Nope.
So I have to ask... Who's more qualified to bake cookies, a female art grad with no work experience in the field, or a male high school grad with no work experience in the field?
Special rights for certain groups in Canada
- Thread starter Andem
- Start date
So I have to ask... Who's more qualified to bake cookies, a female art grad with no work experience in the field, or a male high school grad with no work experience in the field?
Going that both have no idea on how to cook I would take the male. Reason is simple - the Arts Grad will always be looking for a better job as she would consider this work low skilled and beneath her qualifications.
There is as much drama with men as with women. I have 18 guys on my crew from 20 to 56 and it never ends...
To be very honest, I chose *Germany* because of the freedoms which are afforded in this country. I am also of half-English, half-German extraction so that was also part of it.. also being able to speak the language here was a plus. In Canada, I was very well connected and could get a job at several firms of which I could have been comfortable at, but none of which were my goal. I know first-hand that at least a couple of the companies which I had passed a couple of the interview stages were not willing to hire me because of my sex and race, confirmed years later a conferences in San Francisco, Toronto and New York with the same people who interviewed me (over beers) -- haha.
European countries aren't perfect, but at least my skills are available to the market without government intervention.
And welcome to the 21st century, old chap. We're not in 1929, 1950 or even the 70s. We're several generations past that, but thanks for repeating what we've all heard from all of the thought police, reminding us of past sins of which none of us in the modern world are responsible for.
Kudos, very well put.
In terms of the OP, there is an old expression that comes to mind on this issue.... "Some people are just more equal than others"
As I said, and which you quoted yourself
So yes. You answered your very own question in the post which comprised of a quote by yours truly.
So how is this relevant to the OP or anything that I have said? Are you racist? Does the fact that I am a white male invalidate my opinion or make me somehow inferior to you? I am highly skeptical of people who use somebody else's race as a point of discussion in a debate.
If you have read my posts and threads you would know full well that I despise racists. I work in Security and have minorities work for me. Racism directed towards my staff, or the staff at the site is not tolerated. Persons engaging in this behavior are barred from the site till the day after they die. And I have caught my fair share of them.
I do not understand how a white male would be discriminated against in Canada. Could be a dumb question and yes I have been known to ask them.
But I truly do not understand why that (my interpretation of your post and I could be in error) was a deciding factor. The only thing I can think of is what they call reverse discrimination which is false terminology.
Discrimination is discrimination regards of sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious or non religious belief.
And you do not have to reply.
I do appreciate your opinion, but I haven't met one person in my entire life that isn't racist. The fact that you even acknowledge the existence of any race makes you racist by definition.
I don't actually read many posts here unless they are reported. I have little time for politics and the shenanigans which often go on here. I believe in free speech, which is why this forum exists.
I am university educated and speak 5 languages fluently. I can also write code in 8. Alright, it's not the same thing as security.
As you can see, I am replying. The very fact that sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious or non-religious belief is even an issue at hand makes the entire thing sexist, racist, homophobic and not tolerant of religion.
The very fact that you are defending yourself says enough about your misplaced self-guilt.
I offered you a choice as I did not want to intrude on your personal life. Well you replied, quite generous of you.
1- Racist by definition- we all have racist attitudes - perhaps they can also grade that as well which you know as well as I they can. Most everything can be placed is some sort of box. Myself I try to live outside of that box. As to racism in all of us - Of course we are, how you act is completely different- Piss poor rebuttal.
Oh yes - from your OP.
2- I do not care how well educated you are. Clearly you do and it is quite important to you. Does that make you any different than those that judge who gets hired?
3 - I would not denigrate a person who earned an honest dollar. Clearly you do. Is that not discrimination - - As we all have it within us as you mentioned. Racism- Discrimination I am sure there are studies that show we all have it within us. And we do.
4- Why you choose to slam someone based upon their education and abilities is beyond me. Does that not show your personal character, attitudes and in my opinion your discrimination based upon employment and education.
What else do you discriminate upon is the question you should ask yourself. No reply requested.
Now I am off to bed as I have to rise early and perform the low brow work of Security.
And the answer is No- You did not get my goat, you did not upset me, you in fact surprised me with your rebuttal.
Feel free to attack the grammar as well.
Thank you
First of all I do not believe someone is automatically entitled to a job because they are
women, men, of colour, white, religious, or any other reason. people should get the
job, because they are qualified. I also believe it does not matter if you are qualified
you should be paid the going rate for the job.
Management should not decide they need so many women, men or what ever to
have name plates on the doors. If we are going to do that I protest we don't have
enough left handed people.
the point is there has to be some rules regarding fairness but quotas are not working
and never will.
women, men, of colour, white, religious, or any other reason. people should get the
job, because they are qualified. I also believe it does not matter if you are qualified
you should be paid the going rate for the job.
Management should not decide they need so many women, men or what ever to
have name plates on the doors. If we are going to do that I protest we don't have
enough left handed people.
the point is there has to be some rules regarding fairness but quotas are not working
and never will.
Actually it does. By being educated and able, you are given the tools and experience in life to make difficult decisions.
No attacks from my side on someone earning an honest dollar. Anybody with good work ethics has a point up in my book, regardless of race/age/sex/orientation/etc.
I was simply pointing out that lower ranked jobs are not where you'll find the most appalling amount of sexism and racism.. especially because those companies have a high turnover.
"Survey finds 73% of female managers believe barriers to advancement still exist"
Ohhhh, a survey!
... Must be a fact then
Ohhhh, a survey!
... Must be a fact then
OK I'm guilty of going off on a tangent and cherrypicking here but this statement stuck out at me:
Education does not give experience and most times is not a substitute for it. Both can be powerful tools, especially when they are able to be used in a complimentary fashion but I have seen far too many young, "educated" people make foolish decisions, based on their belief in their own infallibility, that others less-educated but more experienced avoided.
If I can I will hire the combination but I'd be lying if I said I'll always choose education if I have to choose between it and experience.
Education does not give experience and most times is not a substitute for it. Both can be powerful tools, especially when they are able to be used in a complimentary fashion but I have seen far too many young, "educated" people make foolish decisions, based on their belief in their own infallibility, that others less-educated but more experienced avoided.
If I can I will hire the combination but I'd be lying if I said I'll always choose education if I have to choose between it and experience.
This conversation amuses me because I agree, and disagree all at the same time.
Like I said, hubby's company has a policy that where two candidates are equally qualified, the woman gets it. That policy is a direct result of the gender makeup of the entirety of their company, and their field. They, so far, haven't been heavy handed about pushing their managers to hire women, and I have yet to see a case of a woman getting the job over a better candidate.
For a company to recognize that over 85% of their staff were male, and attempt at the hiring level to fix that, isn't exactly the same as having quotas to fill name tags on doors. But it is attempting to address a bias in the industry that women can't physically handle the work.
I'm curious as to where the line gets crossed for me exactly... I suspect it's at actual 'quotas', hard numbers for humans never seem to make sense.
You have to be careful who you speak that notion to. For those who spend their years and large amounts of money, in the education market, they get highly offended at the notion that it is not the step up in the world that they expected. It is almost like the liberal equivalent of religious devotion, expected to give someone a place of honour and reverence in the eyes of those who haven't reached their level 'of understanding'.
Experience and education are the same thing, you cannot become educated unless you experience input and you cannot experience anything without simultaneous education. We use words badly now. Discrimination is a survival tool. If you can't discriminate you can't make decisions. Discrimination is not a bad thing until it's qualified by a bad noun I guess.
We may use words poorly, but most people know how to understand context. I think it's pretty simple to understand that there's a difference between education and practical experience, and no, the two don't always go hand in hand. Hubby's company actually does a unique interview process with their engineering applicants coming out of university, a two day interview process involving hands on practical demonstrations, because they found that engineering students can have great grades, but then hit the field and turn out to not even know how to use callipers, drifts, and other basic measurement tools.
Most people have been conditioned to ignore context when trigger words like discrimination are used. Practical experience is education.
If you have no practical experience then you have not been educated. Education is seen as number of years in such and such an institution as can be seen in your engineering students who clearly have not been educated about calipers, drifts etc; even though the paper work may indicate education.
The interview process where I work involves multiple interviews, and presentations of previous work. In that sense, your education can be experience, but as you say the two don't always go hand in hand. Case in point, when someone is applying from an industry role. The presentations are different, and include very relevant experience from our customers perspective. While presentations like mine where I was fresh out of school, simply show that I know how to properly design, execute, and communicate the results of experiments.
Obviously the right candidate should fit into the context of what the employer is looking for. I'm quite pleased that the company I work for values the strengths of the person more than the alphabet soup behind their name. There are people in high level positions with just a Bachelors degree. That is not at all the same situation in our competitors, whom we have poached many employees from recently.