Enough Already!

Post Reply New Topic

Is this true? Are you suggesting that there are no barriers to access for any person?

Now, it is the case that there are fewer women directors and officers in publicly traded corporations and elected public officials. There are a couple of possible explanations for this:

1) Women are, in general, less capable than men in corporate and political roles.
2) There are objective barriers to women's equal participation in corporate and political spheres. (i.e. women who have families are more likely to pause their careers for parental leave and lose momentum in comparison with their male peers)
3) There are subjective barriers to women's equal participation. (i.e. Boardrooms are boys' clubs where they actively resist letting in more women)

Now let's consider a different example. In Canada, aboriginal people are underrepresented in almost every sector of the economy. One of the causes for this is lower performance indicators for aboriginal students in school. Now it's perfectly fair for an employer to say, "I can't hire you because you don't have a high school diploma." But can we say that the aboriginal student who left school without graduating has been given an equal chance? I don't think we can until we know why aboriginal students are leaving school in greater numbers than their peers--and if there is an objective cause (for example, a much greater number of aboriginal children live in poverty), then we certainly can't claim equal chances until we have taken steps to address that cause.



But is that always the case? Consider our circumstance. Many people on the autism spectrum have particular difficulties in dealing with normal parts of employment competitions, like interviews. If an NT is hired over an Aspie is it merely because the NT is better qualified, or could it be because the NT performed better in the interview? Is is fair for an employment process to be a, "one-size-fits-all" process where those who have trouble performing are left to fend for themselves?

That's not to say that every decision is the product of a tainted process, or illegal forms of discrimination. But we should not pretend that every person has equal opportunities unless we can see the proof of that assertion in a labour force that relects the diversity of our society.

Give the long line of black politicians and presidents in our nation's history, you must be absolutely right! I mean just look at how much slack everyone has cut Tiger Woods and LeBron James! Poor old Brett Favre never got it that good.

But seriously, whites get a pass in politics. Just look at Bush and his administration. War criminals but because it's Bush's lead and he's a rich white guy, he gets a pass and more understanding that any black would have ever gotten if they had the same problems and made the same poor decisions. Obama's just lucky that he's only doing all the same things Bush is doing or else he'd be in REAL big trouble.

Not ever, begin sentences with "I am not a racist, but" or "I am not a sexist, but" . Please...

People out there see that as a suspiciously specific denial.

Well spoken! I also think that Obama's race was a big factor in his winning the election; black voters were understandably excited. I want to make it known that there are people here who agree with you.