[Cause]

Mezla as I recall you are a biochemist? As a student in the field I know that the hazards of real lab work to a pregnant mother are astronomical. You cant approach most chemicals for the nine months of your pregnancy. (Their are obviously precautions to take, and things which are not hamful you could do) Than you go on maternity leave and come back. If you wanted me to give you research money than yes I would want to know if you planned on having kids in the near future.

Im not trying to by a misogynist here just explore the issue. You admit women have career break issues men do not. Than talk about equality which is based on being equal. Now Im not saying your not, but special issues require special solutions. And as for men being asked the same questions. Without going into the whole women are the primary care giver conversation. I would say even when both parents have jobs the women still is the primary care giver. I have no problem saying that any factor which effects employment such as a father taking extra long lunch breaks to fetch his kid from school for example are legitimate concerns for his employer.

As for what cougar said, Yes I know its the law. In fact I believe its the law that if a contract expires during maternity leave it has to be renewed for an interim period. So as you cant terminte employment based on her leave. However a company can ask where you see yourself in sixth months and if you answered hopefully my CV will have been picked up by one of the bigger companies by than and I can move on, you wont get the job. Its a weak anologue but the point is their. Companies have a vested interest in knowing when they hire you that your are their to stay toperform your contractual obligation

[Mezla PigDog]

Cause;319494 said:

Mezla as I recall you are a biochemist? As a student in the field I know that the hazards of real lab work to a pregnant mother are astronomical.

Yeah, and if I didn't know how to deal with them, I'd have no business doing the job that I do. End of story.

I'm not "exploring your issue" (my response is too blatantly obvious to bother), instead I'll pose a question to you. Do you believe that by virtue of being born a white male (and experiencing all the passive and active educational advantages open to you), you should have an employment advantage over the non-white and female workforce?

[Bent]

Mezla PigDog;319526 said:

Yeah, and if I didn't know how to deal with them, I'd have no business doing the job that I do. End of story.

I'm not "exploring your issue" (my response is too blatantly obvious to bother), instead I'll pose a question to you. Do you believe that by virtue of being born a white male (and experiencing all the passive and active educational advantages open to you), you should have an employment advantage over the non-white and female workforce?

Yes, but only because women belong at home rmaking babies and fixing me a sandwich after we finish...

That was a joke, of course women have a more difficult life, but it is progressively getting better. But, to be totally honest and open, women are BETTER at dealing with a difficult life than men, hell you have babies.

[amphibian]

Nequam;319265 said:

@amphibian
Yes all that bad stuff happened and what not, but it wasn't because they were white. A group of balck people would have been just as dangerous. But it just so happnes that the spanish are white. A group of any race is not more dangerous than anothr group. That cannot be proven, because every human is capable of the same things. What you can say is that white people have caused more harm than other races. (I don't really know if it true) but that doesn't actually make them more dangerous. It was just the way things played out.

The whites weren't solely out to get the Indians based on their race. Nobody's arguing that they were.

The statement:

Quote

Although, as I learned from bitter experience at an early age and the history of at least the past century or so teaches; the most dangerous thing in the world is a large group of white people.

People are indeed people, no matter their skin color, but there's not a whole lot to counter that argument other than saying that. History somewhat bears the above statement out. A better rewording: A small portion of white people have intentionally and unintentionally screwed things up enduringly for a huge portion of non-whites over the last 600 years.

[Battalion]

Tell that to all the blacks who live in Europe and North America today. Their standard of living is far far greater than their African counterparts, because, rightly or wrongly, of the involvment of whites.
Ask any black Englishman his views on the Slavetrade, and he'll rightly tell you how his people have suffered a massive wrong that can never be put right, but ask him if he'd rather in had never happened, and he'd be living in a run down shanty-town back in mother Africa, and I can assure you, he'll see the long term benifits when he's cruising around in his converetable B.M.W.

[The Tyrant Lizard]

amphibian;319567 said:

The whites weren't solely out to get the Indians based on their race. Nobody's arguing that they were.

The statement:
People are indeed people, no matter their skin color, but there's not a whole lot to counter that argument other than saying that. History somewhat bears the above statement out. A better rewording: A small portion of white people have intentionally and unintentionally screwed things up enduringly for a huge portion of non-whites over the last 600 years.

I reitierate something I said earlier: This is largely because white people had the power to do what they did. If black countries had the power to do the same thing I daresay it would have happened the other way round. I'm trying to take race out of the equasion and saying all men have the potential for conquest.
The Persian Empire was not white.
The Mongolian Empire was not white.
The Ming Empire was not white.
The Japanese Empire was not white.
The Egyptian Empire was not white.
I would have thought those people pressed into these empires thought the most dangerous people in the world were those that ruled their empire and stole their land.

[Shinrei]

Mezla

"Liberal" does not equal "not-racist".

And to be fair, your analogy doesn't exactly fit:

"In terms of equality, asking that question is equal to asking a black man if the fact his skin is black will affect his work!!"

because the color of his skin won't take him away from his work for months/years at a time.


P.S. dont misunderstand me, i believe in very generous terms of maternaty leave and am very much against discrimination of women solely on the basis of their ability or inclination to have children. I'm just pointing on that your analogy doesn't work.

[Nequam]

I agree with Shin. I was kinda confused with that black guy question. It didn't seem at all the same thing.
It never seemed discriminent in my eyes to ask if a women is planning to have a baby in the near future during an interview (I showed my mom and sister this to see what they thought and they agreed with me...if that means anything). But I am gonna stay out of this one since I can see where Mezla is coming from. I fear I would end up seeming sexist (which I'm not) if I joined into the debate or whatever this is. For some odd reason I can never explain things the right way.

[Cougar]

The Tyrant Lizard;319661 said:

I reitierate something I said earlier: This is largely because white people had the power to do what they did. If black countries had the power to do the same thing I daresay it would have happened the other way round. I'm trying to take race out of the equasion and saying all men have the potential for conquest.
The Persian Empire was not white.
The Mongolian Empire was not white.
The Ming Empire was not white.
The Japanese Empire was not white.
The Egyptian Empire was not white.
I would have thought those people pressed into these empires thought the most dangerous people in the world were those that ruled their empire and stole their land.

An excellent point, whilst it does not diminish the shame of Monkey's experience, it does make a valid point: any group given the opportunity to exist with total power in the majority will take advantage of the situation.

This is why in many situations affirmative actions is seen as the only answer.

The basic truth: given the opportunity most people will exploit their fellow man.I'm sure amphiban is right when he posits the theory that it is a minority in each group who initiate suffering but remember what Edmund Burke said:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

It is not enough to 'not be evil' to paraphrase Luke (I think; I'm not religious)

"When good men do nothing, they get nothing good done. To be good, one must do good. The Lord commands his people to do good."

It is not enough that we are not racist, we must be pro-active I think.

I can't agree with Battalion though: many Black people in Britain and the USA are economically disadvantaged and are trapped in a cycle of (relative)poverty and lack of education. Is it better to live in a shanty town, where it is the norm and to be free or to be effectively trapped and poor in a wealthy country. Moreover, I would argue that your view of sub- Saharan Africa is innacurate, Africa is in the most part somewhat poor but it is in most instances far from shanty towns.

[Nequam]

Hmm, but how is taking jobs away from an honest hard-working man and giving to another honest hard-working man because he is black pro-active? What if the first man was more qualified? Is that fair? Is that good? That first man might have never done a racist thing in his entire life, but he is now a victim of racism because of other racists actions.
There are a lot of different situations but do you see what I mean?

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Nequam;319976 said:

Hmm, but how is taking jobs away from an honest hard-working man and giving to another honest hard-working man because he is black pro-active? What if the first man was more qualified? Is that fair? Is that good? That first man might have never done a racist thing in his entire life, but he is now a victim of racism because of other racists actions.
There are a lot of different situations but do you see what I mean?

I do see what you mean, but the deck is stacked in the favor of the white guy. In theory, if he is well qualified, he will be able to find another opportunity. If not for affirmative action, the black guy would be shut out most jobs, even if he is the best candidate.

Is that fair to the white guy? Not really. Affirmative action is not perfect. I don't know how else to make it so black guys don't get entirely shut out of jobs, careers, and entire fields just because he is black. With AA, the white guy unfairly loses out on one job. Without it, the black guy loses out on most jobs, which is more unfair.

[Cougar]

It is never as simple as each being as qulaified as the other and the decision coming down to race or sex. I have been interviewing for a position in my team for several weeks and assessing candidates equally is very hard.

I feel for some of the guys in RSA as their quota system does seem ridiculous, they lost Kevin Pietersen to England as a result (cricketer)

I don't think anyone here is advocating someone of lesser ability being given a job, however racial/gender majorities have shown time and again that they are not trustowrthy enough not to be biggoted, so the governement has to force their hand.

[Slum]

Nequam;319976 said:

Hmm, but how is taking jobs away from an honest hard-working man and giving to another honest hard-working man because he is black pro-active? What if the first man was more qualified? Is that fair? Is that good? That first man might have never done a racist thing in his entire life, but he is now a victim of racism because of other racists actions.
There are a lot of different situations but do you see what I mean?

What is so hard to understand? It's a way of restoring balance. WHITE MEN have had an historical advantage in matters of employment/acceptance/advancement in such areas...and -big secret- it's not because they're better than everyone else.

[Cougar]

Well historically they are better but the issue is why they are better; it's because they have access to better education, opportunites etc not through any inate racial intelligence or advantage.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Cougar;319987 said:

It is never as simple as each being as qulaified as the other and the decision coming down to race or sex. I have been interviewing for a position in my team for several weeks and assessing candidates equally is very hard.

I feel for some of the guys in RSA as their quota system does seem ridiculous, they lost Kevin Pietersen to England as a result (cricketer)

I don't think anyone here is advocating someone of lesser ability being given a job, however racial/gender majorities have shown time and again that they are not trustowrthy enough not to be biggoted, so the givernement has to force their hand.

Yes!

Slumgullion Spitteler;319988 said:

What is so hard to understand? It's a way of restoring balance. WHITE MEN have had an historical advantage in matters of employment/acceptance/advancement in such areas...and -big secret- it's not because they're better than everyone else.

Also yes!

[Slum]

Cougar;319993 said:

Well historically they are better but the issue is why they are better; it's because they have access to better education, opportunites etc not through any inate racial intelligence or advantage.

True...but you know what I meant. Given the same opportunities, minorities/women are no less capable of performing at high levels.

Without opportunity...well, how far can one get?

[Cougar]

Slumgullion Spitteler;319999 said:

True...but you know what I meant. Given the same opportunities, minorities/women are no less capable of performing at high levels.

Without opportunity...well, how far can one get?

Yeah, fair call, I did know what you meant, I was being obtuse.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

You see people, this is why we need a socialist or communist state (only without a mad dictator who goes paranoid and starts killing everyone).

That way, you've got full employment and a small or non-existant wage gap, thereby eliminating the problems of specific minorities being trapped in an impoverished socio-economic cycle.

[Terez]

Cause...what would you have us do? Not have kids? Do you really think that we should be denied employment because we're the ones that have to do the whole childbirth thing? Maternity leave is just a fact of life. Deal with it.

[The Archivist]

*smiles ironically and puffs on his pipe* Well, if you can deal with a few amusing and true observations ... set in a land of cultural diversity (Canada) with both strong anti hate and anti racism laws ... enjoy

Racism is alive and well ...

Quote from the official government history of the Yukon (distributed to school in the 80s ... "It was a land of polar bears and eskimoes, it was a land untouched by humankind."

Elderly English (Yorkshire, I am guessing from the accent) Lady: Excuse me, do you have the time? *slight pause* You do speak English don't you? I mean, it is the native tongue of Canada. (Note: This to a professor of 22 years at the University Campus we were standing on).

Me: Actually, milady. I must disagree. The Native tongue of this area was Huronian ... the word, Canada, comes from Beothuk, another Native tongue ... and as far as immigrant tongues to the continent ... Italian would be the first of the European tongues ... or Norse ... or even, potentially Welsh ... but the language of the Angles ... alas, was a later addition to the continent ... and in Canadian terms, French would have to be considered the most original of the European tongues ...

Elderly English Lady: *sputtering in outrage* You immigrants are all the same ... no respect for the sacrifice we original Canadians made to give you this great country

Me: Ummm ... ma'am ... I am a Six Nations Iroquois by birth ... my family are both Native "Canadians" and Loyalists ... as for ...

EEL: You, sir, are rude! *stomps off ... muttering about filthy immigrants*

Last ...

Canada's claim to large parts of BC (British Columbia) say a bit bigger then Texas is based on a Judge's relative recent decision that Native people have no proof they existed in BC before contact ... seriously, (note: over 10K hours of expert witnesses had just told him the exact opposite) ... have fun looking this one up Delmaguuw (sp) vs. Rex

Please, do not talk to me about how things are no longer racist ... I still live it everyday ... however, I do feel bad for the "oppressed majority" ... it must be horrible to experience the discrimination that some groups have suffered for centuries... that said, I disagree with quotas ... but I admit I find the dissatisfaction of mainstream cultures (edit: I am speaking of the cultures which have been systematically using their numbers to effectively give themselves advantages) with a minor bias against them to be amusing ... *shrugs* but then I enjoy a bit of irony