, of everyone in the class, couldn't keep up and didn't try.

"You know X is only there because he/she is <insert minority race of choice>".

The problem here is that once someone personally experiences the effects of this sort of affirmative action "positive" discrimination - and yes, of course it happens, and yes, of course it's glaringly obvious when it does - he/she is much more inclined to generalise about all females, or all minorities. That's wrong, morally and ethically, but we're all human and we all judge our environs based on our personal experiences. And I'm in that group, and I do NOT want people looking at me and wondering if I've got where I am because of my colour and gender. I have worked my personal a$$ off and I want my accomplishments, talents, and capabilities to be the sole reason I'm hired, promoted, awarded.

Affirmative action IS discrimination. It's also hugely counter-productive as a long-term solution, which we've turned it into, and those chickens are coming home to roost en masse. We should be fighting to change cultural values across the board, not using discrimination as a tool to end discrimination

Thank you for this, Yssie. I agree with you 100%. Like you, I don't see affirmative action as "positive" either (which is why I left it in quotations)... If people truly want to be treated equally, then affirmative action isn't the way. I can see how it was a good thing decades ago, but not now.

I truly appreciate the comments from another point of view.

 

[yssie]

That can't happen when legitimately qualified members of underrepresented groups are not hired because of prevailing prejudice. It is just as damaging as when members of underrepresented groups are hired for jobs for which they are not qualified.

Wholeheartedly agree with this.

What we do right now (incentivise corporate promotion of some people over others based on characteristics that in no way represent their qualifications and abilities) doesn't work.
What we used to do (allow racism, sexism, ageism, Xism to pervade unfettered) doesn't work.
We're going to have to try something different

 

[msop04]

Now it's what makes people raise their eyebrows when the black woman with half the qualifications of her white male counterparts quickly ascends to the top of the corporate ladder. It's what makes people roll their eyes and sigh when the Latina executive who was recently hired over the objections of the team she's managing turns out to be woefully incompetent. It's why my young cousin grimaced when telling me that no-one had wanted to work with the three black men in one of his last university classes because they'd learnt over the years that those three people, of everyone in the class, couldn't keep up and didn't try.

And I'm in that group, and I do NOT want people looking at me and wondering if I've got where I am because of my colour and gender. I have worked my personal a$$ off and I want my accomplishments, talents, and capabilities to be the sole reason I'm hired, promoted, awarded.

We should be fighting to change cultural values across the board, not using discrimination as a tool to end discrimination

Something to consider is that the misapplication of affirmative action law is the responsibility of the organizations attempting to implement it and not necessarily a problem with the law. Those situations you speak of in the first paragraph above are due to lazy/incompetent/poorly trained people who make hiring decisions taking the easy way out. And those situations of which you speak are not new to Affirmative Action; they've been used as examples of why it fails since its inception. It's insidious. Hiring poorly qualified underrepresented groups provides fodder for why equal opportunity programs don't work.

I'm a retired HR VP and affirmative action officer. I don't know what is worse -- having people suspicious that a person is where she is because of her color or having that person denied a job for the same reason. I advised hundreds of hiring committees and can assure you that when equally qualified applicants were being considered by our usually white male committees, a person of color would not be hired over a caucasian had I not made the hiring committee rigorously defend why the white person was a better choice. They invariably failed miserably to defend their decision -- because it wasn't based on qualifications, it was based on prejudice. And good gawd, there were so many times when a person of color was better qualified and wasn't the first choice. The excuse for not selecting the person of color was often that the person was not the right "fit" for the department. That was code for "we don't want anybody different from us." And it wasn't only color that made a person the wrong fit -- age, sex, gender played equal parts. A perfectly qualified white woman over the age of 50 was once rejected as the wrong fit for an all-male department. Women were underrepresented in that department. I made them hire her.

Why did the department necessarily "need" women? To say women were underrespresented as the excuse to why you "made them hire her" is weak, at best. Have you ever considered that maybe no other women with qualifications had applied in the past? Could it be that the male applicants possessed qualities and skill sets that made them a better fit? It's not always about race/sex/etc... even though some are just dying to make it so. I know I'd be very disappointed to think the only reason I was hired/accepted/etc was based on my sex or color -- I've worked too hard to not have my actual accomplishments recognized on their own.

One of the exercises I used during affirmative action training was to have workshop participants review a fictitious resume for an actual job in our organization. One applicant's name was caucasian sounding (Robert Smith for example) and one not (Mohammed Ali for example). The majority of the time, Smith would be chosen as a candidate for interviewing for the job. The exact same resume.

You are correct Yssie, that across the board change in cultural values is needed. But it can't happen in isolation. There has to also be cross-cultural integration in the workplace and in educational institutions among many others. That can't happen when legitimately qualified members of underrepresented groups are not hired because of prevailing prejudice. It is just as damaging as when members of underrepresented groups are hired for jobs for which they are not qualified.

Why is it necessary for everything to be "cross-cultural"?? Yssie is right... Why can't people be hired (or not) based on their qualities, skills, and experience? It's a slap in the face for those who have worked hard to be on the "no-hire list" simply because of the color of their skin/sex/faith or whatever reason. That said, it would be just as bad to be underqualified, yet hired because of the same reason.

To hire/accept someone based on race or sex when all other things are equal is just stupid -- and it's discrimination. And I take offense to the term "reverse discrimination" -- that's stupid as well... It's ALL discrimination. Period.

 

[AGBF]

And honestly, as a self proclaimed feminist, why do you think it is ok to accept that boys will be boys.


I never said it was OK for boys to be boys. That was an accusation you made about me because I made a rather resigned comment about the nature of men.

Do you not see where accepting bad behavior leads to getting bad behavior? Haven't women come further than that in all these many decades? Don't we deserve better? Why do we keep making excuses like boys will be boys?

I don't accept that it is the fault of women that men misbehave, no. Nor do I believe that women get raped because they deserve it. I have been active in the women's movement since I went to college in 1970 (a year after graduating from high school.) (It's International Women's Day today, by the way. ) No one is going to shame me into saying what I don't believe.

 

[redwood66]

Why did the department necessarily "need" women? To say women were underrespresented as the excuse to why you "made them hire her" is weak, at best. Have you ever considered that maybe no other women with qualifications had applied in the past? Could it be that the male applicants possessed qualities and skill sets that made them a better fit? It's not always about race/sex/etc... even though some are just dying to make it so. I know I'd be very disappointed to think the only reason I was hired/accepted/etc was based on my sex or color -- I've worked too hard to not have my actual accomplishments recognized on their own.

This is true. Although when I started my career in corrections in the 80's I was painfully aware that my test score and oral panel interview was only part of my reason for being hired. The fact that I am a woman was a huge part. This only exacerbated the difficulty I had to endure with my male partners at work. It took a full year of hard work on my part before I broke the barrier and end up with a great working relationship with all my partners. However, many of the other women never did and probably should not have gotten the job in the first place. It is a dangerous job where you depend on the person working next to you for your life and your ability to go home at the end of your shift. I saw too many women who were there because the Welfare Dept. had a program to get them a job and the state had to hire them. Several ended up sleeping with inmates or the inmates knew them personally, which is a scary thought if you are trying to keep yourself and everyone else safe. Sure some were fine but that kind of institution is not the place for a social experiment.

 

[missy]

And honestly, as a self proclaimed feminist, why do you think it is ok to accept that boys will be boys.


I never said it was OK for boys to be boys. That was an accusation you made about me because I made a rather resigned comment about the nature of men.

Do you not see where accepting bad behavior leads to getting bad behavior? Haven't women come further than that in all these many decades? Don't we deserve better? Why do we keep making excuses like boys will be boys?

I don't accept that it is the fault of women that men misbehave, no. Nor do I believe that women get raped because they deserve it. I have been active in the women's movement since I went to college in 1970 (a year after graduating from high school.) (It's International Women's Day today, by the way. ) No one is going to shame me into saying what I don't believe.

Deb, that's what I was confused about. I am not trying to shame you into anything. I don't accept it as OK that boys will be boys and I didn't think you did either but reread what you wrote and maybe you can understand where I might have drawn a different conclusion. And I completely agree (though not sure where this was brought up) that women get raped because there are bad people in this world and is not the fault of the woman who gets raped. Though I wonder what Trump and Clinton think about that. Scratch that, I really don't care what either of them think.

 

[HollyS]

Voting for one of those two without holding your nose.

That option had not occured to me

Well, broaden your mind. Like Monnie, I will vote for Hillary Clinton without great unhappiness. She isn't my first choice, but, Obama wasn't my first choice, either. Neither is liberal enough for me. At least Obama was black and Clinton is a woman.

Hillary Clinton has a huge amount of experience in government; is very smart; is well educated; is not sexist or racist; and is stable. We have rarely had a candidate as well rounded as she is. Her policies are not exactly to me taste, but at least she will not try to turn back the clock on Roe v. Wade or set up a registry of Muslims. What else can you ask for nowadays?

I can't imagine what sets them apart for biological characteristics that they don't control . . . or why that would make them "more liberal" than anyone else in the Democratic party. But I digress.

I hate to disappoint DF, but faced with the choice between Trump and Clinton (we don't call him Donald, so let's not call her Hillary) . . . I cannot and will not vote for Trump. So, Clinton it is.

 

[missy]

Deb, thanks for reminding me about it being International Women's Day.

http://www.internationalwomensday.com/About

http://www.internationalwomensday.com/Theme

About International Women's Day (8 March)
International Women's Day (March eighth) is a global day celebrating the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women. The day also marks a call to action for accelerating gender parity.

International Women's Day (IWD) has been observed since in the early 1900's - a time of great expansion and turbulence in the industrialized world that saw booming population growth and the rise of radical ideologies. International Women's Day is a collective day of global celebration and a call for gender parity. No one government, NGO, charity, corporation, academic institution, women's network or media hub is solely responsible for International Women's Day. Many organizations declare an annual IWD theme that supports their specific agenda or cause, and some of these are adopted more widely with relevance than others.

"The story of women's struggle for equality belongs to no single feminist nor to any one organization but to the collective efforts of all who care about human rights," says world-renowned feminist, journalist and social and political activist Gloria Steinem. International Women's Day is all about celebration, reflection, advocacy, and action - whatever that looks like globally at a local level. But one thing is for sure, International Women's Day has been occurring for over a century - and is growing annually from strength to strength.

International Women's Day timeline journey
1908
Great unrest and critical debate was occurring amongst women. Women's oppression and inequality was spurring women to become more vocal and active in campaigning for change. Then in 1908, 15,000 women marched through New York City demanding shorter hours, better pay and voting rights.

1909
In accordance with a declaration by the Socialist Party of America, the first National Woman's Day (NWD) was observed across the United States on 28 February. Women continued to celebrate NWD on the last Sunday of February until 1913.

1910
In 1910 a second International Conference of Working Women was held in Copenhagen. A woman named Clara Zetkin (Leader of the 'Women's Office' for the Social Democratic Party in Germany) tabled the idea of an International Women's Day. She proposed that every year in every country there should be a celebration on the same day - a Women's Day - to press for their demands. The conference of over 100 women from 17 countries, representing unions, socialist parties, working women's clubs - and including the first three women elected to the Finnish parliament - greeted Zetkin's suggestion with unanimous approval and thus International Women's Day was the result.

1911
Following the decision agreed at Copenhagen in 1911, International Women's Day was honoured the first time in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland on 19 March. More than one million women and men attended IWD rallies campaigning for women's rights to work, vote, be trained, to hold public office and end discrimination. However less than a week later on 25 March, the tragic 'Triangle Fire' in New York City took the lives of more than 140 working women, most of them Italian and Jewish immigrants. This disastrous event drew significant attention to working conditions and labour legislation in the United States that became a focus of subsequent International Women's Day events. 1911 also saw women's Bread and Roses' campaign.

1913-1914
On the eve of World War I campaigning for peace, Russian women observed their first International Women's Day on the last Sunday in February 1913. In 1913 following discussions, International Women's Day was transferred to 8 March and this day has remained the global date for International Women's Day ever since. In 1914 further women across Europe held rallies to campaign against the war and to express women's solidarity. For example, in London in the United Kingdom there was a march from Bow to Trafalgar Square in support of women's suffrage on 8 March 1914. Sylvia Pankhurst was arrested in front of Charing Cross station on her way to speak in Trafalgar Square.

1917
On the last Sunday of February, Russian women began a strike for "bread and peace" in response to the death of over 2 million Russian soldiers in World War 1. Opposed by political leaders, the women continued to strike until four days later the Czar was forced to abdicate and the provisional Government granted women the right to vote. The date the women's strike commenced was Sunday 23 February on the Julian calendar then in use in Russia. This day on the Gregorian calendar in use elsewhere was 8 March.

1975
International Women's Day was celebrated for the first time by the United Nations in 1975. Then in December 1977, the General Assembly adopted a resolution proclaiming a United Nations Day for Women’s Rights and International Peace to be observed on any day of the year by Member States, in accordance with their historical and national traditions.

1996
The UN commenced the adoption of an annual theme in 1996 - which was "Celebrating the past, Planning for the Future". This theme was followed in 1997 with "Women at the Peace table", and in 1998 with "Women and Human Rights", and in 1999 with "World Free of Violence Against Women", and so on each year until the current. More recent themes have included, for example, "Empower Rural Women, End Poverty & Hunger" and "A Promise is a Promise - Time for Action to End Violence Against Women".

2000
By the new millennium, International Women's Day activity around the world had stalled in many countries. The world had moved on and feminism wasn't a popular topic. International Women's Day needed re-ignition. There was urgent work to do - battles had not been won and gender parity had still not been achieved.

2001
The global internationalwomensday.com digital hub for everything IWD was launched to re-energize the day as an important platform to celebrate the successful achievements of women and to continue calls for accelerating gender parity. Each year the IWD website sees vast traffic and is used by hundreds of thousands of people and organizations all over the world to learn about and share IWD activity. The IWD website is made possible each year through support from corporations committed to driving gender parity. The website's charity of choice for many years has been the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS) whereby IWD fundraising is channelled. The IWD website adopts an annual theme that is globally relevant for groups and organizations. This theme, one of many around the world, provides a framework and direction for annual IWD activity and takes into account the wider agenda of both celebration as well as a broad call to action for gender parity. Recent themes have included "Make it happen", "The Gender Agenda: Gaining Momentum" and "Connecting Girls, Inspiring Futures". Themes for the global IWD website are collaboratively and consultatively identified each year and widely adopted.

2011
2011 saw the 100 year centenary of International Women's Day - with the first IWD event held exactly 100 years ago in 1911 in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland. In the United States, President Barack Obama proclaimed March 2011 to be "Women's History Month", calling Americans to mark IWD by reflecting on "the extraordinary accomplishments of women" in shaping the country's history. The then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched the "100 Women Initiative: Empowering Women and Girls through International Exchanges". In the United Kingdom, celebrity activist Annie Lennox lead a superb march across one of London's iconic bridges raising awareness in support for global charity Women for Women International. Further charities such as Oxfam have run extensive activity supporting IWD and many celebrities and business leaders also actively support the day

2016 and beyond
The world has witnessed a significant change and attitudinal shift in both women's and society's thoughts about women's equality and emancipation. Many from a younger generation may feel that 'all the battles have been won for women' while many feminists from the 1970's know only too well the longevity and ingrained complexity of patriarchy. With more women in the boardroom, greater equality in legislative rights, and an increased critical mass of women's visibility as impressive role models in every aspect of life, one could think that women have gained true equality. The unfortunate fact is that women are still not paid equally to that of their male counterparts, women still are not present in equal numbers in business or politics, and globally women's education, health and the violence against them is worse than that of men. However, great improvements have been made. We do have female astronauts and prime ministers, school girls are welcomed into university, women can work and have a family, women have real choices. And so each year the world inspires women and celebrates their achievements. IWD is an official holiday in many countries including Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, China (for women only), Cuba, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Eritrea, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Madagascar (for women only), Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nepal (for women only), Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Zambia. The tradition sees men honouring their mothers, wives, girlfriends, colleagues, etc with flowers and small gifts. In some countries IWD has the equivalent status of Mother's Day where children give small presents to their mothers and grandmothers.

A global web of rich and diverse local activity connects women from all around the world ranging from political rallies, business conferences, government activities and networking events through to local women's craft markets, theatric performances, fashion parades and more. Many global corporations actively support IWD by running their own events and campaigns. For example, on 8 March search engine and media giant Google often changes its Google Doodle on its global search pages to honor IWD. Year on year IWD is certainly increasing in status.

So make a difference, think globally and act locally!
Make everyday International Women's Day.
Do your bit to ensure that the future for girls is bright, equal, safe and rewarding.

 

[HollyS]

And honestly, in this day and age, being a white male is a bit scary as well. I would say they are discriminated against -- for purposes of "political correctness".

No. Just no.

It happens all the time, especially in government jobs. I know first hand.

My husband (when applying for a "city landscape supervisor" type of job) was told by the HR person (with whom he graduated from college) that if he were black/Hispanic or female that they could give him the job because he was certainly the most qualified applicant and had the most experience... but since the city had to meet their "quota" for minorities, he wouldn't get it. According to him, this type of thing "happens all the time" and he ends up hiring someone who is not qualified because of their race and/or sex.

That is discrimination as well...

Racism exists, and in all of its forms, it is wrong. And it isn't always the type of racism we've come to expect. I will relate my own experience being discriminated against for being 1) employed, 2) non-minority, or 3) not an unwed mother. When I wanted to apply for all available grants at my college of choice, I was told that they would not even consider me and would not accept my application because I was an employed white female who was not a single mother. They were very specific in telling me exactly that; I'm not making assumptions. Yes, the money was available, and yes, my income was well under the cap; too bad I was white, but perhaps if I became pregnant . . . ? Uh, yeah, that was posed as a question. As if that would be something I should do in order to secure funding. Does reverse discrimination exist? It isn't the norm, perhaps; but it happens.

 

[ksinger]

Voting for one of those two without holding your nose.

That option had not occured to me

Well, broaden your mind. Like Monnie, I will vote for Hillary Clinton without great unhappiness. She isn't my first choice, but, Obama wasn't my first choice, either. Neither is liberal enough for me. At least Obama was black and Clinton is a woman.

Hillary Clinton has a huge amount of experience in government; is very smart; is well educated; is not sexist or racist; and is stable. We have rarely had a candidate as well rounded as she is. Her policies are not exactly to me taste, but at least she will not try to turn back the clock on Roe v. Wade or set up a registry of Muslims. What else can you ask for nowadays?

I can't imagine what sets them apart for biological characteristics that they don't control . . . or why that would make them "more liberal" than anyone else in the Democratic party. But I digress.

I hate to disappoint DF, but faced with the choice between Trump and Clinton (we don't call him Donald, so let's not call her Hillary) . . . I cannot and will not vote for Trump. So, Clinton it is.

You mean you're not a lunatic??? And you're not going to take your vote and sit out because no candidates meet your lofty standards?

Who knew?!?


Believe it or not, I've missed you - it's been a bit too delikit in here for me.

 

[HollyS]

There's a reason there are no longer any black people in these threads. The few we ever had for more than 5 minutes before they ran for the hills, had their heads explode.

I miss Moonwater....

There are many reasons NOT to miss Moonwater. None of which have anything whatsoever to do with her race.

There is entirely too much "Lalalala, I can't hear you! I don't want to hear you!" on any thread here when people disagree over perceived slights, entitlements, biases, etc. You have 5 pages here to testify to 'our issues' at PS of getting along. And none of it has diddly-squat to do with Kenny's original post. I wish I had read further before adding my two cents; now I'm part of the fracas. Crap.

Btw, ksinger, good to see you, even if we don't always agree. You too, Deb.