Affirmative action, like labor unions, once served a legitimate purpose. But, as is often the case when remedial measures get institutionalized, having addressed the problems that gave rise to them, they entrench themselves in self-sustaining bureaucracies and set about creating new problems to solve. I’m not suggesting that there are no longer any inequities in pay scales or hiring practices. But inequities will be with us always. Having gotten to the point where we are today, it’s got to be up to individuals to make it the rest of the way.
Crutches are undeniably beneficial when one has a broken leg, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to rely on them permanently. Up to a point, they’re necessary to allow the injury to heal. But using them longer than necessary will eventually atrophy the very muscles that need to be strengthened to effect a full recovery. After nearly half a century, it’s natural to feel some apprehension about laying down the crutches, but the time has come to stand up and walk independently. It may be wobbly at first but, ultimately, the only way to get beyond the need for crutches is to leave the crutches behind.
In a country that’s on the verge of electing a black man as its president, it seems condescending to maintain that a qualified black man can’t get a job without affirmative action. I know a number of highly qualified black men and women in well-paid, highly technical jobs who did not get there because of affirmative action. I think it would be insulting to them to have to work alongside people who were hired because of affirmative action, and have to constantly prove that they weren’t. Affirmative action places a stigma on those who happen to be in a ‘protected’ category, hovering over them like a nagging cloud of doubt as to whether they were hired because of an accidental characteristic or because of their true qualifications.
I’m told that women still only make $.78 on the dollar, compared with men. The assumption is that women and men are always equally qualified and, therefore, should always be paid the same. I question that assumption. Clearly, for many jobs requiring certain physical skills, men will generally be better qualified than women. Notwithstanding individual exceptions, on average, men are bigger, stronger, can run faster, jump higher, etc. There are psychological differences as well, which are reflected in different inclinations, motivations, and other character traits.
There are also different types of intelligence. I know some very smart people who are terrible at math, and I know some incredibly smart engineers who can’t write a coherent sentence. Clearly, different jobs require different types of intelligence, as well as different character traits, motivations, inclinations, and skills. While any individual may possess any given traits to a greater or lesser degree than any other individual, there are fundamental differences between men and women that may impact their respective effectiveness at different types of jobs. That may account for some of the imbalance in wages. Or perhaps women, in general, aren’t as good at negotiating salaries. In that case, they need to develop that skill, not rely on the government to do it for them.
I believe every individual should be paid according to the actual value they provide to their employer. In a free market, that’s exactly what happens. If women who are just as qualified as men are generally making $.78 on the dollar, there are bargains to be had, and there will be savvy employers who are more than willing to pay $.90 on the dollar to get their pick of the most highly qualified women in the work force. Assuming the most highly qualified women really are as qualified as the most highly qualified men, that would give those employers a distinct advantage over their competition. If that isn’t happening, there must be a reason. I can’t imagine that employers would act against their own best interests just to keep women in their place.
The ultimate ideal of affirmative action seems to be to achieve demographically proportional representation in every field. I don’t believe that’s a valid goal. I believe all individuals applying for the same position should be judged by the same criteria, and that the criteria should be determined by the requirements of the position. Job qualifications should not be redefined to encourage diversity. In many cases, that’s where affirmative action leads. It encourages businesses to level the playing field by lowering the bar. That’s not right.
Government is Not Your Daddy 
I believe every individual should be paid according to the actual value they provide to their employer. In a free market, that’s exactly what happens.
America doesn’t have a free market anymore, at least not like it use to be. Politicians (mainly Democrats) have forced unionization of state and local services and, God forbid, Obama becomes president, he has promised to work on policy that any government contract must go to only unionized companies.
Affirmative action is totally racist – a policy of hate and a policy that goes against the very Constitutional guarantee of equality.
What I find rather funny is if Obama becomes president his affirmative action policies will keep many children of whites that voted for him from getting the job or into the school they would otherwise be qualified for.
Oh yeah – and women? Like you said things aren’t perfect but women have come a huge way.
Forbes had been running an annual “top women billionaires” column for years now – and that doesn’t include the thousands that are millionaires!
The women in top management and company owners is incredible.
Just when I think you can’t post anything more ridiculous…you post something like this. As if unions AND affirmative action are now passe. Have you ever actually *been* in a union and saw with your eyes what they really do day in & day out? Every been a member of a minority (*any* minority) and been mistreated or discriminated against??
Afirmative action & unions are NOT “crutches”! Don’t even bother trying to imply that non-qualified people are getting into positions that they wouldn’t have gotten into otherwise without affirmative action.
“it seems condescending to maintain that a qualified black man can’t get a job without affirmative action.”
And yet it happens almost everyday.
“The assumption is that women and men are always equally qualified and, therefore, should always be paid the same. I question that assumption.”
Wow, sexist much?
“Or perhaps women, in general, aren’t as good at negotiating salaries. In that case, they need to develop that skill, not rely on the government to do it for them.”
Wow, now please show us where the govt. has mandated companies to pay higher wages to women.
“If that isn’t happening, there must be a reason.”
Yea, and it’s called sexism…look it up sometime…do you live in the real world??
“I can’t imagine that employers would act against their own best interests just to keep women in their place.”
And yet again, they do it all the time.
“The ultimate ideal of affirmative action seems to be to achive demographically proportional representation in every field.”
No, it isnt. The motivation for affirmative action is a desire to redress effects of actual or perceived, past or current discrimination that is regarded as unfair. In the USA, its current intended beneficiaries are disadvantaged ethnic minorities, women, people with disabilities, and veterans.
“Affirmative action is totally racist – a policy of hate and a policy that goes against the very Constitutional guarantee of equality.
What I find rather funny is if Obama becomes president his affirmative action policies will keep many children of whites that voted for him from getting the job or into the school they would otherwise be qualified for.”
Baloney.
“-Apply affirmative action to poor white college applicants. (Apr 2008)
-Fight job discrimination to give women equal footing at jobs. (Feb 2008)
-Remove discriminatory barriers to the right to vote. (Feb 2008)
-Benefited from affirmative action but overcame via merit. (Dec 2007)
-Include class-based affirmative action with race-based. (Oct 2007)
-Commitment to diversity by CEOs is advisable. (Mar 2007)
-Supports affirmative action in colleges and government. (Jul 1998)
-Ending racial profiling is part of fight for justice. (Jan 2001)”
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
“Don’t even bother trying to imply that non-qualified people are getting into positions that they wouldn’t have gotten into otherwise without affirmative action.”
Apparently Mister Guy lives in an Ivory Tower. A plethora of police and fire departments have been forced to increase the number of women due to affirmative action (and yes, otherwise more qualified men have lost opportunities), even being given watered-down PF tests just for them. The result is policewomen that can’t run down a suspect and, even if they do, cannot physically restrain them; worse yet, some have been disarmed and killed by criminals with superior strength. And would a Mister Guy collapsed from smoke inhalation in a fire prefer a fireman that can actually carry him out of a burning building or a firewoman that barely passed her special PF test be the one that shows up to save him — but can’t carry him — in the same case?
BTW, there’s no implication about non-qualified people. It’s a documented fact (at least in the real world).
“Watered-down” standards and affirmative action have *nothing* to do with one another. The military has also apparently come up with separate or lower standards for women during the last few decades, which I am opposed to as well. Real affirmative action programs are about giving equally-qualified candidates from disadvantaged groups a level playing field, period.
Mr. Guy, denial is not the same as refutation. Just saying “It isn’t so” doesn’t do much to enlighten anyone. If you have evidence or logic to support your positions, you should supply them.
If they could get into the same positions without affirmative action, then why have affirmative action? You just made a good argument for why it isn’t necessary.
In the next paragraph, however, you claim it “happens every day” that qualified black men can’t get a job without affirmative action. Do you have some evidence of that?
Instead of addressing my suggestion that women may have different qualifications than men, with respect to certain types of jobs, you hurl an epithet. It’s easier to lavel me a sexist than to address the point I made, but it doesen’t do much to advance your case. (Do you know what ad hominem means?)
You claim that it “happens all the time” that employers act against their own best interest just for the sake of sexism. Again, I would ask you to support that claim with some evidence. You are making a lot of the same assumptions I challenged in my post. Repeating the same assumptions doesn’t address the challenge.
You ask if I’ve ever been a member of a union. In fact, I have. I would have preferred not to be, but I was not allowed to work in my chosen profession without a union card. So I joined the union and, for the privilege of being allowed to work, I paid them dues. I was not impressed.
Now who’s living in an ivory tower??
“If they could get into the same positions without affirmative action, then why have affirmative action?”
Doers racism, sexism, etc. suddenly not exist anymore because a guy that’s half-black is running for a major political office??
“Do you have some evidence of that?”
Again, which world do you live in…the real world or some fantasy world?? You need “evidence” that racism & sexism still exists in this country?? Unbelievable!
Do you know what sexism means?? You’ve displayed it quite prominetly in your post for one thing.
Not only have I been in a union before…I was a union official…one that fought for the rights of my bargaining unit weekly if not daily. Unions is this country brought us protection against unfair retaliation from management, higher pay, vacation & sick time, the 40-hour workweek, better working conditions, increased worker safety, an end to child labor, more fringe benefits, etc., etc.. To end unions would be to start the gradual roll-back of all these past accomplishments, which I’m sure most corportaions would LOVE.
You worked in a “closed shop” situation (where everyone needed to join the union to work there). I worked in a modified “open shop” (where you did not have to join the union, but you received the benefits of the union’s actions none-the-less). You should have seen all the stingy, Right-wingers in my former place of work that would whine the loudest about what management was doing, but never pony up a dime to help the union fight for what they wanted. It was a joke…
Our site takes a more supportive view on affirmative action. But yours is certainly defensible. Thanks for adding your voice to the blogging universe.
Mr. Guy, I don’t think you got my point. You mention that, without unions, we would not have x, y, and z, which were indeed the problems that originally gave rise to unions. But, as I pointed out in the post, “as is often the case when remedial measures get institutionalized, having addressed the problems that gave rise to them, they entrench themselves in self-sustaining bureaucracies and set about creating new problems to solve.”
You would have us believe that, just because unions once did some good, they should exist forever. That is similar to the argument that, if using a crutch can help you heal, you should use it forever. Refuting that fallacy is what this post was about.
You ask if I know what sexism means. Come to think of it, I’m not sure I do. Perhaps you could explain it to me.
The Right-wing argument when it comes to unions is that they add too much to the cost of doing business. Without union protection, do you not think that businesses & corporations would reap the “benefits” of not having unions around and lower their costs by reducing worker benefits, pay, vacation & sick time, and working conditions & safety as well as freely retaliating against workers that don’t toe the party line?? Come on now…you know darn well that’s what this is all about…
I also suspect that you know damn well what sexism means…all you need to do is re-read portions of your original posting here to see it in action. One of the main beneficiaries of affirmative action in this country have been women.
I think many people today are of the opinion that unions have taken unfair advantage of their near monopoly on labor in certain industries, and that salaries and benefits for union labor far exceed what would be justified (or justifiable) in a free market.
The result is more businesses are being driven overseas, or to off-shoring, which costs jobs for American workers. Are you not aware that the Toyota Tacoma is the only full-sized pickup truck built entirely in the USA? Have you ever wondered how Toyota manages to be able to build a truck entirely in the U.S. when U.S. auto manufacturers cannot? The reason is that Toyota only builds factories in right-to-work states. Clearly, the quality of the product doesn’t suffer from using non-union labor, because it’s the highest rated truck in its class. Meanwhile, American auto manufacturers, encumbered with union contracts, have to off-shore as much of their production as they can just to stay in business. Curious, isn’t it?
You say, to know what sexism means, all I have to do is read my own post. I don’t recall defining sexism in my post, or even referring to it. Is it one of those things where, if you have to ask, don’t bother — because, if you don’t know what it means, then you must be one?
Unions have proven time and time again that they are anti-production and being anti-production, they are (I’d like to think inadvertently) anti worker, take GM, the compnay asks the union to roll back some benefits, to help stabilize the company, what help does the union offer? F-You GM, we aint giving NOTHING back, what does GM do, layoffs and buyouts, what is the net affect? Increased unemployment-a lager burden on the producers of the country. You would think unions would be more interested in helping a company that employs so many “union” workers. No wonder Toyota refuses to use union labor.
I see so many “union” workers sporting pro union bumper stickers, when I ask them why are they “proud to be union” I get a blank stare, they do not know! MR. Guy, PLEASE tell your “union” buddies how to answer that question.
Quick question. Whay the easiest way for a “union” man to get a raise?
Answer- Quit the freakin’ union and negotiate his own contract it is his Constitutionally guaranteed right!
@notyourdaddy; There is no “sexism” in your post. Those who would project your post is sexist (in anyway) are attempting to deflect from your argument with catch phrases and nonsense (but I’m sure you know that…)
Excellent post!
“I think many people today are of the opinion that unions have taken unfair advantage of their near monopoly on labor in certain industries, and that salaries and benefits for union labor far exceed what would be justified (or justifiable) in a free market.”
Ah yes, the “evils” of being paid too much…bad for union laborers, but good for corporations (like the oil industry perhaps?). Sure, now *there’s* a rational argument! Let’s face the facts here…like a lot of “conservatives” in this country, you don’t like unions. There’s nothing wrong with that IMO…you don’t have to like them if you don’t want to. I can understand why the idea of people banding together to act as one, stronger entity would be unlikeable to a “conservative” in this country…sounds too much like communism right?
The fact is the the “free-market” does NOT have to always be a race to the bottom in terms of worker’s pay, benefits, working conditions, etc….there is another way…one that “raises all boats” at the same time through increased worker rights.
BTW, full-sized pickup trucks may be becoming a thing of the past with these gas & oil prices.
“The reason is that Toyota only builds factories in right-to-work states.”
Wrong again…they build in places like Georgetown, KY, Princeton, IN, & Buffalo, WV (all NOT “right-to-work” states), and in places like Canada (my GM car was built in Ontario), Australia, France, Portugal, & the UK. Do you really think that there aren’t any unions in all those places??
You still want to play coy when it comes to the sexism issue eh? Try this on for size then (as I’ve ALREADY told you):
“The assumption is that women and men are always equally qualified and, therefore, should always be paid the same. I question that assumption.”
Sure, there are a small minority of jobs where maybe a man’s (*in general*) larger physical size may be an added benefit in a job, but to put a blanket statement like this out there is just sexist…plain & simple.
Or try this one:
“Or perhaps women, in general, aren’t as good at negotiating salaries. In that case, they need to develop that skill, not rely on the government to do it for them.”
Could you be anymore condescending to women by making a ridiculous statement like this?? Why not just say that women are just stupid when compared to men…you’d get your point across even faster!
“Unions have proven time and time again that they are anti-production”
Once again, there is *zero* evidence for a ridiculous claim like this. Unions are “anti worker” now too?? LOL!!!! Unions are *comprised* of entirely workers! The idea that unions & auto workers don’t reach compromises all the time is ludicrous…that’s what collective bargaining is all about.
“MR. Guy, PLEASE tell your ‘union’ buddies how to answer that question.”
I already answered that question above…a lot of the things that workers take for granted today (both in union & non-union fields) were fought for originally by unions, period end of story.
So, you believe that women and men are exactly alike except for certain physical differences? Are you aware that there has been a concerted effort in the high tech industry, for years, to encourage women to major in computer science and engineering? For some reason, they choose not to. It isn’t because they’re discriminated against; they’re actively recruited. Some women do get CSE degrees, but there’s an ovewhelming majority of men who choose to go into high tech. Could it be that, for some reason, men are more inclinded to be interested in highly technical fields than women are?
If you accept that, in general, men are more inclined toward technical fields than women, does it not follow that inclination and aptitude are interrelated, and that people are more likely to be successful in fields that naturally attract them?
There are always exceptions. I know some very competent women in high tech. I’ve managed both men and women. One woman I managed was extremely smart, competent, motivated, and aggressive. In spite of her being a real prima donna, I wouldn’t hesitate to hire her again. Another woman I managed really struggled but, with a lot of coaching, eventually hit her stride. Nevertheless, I’ve seen a significantly higher proportion of women than men fail, for a variety of reasons. Does that mean I wouln’t hire women for high tech? Not at all.
I learned, through experience, what traits to look for in a successful employee. It doesn’t matter whether they’re male or female. I always looked for the same characteristics. Fewer women have them. But those who did have them were just as successful as the men who had them.
You may see that as sexist, but I could only afford to hire peole I believed would excel. I didn’t have time to spend on employees who didn’t have that potential. Lowering the bar doesn’t do anyone any favors. Getting a job for which one is underqualified is frustrating and wasteful for everybody concerned.
“Are you aware that there has been a concerted effort in the high tech industry, for years, to encourage women to major in computer science and engineering?”
Now your going over into the borderline ignorant-realm. When I was at college, due to the major that I had, a lot of my friends were engineering majors. On the first day of a class at my large, major university, some of my friends saw a high-level engineering professor single out the only 2 women in the class and say: “The two of you don’t belong here. You can stay if you’d like to, but you don’t have what it takes to be here.”
One of my gf’s at the same school was an accounting major (who happened to graduate with honors in only 3 years time BTW). During one of her summer classes, the accounting professor would ask who had the answers to the homework assignment problems, and, if any men raised their hands, he would call on them only. If no men raised their hands, he would call on a woman, and, if she had the right answer, he would ask one of the men in the class: “How did she get that right answer?”
These incidents did not take place decades & decades ago either. When my mother was young, she was told constantly that she would be either a teacher or a nurse when she grew up, period…there were no other options recommended to her. The reason for a lack of women in science, engineering, etc. is because for many, many, many decades now…women have been actively *discouraged* from participating in those professions. In my science career, there are a distinct lack of women across most of the field. The university that I went to was known as a leader in the science that I was interested in, and I could count the number of women in the program on one hand. If you eliminated the women that were in ROTC and still in the program, you could count the women that were left on one finger.
“Could it be that, for some reason, men are more inclinded to be interested in highly technical fields than women are?”
If this isn’t another sexist statement, it is a statement that can easly be used to justify sexism.
“If you accept that, in general, men are more inclined toward technical fields than women, does it not follow that inclination and aptitude are interrelated, and that people are more likely to be successful in fields that naturally attract them?”
If what you are saying here is that women just don’t have the “aptitude” for certain fields, then this is a BLATANTLY sexist statement. I understand that you continue to revel in your “anti-PC” ravings here, but the fact that you would try to utter such nonsense in the year 2008 is simply amazing IMO.
“Fewer women have them.”
Again, let the sexist rants continue…
“Lowering the bar doesn’t do anyone any favors. Getting a job for which one is underqualified is frustrating and wasteful for everybody concerned.”
Again, “lowering the bar” has absolutely, positively NOTHING to do with real affirmative action plans, period end of story.
Mr. Guy, I am not speaking out of ignorance. I worked for ten years for one of the largest high tech companies in the world, from which I retired only a few months ago. I’m very well aware of the recruitment efforts directed at university women.
I’m not suggesting women are less intelligent than men. Women and men are different in many ways, not least, psychologically. Those differences affect people’s motivations and inclinations. I believe that aptitude is partially innate and partially developed, based on personal inclinations. But, the reality is, however the differences come about, they exist and are statistically measurable.
I’m sure you can come up with some sort of justification for the fact that, while men’s and women’s verbal SAT scores are roughly equivalent, men’s math SAT scores average ~50 points higher than women’s. (The higher in the range, the greater the disparity.) As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, individual mileage may vary. Any given woman may have a higher math SAT score than any given man. But, statistically speaking, men test better at math than women.
Do you suppose the tests are biased? How do you bias math? Perhaps the test monitors browbeat the women during the math portion of the tests and tell them they’re no good at math…
“I’m very well aware of the recruitment efforts directed at university women.”
And just why do you think those programs are necessary?? They are necessary due to the decades & decades worth of messages to women that they just weren’t “cut out” for higher tech jobs.
“Do you suppose the tests are biased?”
It’s already been proven that the SATs are biased against minorities…I’m not sure about women. As if SAT scores are real test of intelligence anyways…they aren’t. Your attempts to “explain” women’s supposed “deficiencies” is just another excuse to promote sexism IMO.
Mr. Guy, I didn’t say SATs test intelligence. However, they do test aptitude, which may be different, and they have proven a good indicator of success in academia.
As to their bias, it would be pretty hard to bias a math test toward either race or sex. If 2+2=4 to a white male, does it equal something different if you’re black or female? Please come up with a way to bias math, and convince me it’s possible.
You claim everything is based on decades and decades worth of cultural indoctrination. Do you really believe there are no innate differences between men and women, other than the psysiological ones? If you believe all behavioral and psychological differences are the result of conditioning, how do you explain behavioral differences between the sexes in other species?
I never said women are deficient. I specifically stated earlier “I’m not suggesting women are less intelligent than men.” Yet you insist on imputing that to me. Do you not believe there can be differences between people without one being superior/inferior? Perhaps you really don’t understand the distinctions I’ve attempted repeatedly to clarify. Or perhaps the ammunition you’ve stockpiled to fire at conservatives/sexists/racists/right-wing-bigots doesn’t apply in all situations. Perhaps you should be more discriminating in selecting your ammunition to suit your target.
“Unions have proven time and time again that they are anti-production”
Mr. Guy, When a Union refuses to renegotiate a contract, and causes a comapany to reduce its workforce through not replacing retiring workers or buying out current workers, that DIRECTLY affects production in a negative manner-it is simple logic! How many examples of union efforts to stimy production do you need? GM, Ford, Chrysler, DuPont… Secondly, when a union negotiates a pay raise as part of its collective(ist) bargaing agreement, every union worker gets the same raise regardless of the individuals production; one guy shows up to work on time everyday, does all the little things and he gets the same pay raise as the schlep who shows up late, leaves early, hides in the restroom etc., unions provide no incentive for workers to excel, get rid of unions and allow workers to negotiate their own contracts, they will be compensated for what each individaul produces not what the collective produces. You choose to see the unions as the savior of the working man, they are not. As the host pointed out, unions had there place, they are no longer needed, unions hurt production.
“Unions are “anti worker” now too?? LOL!!!! Unions are *comprised* of entirely workers!”
Same as above, when the union doesn’t allow for individuals to excel and get recognized for it, they are not promoting the worker, they are promoting the collective. A very good friend of mine in Arizona, was badgered day in and day out to join the union, he chose not to, when it was time to negotiate a new contract, the union got everyone (except my friend) a 3% pay raise, this was thrown in his face as yet another reason to join the union, my friend responded with his negotiated package: a 5% raise, an addditonal 4 hours vacation each month, and the company picked up the tab for the “donation” taken out of his check (in AZ, if you do not work union, the amount that would be deducted for union dues is taken out and given to charity.) After witnessing this, 3 other workers left the union that day. Again, Unions served a need, that need is no longer present-the American worker needs to dump his crutches!
Good points, DJ. (BTW, welcome to Daddyland!)
“I didn’t say SATs test intelligence. However, they do test aptitude, which may be different, and they have proven a good indicator of success in academia.”
So now it’s word game time?? Intelligence isn’t a natural ability that describes the capacity for learning?? Of course it is…saying this:
“I believe that aptitude is partially innate and partially developed, based on personal inclinations. But, the reality is, however the differences come about, they exist and are statistically measurable.
I’m sure you can come up with some sort of justification for the fact that, while men’s and women’s verbal SAT scores are roughly equivalent, men’s math SAT scores average ~50 points higher than women’s.”
Is basically the same thing as saying that women just aren’t satistically as smart as men when it comes to math, which is blanatly sexist statement. Again, as if the SATs are an indictator of really anything significant…let alone “a good indicator of success in academia”…lol…
Oh, and I didn’t realize that they were asking questions on the SAT like what is “2+2”? Exactly how foolish do you what to sound on this issue NYD??
Keep trying to backpeddle on what you’re already said NYD…you are a proven sexist…wear that badge with pride…
“When a Union refuses to renegotiate a contract”
Now tell me when this has ever happened…unions don’t simply refuse to renegotiate a contract, they frequently have differences with management over what a future contract should look like. Frequently these differences take time to work out, and a very small percentage of time they may end up striking to get a just contract. Most of the time that I’ve seen unions workers go on working without a contract for long periods of time.
The motivation of a huge number of employers has been to reduce the amount that they are spending on their workforce (which almost always comprise the lion’s share of their expenses)…through cutting pay, benefits, and/or the actual number of workers. Reducing one’s workforce though attrition or buyouts is one of the least “painful” ways for management to reduce the amount of money that they spend on their workforce. These types of decisons are made by management…not unions, since it is usually not in the interest of the union to lose jobs or compensation for their workers.
“every union worker gets the same raise regardless of the individuals production”
Is this always true? Of course it isn’t, there are a whole host of rules as to how workers get paid…seniority, merit-pay, etc….
“unions provide no incentive for workers to excel”
Again, there is absolutely no evidence that a statement like this is true in all cases, period.
If you define intelligence as a “natural ability,” and I define aptitude as “partially innate and partially developed,” perhaps we’re talking about different things. Do you believe there’s only one kind of intelligence? I mentioned in my post that I believe there are several, based on the evidence of people I know who exhibit different kinds of intelligence.
You keep trying to cram everybody into the same mold and, I’m sorry, but they don’t all fit. Where’s your appreciation for diversity? Or do you define diversity as everybody being the same?
Of course they don’t ask “what is 2+2” on the SAT math test. The mathematical abilities of a high school senior are expected to be more sophisticated than those of a first grader. But all math is objective. Integral calculus and differential equations always have the same answer, given the same inputs, just like addition, regardless of the sex or race of the person performing the calculation.
I’ve heard people argue that the verbal part of the SATs, which is necessarily more subjective, is culturally biased, but that cannot be argued about math. I realize that liberals are partial to relativism, but some things are absolute. Mathematical correctness is not in the eye of the beholder.
Mr. Guy, you insist that I’m sexist. How does maintaining that everybody should be judged according to their own individual merits equate to sexism?
Or is it the fact that I acknowledge there are differences between men and women that go beyond their physical characteristics that you find sexist?
I’m still curious to know how you define sexist, other than by example (e.g., somebody like me).
Your word semantics mean absolutely nothing NYD…if I tell my gf when she gets home from work tonight that: “I’m sorry honey, but, statisically speaking, you and your kind just don’t have as much aptitude (read that as intelligence) for math as we men do…” I doubt that I’ll get anything but a slap in the face! The reason being that it’s a blantantly sexist statement, period.
“Where’s your appreciation for diversity?”
Coming from a sexist like yourself…that surely is a a very RICH question indeed. This country has been one, giant example of how diversity overcomes those that are homogeneity. Our ability to adapt and acclimate people of all races, cultures, etc. has been one of our strongest points IMO. That’s exactly why affirmative action programs are so important…because the racists, sexists, etc. that are still in our midst and exerting a lot of influence sap our very strength by holding qualified people back just because of their race, gender, etc..
“Integral calculus and differential equations always have the same answer”
Now trying solving one that’s non-linear…
BTW, I should have done this in the first place given your track record so far with the “truth”, but it turns out that your claim about women & men’s math SAT scores & “aptitude” in math is total bunk…LOL!!!
abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=5441728&page=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/education/25math.html
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/CTstaging/297643
http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_9985361
http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=11167
sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/2800/perspectives_the_gender_gap_in_math_and_science/(parent)/158
Now, take your tired, old, sexist stereotypes NYD and put them in the trash bin…where they have belonged for the last several thousand years of recorded history!
Apparently, the last, older link didn’t show up right:
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/2800/perspectives_the_gender_gap_in_math_and_science/(parent)/158
Don’t keep trying to dodge the main issue that your words here have been filled with sexism NYD…it’s pathetic at this point. Sexism is discrimination based on gender, or attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender. Based on your own words here in this blog…you fit that definition to a tee.
Affirmative action ensures that everyone will be treated the same without unfair discrimination!
Your data is more recent than mine. The results quoted by these articles came out just within the last two weeks. I was using historical data gathered in 2005. You imply that I was lying, but these same articles point out that men have always achieved significantly higher math SAT scores than women, up until this year.
What do you make of that, Mr. Guy? First, you said women did worse because the SATs were biased against women. Now you say ‘see, that proves women are just as smart as men!’ I never said they weren’t. I said the SATs measure aptitude, which is not the same as native intelligence. Do you agree with that now, or do you believe women suddenly got smarter in the last year? Or do you suppose they changed the math tests to be less culturally biased?
I’m very happy that women’s math SAT scores have finally caught up with men’s. Now that men and women have equivalent aptitudes, that should eliminate the need for affirmative action.
BTW, if sexism is discrimination, as you define it, then, by your own definition, I’m not a sexist, since I have never discriminated based on sex. As I’ve repeated many times, I judge each individual on their own individual merits. I don’t believe sex or race should be taken into account in any way, shape, or form, in making a hiring decision. That’s precisely why I don’t believe in affirmative action.
“Is this always true? Of course it isn’t, there are a whole host of rules as to how workers get paid…seniority, merit-pay, etc….”
Seniority pay raises do not reflect an individuals production. Giving a raise to someone because they have “been here the longest” does not benefit the worker who comes in and busts his butt everyday, it is a longevity raise only. There is no incentive for the other workers to do anything except not look for a job because he knows next contract he will get a raise, or worse yet, next year (as many union contracts are written to include annual pay increases), again, no incentive to do anymore than the bear minimum. You have validated my point that unions do not promote the worker. Merit raise? I have never (not saying they do not exist mind you) seen a union contact with a merit clause. Assuming that such a contract exists, who defines what warrants a “merit” raise?
“…women just aren’t satistically as smart as men when it comes to math, which is blanatly sexist statement.”
Mr. Guy, if your argument is (as I read it) the above is sexist, then the following also must be sexist:
“Women are statisically more likely then men to have babies.”
I think everyone can agree the statement is true. If a statistic is available that shows women are not as successful in math, that can hardly be considered sexist. Golf allows women a significant yardage difference form the tee box, is that sexist? There are no women in the NFL, MLB, NBA are they sexist as well? Men and women are DIFFERENT, that is not sexist, I am so sick and tired of the sexist crap the left flings! Nature made men and women different, different means not the same, not the same means not equal. Women can do so many things men cannot and vice-versa, that does not in any way imply sexism. Sexism is quite simply not allowing someone to do something based on the preconceived notion that they cannot do a task or event because of their sex. Statements like “You can’t be a banker Lucy because your a girl” that is sexist, saying women statistically score lower on math tests (and having statistics to back it up) is not. Now, if a bank manager says I can’t hire Lucy because women are statistically not as good as men in math, IS sexist, not hiring Lucy because she performs poorly on a math test is NOT sexist.
“I was using historical data gathered in 2005. You imply that I was lying, but these same articles point out that men have always achieved significantly higher math SAT scores than women, up until this year.”
Wrong again…but nice try at backpeddling anyways…more par for the course from you. The questions were already well at hand about your completely bogus stereotype back in 2002-2004. And the articles that I cited prove this without a doubt. The FACT is that this completely bogus claim about the math SAT scores were meaningless (as cited numerous times in the articles that I cited), period.
“First, you said women did worse because the SATs were biased against women.”
LOL…now read again what I actually you LIAR:
“It’s already been proven that the SATs are biased against minorities…I’m not sure about women. As if SAT scores are real test of intelligence anyways…they aren’t. Your attempts to ‘explain’ women’s supposed ‘deficiencies’ is just another excuse to promote sexism IMO.”
“I never said they weren’t.”
Oh, of course, you just used language, which I have highlighted before for you above, that said that women didn’t have the “aptitude” (read that as intelligence) that men did when it comes to math, which is blantantly WRONG & sexist statement.
“I’m very happy that women’s math SAT scores have finally caught up with men’s. Now that men and women have equivalent aptitudes, that should eliminate the need for affirmative action.”
Wow, you really won’t give up the ghost will you?? Women & men are equals, but yet women are still discriminanted against merely because of their gender, which is why real affirmative action (which ensures that all people of equal qualifications get considered equally) is still necessary.
“Seniority pay raises do not reflect an individuals production.”
So, experience doesn’t matter when it comes to higher production rates?? LOL…give me a break…
“I have never (not saying they do not exist mind you) seen a union contact with a merit clause. Assuming that such a contract exists, who defines what warrants a ‘merit’ raise?”
Well, thanks for admitting that you really don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to contract language. The union at one of my former jobs now has merit pay bonuses as a part of their contract, and you’re right…the major sticking point was how to determine what amount of performace equals what amount of bonus money. In their case, management wanted there to be NO standards, and the union wanted very clear standards so that everyone would be treated fairly. So much for management always looking out for the best interests of their employees…lol…
“‘Women are statisically more likely then men to have babies.'”
And now we stray into the land of the inherently stupid…is this all that you have left in the tank on this issue??
“If a statistic is available that shows women are not as successful in math, that can hardly be considered sexist.”
Now let’s fast forward to the FACT that there is NO statistic that says that…only blantant sexism allows for statements like that to be uttered!!
“Nature made men and women different, different means not the same, not the same means not equal.”
And thanks so much for joining the sexist club DJ…now NYD won’t be so lonely.
Here are the cold, hard facts on this subject once-and-for-all NYD, you are a sexist because you have continued to promote attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender, period end of story. Just admit that you are wrong on this issue and try & preserve what little credibility that you have left…
Mr. Guy, how could the “gender gap” be closing, if there never was one to begin with? These quotes are from the articles to which you linked.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=5441728&page=1
http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=11167
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/2800/perspectives_the_gender_gap_in_math_and_science/
Here is a link to the actual statistical data from 2006, by percentile. The average score (49th percentile) was 500 for women, 540 for men. The 99th percentile score was 750 for women, 790 for men. That was two years ago.
Here are the statistics on 25th and 75th percentile SAT scores from 1998 through 2007 (last year) for freshmen entering the University of Massachusetts. Men consistentely scored 40 to 50 points higher in both the 25th and 75th percentile throughout the last ten years.
You really should check your source data before calling people LIARs. It’s unbecoming to call some a LIAR, especially when you’re wrong.
That’s it sexist-NYD…keep digging that hole deeper. I told you before that your own words would be your ultimate undoing, and the longer that you continue being stubborn in your sexist rants…the harder the fall will be for you.
Now let’s look at what the links that I’ve provided before (in the order that I gave them to you) *really* have to say about this issue you sexist liar:
“Girls Debunk Old Stereotype”
“Most parents — and even girls themselves — accepted the stereotype that girls were simply not hardwired to excel in mathematics.”
“Half of the students who continue on to get math degrees are now female.”
————————————————
“Girls used to take fewer advanced math courses than boys, but now they are taking just as many.”
“The researchers looked at the average of the test scores of all students, the performance of the most gifted children and the ability to solve complex math problems. They found, in every category, that girls did as well as boys.”
“Janet Hyde, a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who led the study, said the persistent stereotypes about girls and math had taken a toll.
‘The stereotype that boys do better at math is still held widely by teachers and parents,’ Dr. Hyde said. ‘And teachers and parents guide girls, giving them advice about what courses to take, what careers to pursue. I still hear anecdotes about guidance counselors steering girls away from engineering, telling them they won’t be able to do the math.'”
“The study also analyzed the gender gap on the math section of the SAT. Rather than proving boys’ superior talent for math, the study found, the difference is probably attributable to a skewed pool of test takers. The SAT is taken primarily by seniors bound for college, and since more girls than boys go to college, about 100,000 more girls than boys take the test, including lower-achieving girls who bring down the girls’ average score.
On the ACT, another college entrance test, the study said, the gender gap in math scores disappeared in Colorado and Illinois after the states began requiring all students to take the test.”
——————————————
“Girls are just as good at math as the boys.”
“‘Our country has a lot of stereotypes that boys are better than girls at math, and we have current evidence that both teachers and parents think that that’s true,’ said Hyde. ‘But the data don’t show that at all'”
“The research team also looked at gender differences at the highest levels of mathematical ability, and also tried to compare how well both girls and boys fared on questions requiring complex problem solving skills. In both instances, the study found little difference between the sexes.”
“Hyde’s team also looked at SAT math scores. Although it has been widely publicized that boys do better than girls on the math portion of this test, Hyde and her co-authors downplayed those results.
‘Yes, the bottom line is the boys do a little bit better on the math portion of the SAT,’ said Hyde. ‘But you have to remember that’s voluntary test-takers — it’s people who select to take the SAT because they plan on going to college. So it’s not a random sample of the population, and you really can’t learn anything from those numbers.’
‘And the catch is that more girls than boys take the SAT — by a pretty big gap. So if girls score lower, what does it tell you? It probably tells you you’re dipping down farther into the talent pool — it’s not a fair comparison.'”
“Women in science and engineering often blame their low numbers on societal factors. Some argue girls and young women traditionally receive little encouragement to enter science and engineering fields, while others note that popular culture gives females few role models.”
———————————————-
“Putting to rest one of the most widespread myths about the sexes, female and male students do equally well on math tests, according to an analysis of 7 million scores by researchers at the University of California-Berkeley and University of Wisconsin-Madison.
‘Girls are just as good as boys in math,’ said Wisconsin’s Janet S. Hyde, lead investigator of the study, published in Friday’s issue of the journal Science.”
“The notion has driven generations of girls away from advanced high school math, legitimizing a pernicious sexual stereotype, feminist scholars have asserted.”
“‘Going back to my mother’s generation, for example, women were commonly encouraged to avoid math courses,’ said Suzanne Antink, a calculus teacher at Palo Alto High. ‘I experienced a male math teacher my senior year with the same idea – from his point of view there was no reason for women to be in his class. We have come quite a way since then.’
Today, roughly half Palo Alto High’s calculus students are girls, and the Advanced Placement Statistics course is 60 percent female.”
“Women, who have more career options these days, now earn 48 percent of all mathematics bachelor’s degrees.”
“Additionally, psychologists have learned that a major factor in predicting academic success is self-confidence. Girls may be getting more encouragement about their math abilities now than previously.”
“The SAT is not an indication of overall ability, because it is not administered to a random sample of students, according to the team.”
—————————————
“Study Finds No Gender Gap in Math Scores
A study released yesterday dispels the stereotype that men are innately better than women at mathematics. The study, printed in the journal Science, examined over 7.2 million students in grades 2 through 11 and found that girls and boys perform equally on standardized math tests, according to the Los Angeles Times.”
“Progress in ending sex differences in mathematics achievement has been associated with Title IX’s prohibitions against sex discrimination in education and higher expectations for girls in all areas.”
———————————————-
“Although women have always contributed to our scientific progress, their numbers remain small and largely relegated to second-class status. Why? To find an answer we may have to start at the elementary school level. Somehow little girls are getting the notion that math and science are courses that boys excel in.”
“C. P. Benbow and J. C. Stanley published their findings in Science magazine in 1980 and found that girls and boys performed about the same on SAT-V, but boys excelled in mathematical reasoning. Girls did better than boys in computation, but overall, boys outnumbered girls 2 to 1 in SAT-M scores over 500. The authors could not explain the gap but offered ‘societal/environmental influences’ as a factor.
If we jump ahead to 2002, a study at the University of North Carolina (UNC), Chapel Hill, seems to refute these data. Dr. Guang Guo, associate professor of sociology and fellow at the Carolina Population Center, and Erin Leahey, doctoral candidate in sociology at UNC, studied the SAT scores of junior high and high school students. They found that girls had higher average math scores until age 11 and higher mathematical reasoning scores between 11 and 13. Although boys exhibited an acceleration of math skills as they aged, the largest gender difference occurred late in high school and only amounted to 1.5%.”
“maybe the media doesn’t want to report that girls do just as well or better than boys in math. University of Michigan professors Pamela Davis-Kean and Jacquelynne Eccles, along with Miriam Linver of Columbia University, made that claim at the 2002 Society for Research on Adolescence. They followed 1700 students from seventh grade and beyond and found that girls outperformed boys in grade-school math and reading”
“The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development indicated that girls from industrialized countries have better grades in math and science and tended to take more academically challenging courses than boys. But, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study in 1995 found no differences between seventh- and eighth-grade boys and girls in mathematics”
“Today’s college campuses are 60% women, and they earn 170,000 more B.S. degrees than men each year.”
So, let’s review, your constant harping on the SAT scores issue is completely & totally bogus, and women & men do equally as well at math. Oh BTW, looks like the female freshmen entering the University of Massachusetts have a consistently HIGHER GPA than their male counterparts too…lol…
Keep right on twisting & turning sexist-NYD in a vain attempt at proving that you were really “right” all along, even though you have been thoroughly & completely owned on this topic at this point…thanks for making it easy too…
Mr. Guy, you keep changing the point of the discussion. You called me a liar for saying that historically women’s SAT scores were lower than men’s. I pointed out the statistics showing that, up until this year, that was true. You pretend that quoting articles saying it’s no longer true proves that I’m a liar for saying it has been historically. That doesn’t follow.
You can keep squealing “liar,” just like you keep squealing “racist,” “sexist,” and whatever other epithets you think will discredit your opponent so you don’t have to answer their actual points. That’s what’s known as argumentum ad hominem. Your strategy seems to be to consistently respond to something you can refute, rather than the point that was actually made, and then pretend you refuted it. It may work in an oral argument, but not in writing. People can too easily read back and see what was asked and what was answered. Good night, Mr. Guy. Sleep well.
Yikes NYD… It kind of looks like you are being attacked by an ad hominem straw man. Watch out, they are vicious.
“So, experience doesn’t matter when it comes to higher production rates?? LOL…give me a break…”
-From a production standpoint, experience is significant, but the experience is what should be rewarded NOT the longevity. (This is not that hard Mr Guy!)
“Well, thanks for admitting that you really don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to contract language.”
-I didn’t admit, say or imply that. I have read numerous contracts from all walks of the business world, I have never seen a Merit clause, that is what I said sir! First, if the employer did not want a merit clause, what was the option they offered? Second, there is not a snowballs chance in hell any self respecting business owner would allow a union to dictate the conditions for “merit” raises, unions have proven time and time again they do not understand the business model, and because of this, they are anti-production. The only purpose unions serve is to ensure no one worker gets paid anymore than another worker with the same time on the job, unions are (currently) designed to inhibit individual production, and ensure all “union members” tow the union line. It is a real travesty that we have so many working Americans that are incapable of getting paid what they are worth because the union leadership ensures that the union, not the employee nor the employer determine the workers worth to the company.
“And now we stray into the land of the inherently stupid…is this all that you have left in the tank on this issue?”
Not at all, I keep my examples simple so the entity I am debating with doesn’t have to think to hard. By the tone of your non-response, I fear I have exceeded your thought level, you have my apologies for that sir. You have yet to explain what is sexist about anything I or our gracious host have posted. Simply because you want us to be sexist, doesn’t make us sexist.
“Now let’s fast forward to the FACT that there is NO statistic that says that…”
The articles you posted, which appeard to be “studies” filled with “analysis” and “statistics” and even your most recent rebuttal said women scored lower on math tests! It then went on to address several issues the “studies” decided may be mitigating factors, and in all honesty, there could very well be many many cultural reasons that affected the results, so be it, it does NOT change the result of the study.
Assuming men and women are equal in every aspect, why are women, on average, physically smaller than men? Why do women, in general, cry more than men? Why is it women can spend hour after in a mall doing nothing but looking, but get bored silly at a football game?
Now, I know you are going to do nothing more than label each of my questions as sexist, but perhaps you could articulate an actual and factual answer…just this once…
This deserves to be bumped. I fail to see how this is sexist. Sexism is defined to be “attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.” (emphasis mine). A statistic is defined to be “a numerical fact or datum, esp. one computed from a sample.”
Again…
Emphasis, again, comments added by me. You can’t change statistics so I don’t really see the argument here against NYD for being “sexist.” If you are going to deny him the opportunity to quote the statistical facts as facts (from your supporting data, nonetheless), then there really is absolutely no reason to continue to debate with you.
The twisting & turning continues…ugh…
“You called me a liar for saying that historically women’s SAT scores were lower than men’s.”
Wrong again liar…I called you a liar because you said this:
“First, you said women did worse because the SATs were biased against women.”
which wasn’t what I had said at all…as I pointed out to you.
You (and your supporters) continual prattling about SAT scores is completely & totally bogus (as it has *always* been in this discussion) because the difference in SAT scores is due to a skewed pool of test takers…the SAT is taken primarily by seniors bound for college, and since *more girls than boys go to college* (about 100,000 more girls than boys take the test) including lower-achieving girls who bring down the girls’ average score. The SAT is NOT an indication of overall ability, because it is not administered to a random sample of students, period. This discussion about SATs, as far as I’m concerned, is now over…your “factual” argument that you’ve continually been making is totally bogus…now live with it…
“It kind of looks like you are being attacked by an ad hominem straw man.”
Boo hoo…grow some backbone people…if you don’t want to get burned by your very own sexist words & indefensible postitions, then don’t speak…
“From a production standpoint, experience is significant, but the experience is what should be rewarded NOT the longevity.”
Hello?? Longevity = experience!
“First, if the employer did not want a merit clause, what was the option they offered?”
If you’re speaking about one of my former employers, they indeed DID want a merit bonus pay clause but no firm rules on how it should be applied. In the past, another division of this same agency had a merit bonus pay system with no real guidelines, and some managers would limit the number of cash bonuses that they would give out…only to be rewarded by their managers for “controlling budget costs” with a large cash bonus of their own! Our union knew about that horrible practice and sucessfully prevented that practice from becoming more widespread. Whether we like it or not, organized management has their own interests at heart, not those of their individual employees…hence the need for organized workers in the form of unions.
“Second, there is not a snowballs chance in hell any self respecting business owner would allow a union to dictate the conditions for ‘merit’ raises, unions have proven time and time again they do not understand the business model”
No one dictates to anyone in a collective bargaining arangement…the word to describe how that process ultimately works is COMPROMISE…learn it! Your ideological views have *massively* skewed your view of unions, plain-and-simple.
“You have yet to explain what is sexist about anything I or our gracious host have posted.”
“Why do women, in general, cry more than men? Why is it women can spend hour after in a mall doing nothing but looking, but get bored silly at a football game?”
LOL…read your own words you sexist…women aren’t equal to men?? LOL…your repeated sexist stereotypes speak VOLUMES for your view of women!!
“even your most recent rebuttal said women scored lower on math tests!”
More lies…is that all you guys have to add when you’ve been proven wrong??
“Hello?? Longevity = experience!”
What? Experience=Experience. SOME experience is gained through longevity (and that should be rewarded), however, unions do not recognize that, the ONLY criteria to a union is how LONG have you worked here, not what have you done WHILE you have worked here. There is a difference Mr. Guy, and your unions do not recognize that.
“…only to be rewarded by their managers for “controlling budget costs” with a large cash bonus of their own!’
Probably a true statement, and sad to boot, the advantage there is still in the hand of the worker, if the personnel in the department you mention feel they were slighted, it is there right to go to HR and complain, they have the right to look for employment where they will be justly compensated for their PRODUCTION. When a manager gets a bonus for “controlling budget costs” at the expense of production, management will (in a successful company) see the production decreases and address the manager either the manager goes or he increases production, if increased production means “recognize your people” the workers will get justly compensated (that means a raise or bonus).
“No one dictates to anyone in a collective bargaining arangement…the word to describe how that process ultimately works is COMPROMISE…”
I am well aware of the word! I fully support compromise-as do all capitalists-I just don’t agree with COLLECTIVE(IST) BARGAINING. Collective(ist) bargaining is a special leftist term that means blackmail the producer, blackmail the employer, and prevent INDIVIDUALS from excelling.
“You have yet to explain what is sexist about anything I or our gracious host have posted.”
Still waiting.
“More lies…is that all you guys have to add when you’ve been proven wrong??”
You have proven nothing sir, and if you look at the post from kylehuwer, he copy-pasted from YOUR evidence, and yet your position is WE are wrong? Surely you jest!
Again, perhaps you could articulate an actual and factual answer…just this once…
“Experience=Experience. SOME experience is gained through longevity”
Your ideologically-based stubborness on this issue is very sad. How else does one gain experience in a job other than doing that job for a long period of time?? This is like arguing with a 3-year-old…ugh…
“Probably a true statement”
No, not “probably”…this is what actually happened in that other division, and it killed morale & the ability of people to work together, which is very counter-productive to a good working enironment. The action that this division took in response was to unionize BTW.
“I just don’t agree with COLLECTIVE(IST) BARGAINING.”
Again, this is just more simple-minded ideologically-based stubborness on your part. Like I said before…”the idea of people banding together to act as one, stronger entity would be unlikeable to a ‘conservative’ in this country…sounds too much like communism right?”
If you want to know why your comments are blatantly sexist, read them to the nearest woman…lol…
“he copy-pasted from YOUR evidence”
Wrong again…I’m not the one that’s been pushing the completely bogus SAT argument…that’s sexist-NYD…
I agree with DJ 110%
Example. You have been working at job X for 10 years. Guy Q has been working for job X for 15 years. Guy Q comes to work and sleeps in his cubical, does no work, and goes home (and never gets caught because he is the CEOs son and nobody wants to fire him because of that). You, however, come in and do your work, converse with other people in different areas, constantly communicate with your bosses about what is going on, pound out work, etc. While this example is far-fetched, it serves an example of how Guy Q has more longevity but has less experience than you.
Is that a good enough example to refute you? Ugh… (sigh)(shaking head)(hand on face) Ugh… (Throwing hands up in air) Ugh…
LOL…how about a actual, realistic example of what goes on in the workplace?? You’re talking about nepotism…not about what’s been discussed here with unions.
Sure, I’ve worked with people in the past that had been working for a company a lot longer than I had, but they weren’t as “great” an employee (these things can be very subjective BTW) as I was. The idea that you DON’T get more experience by doing the same job for a longer period of time, in general, is a silly argument on the face of it, period.
Let me say it again since you seem to have a bad case of selective reading.
Your example was not only “far-fetched”…it was almost complete off-topic. Try again…
“The idea that you DON’T get more experience by doing the same job for a longer period of time, in general, is a silly argument on the face of it, period.”
I never implied experience doesn’t come with longevity Mr.Guy, I stated “experience does not EQUAL longevity” It is a choice to learn a job skill and it is a separate choice to advance your knowledge and skill sets within your chosen profession. Being hired by a company or small business and in 10 years doing nothing but the bare minimum each day, not improving yourself or the company, is not worthy or a pay raise, another worker in the same area who has been with the company or small business for 5 years and has improved his knowledge in the field, has increased his production and has improved the companies bottom line is deserving of a raise.
In both examples above, the “union” rewards both employees the same, there is NO BENEFIT in the person in the second example to continue to improve himself-why would he? The union has again shown its true intentions, to stifle production and reward those who do it.
The idea that longevity equates to experience is a silly argument on the face of it, period.
Lastly, sir, I am still waiting for the examples (read proof not your opinion) of what myself or NYD have stated that is sexist…oh and I have discussed this thread and the comments contained with several women, NONE deem anything within here as sexist.
“The idea that longevity equates to experience is a silly argument on the face of it, period.”
LOL…you said “SOME experience is gained through longevity”. I say again…how else does one gain real, tangible experience other than through longevity?? I realize, and have stated previously, that not all people continually excel in their jobs the longer that they do them, but to imply that longevity is not something at that should be valued is just ridiculous.
People are hired to do jobs, and if they do their jobs, they get paid…if not, they probably get fired. I’m sure you and your buddies in management would LOVE to pay someone LESS over time for doing the same job (by either cutting their pay outright or just by letting inflation do the work for you), but, of course, this isn’t really, fundamentally FAIR, which is something that unions are great at fighting against.
The idea that unions don’t encourage people to excel in their jobs is also a silly argument on the face of it. Unions are pro-worker, and it is in the worker’s best interest to be as good at their job as they can be.
“I have discussed this thread and the comments contained with several women, NONE deem anything within here as sexist.”
Really now…were these women that used to be men or were these real, live women with any self-respect for themselves?? Give me a break…
“Really now…were these women that used to be men or were these real, live women with any self-respect for themselves?? Give me a break…”
They were all real live working women, NON-Union successful blue collar women, typical though, you throw out a challenge “If you want to know why your comments are blatantly sexist, read them to the nearest woman…lol…” a conservative accepts it, acts on it provides feedback and you all can’t accept the results!
Nothing provided by myself or NYD is sexist in ANY sense of the word (excepting of course YOUR opinion, which is merely that-an opinion, a non-factual, unsupported utterance of no value to anyone except YOU.)
“LOL…you said “SOME experience is gained through longevity”. I say again…how else does one gain real, tangible experience other than through longevity?? I realize, and have stated previously, that not all people continually excel in their jobs the longer that they do them, but to imply that longevity is not something at that should be valued is just ridiculous.”
Yet again, you fail to grasp the essence of the discussion. I never claimed longevity does not nor cannot lead to experience, I stated longevity and experience are 2 separate areas of measurement, taking your position which seems to be “he who has been there the longest, has the most experience” is a silly statement. I have provided an example, and you choose to ignore it, so be it. I was of the impression that you were interested in debating a topic, evidently you are not, you have provided no evidence for your “claims”of sexism, you cannot articulate an honest argument for either sexism, or why unions are great, you have been unable to do anything more than spout leftist talking points-none of which are honest-and you obviously have no concept of personal excellence and the benefits personal excellence and the desire to make ones self better mean to the business world, it is sad to say the least.
I will monitor this thread until NYD archives it, and should you manage to respond with any fact that can support your opinions, I will be more than happy to respond.
Lastly, sir, I am not management, I am wrench bending, blue collar, non-union, hourly worker.
“a conservative accepts it, acts on it provides feedback and you all can’t accept the results!”
Yea, I’m sure that these imagninary women all thought that your words:
-“There are no women in the NFL, MLB, NBA are they sexist as well?”
-“Why is it women can spend hour after in a mall doing nothing but looking, but get bored silly at a football game?”
were NOT sexist…give me a break. As if there aren’t ANY women playing professional basketball…ever hear of the WNBA? I’m sure they’d be willing to school you in the art of playing basketball sometime “DJ”…lol… Also, as if there aren’t any women anywhere that have played football or that thoroughly enjoy watching football games. I went to a major university that was known for, among many things, having a great football team, and there were plenty of women in the stands. There have been plenty of women in my family that have enjoyed watching football, and I’ve dated quite a few women that liked to watch and go to football games.
You are a sexist “DJ” because you have continued to promote attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender, period end of story. Now do yourself a favor and deal with it instead of continuing to be in *massive* denial.
What you would apparently like is management to be able to reward “true experience” or “personal excellence” without just “rewarding” longevity. Of course, I haven’t seen or heard of a system yet that is really able to do that FAIRLY, which is a concept that I’m sure you’re not familiar with.
You, as is unfortunately typical of some “conservatives” in this country, do not repsond to FACTS…you are motivated only by blind ideology. That’s YOUR problem…not mine.
“I am not management, I am wrench bending, blue collar, non-union, hourly worker.”
…who favors the positions of management over positions that would assist his fellow workers. I know plenty of people like you “DJ”…you are working vehemently against your own interests and you really don’t even know it…THAT’s what’s sad!
If you were debating in front of any sort of intellectual crowd and hoping to be judged as the winner, I am sorry to say that you would be derided and ran out of the room. No proof, just pompous banter… (shaking head)
Yet another Right-winger that isn’t affected at all by actual facts…go the join the club kiddo…
Sorry “gramps,” I’ve never voted “right-winger.” Glad to see that you are so awesome that you know who I am and what I believe.
Actual facts? HELLO? The actual facts have been presented on both sides, yet you refuse to acknowledge any of the opposing.
Sorry you “pansy-liberal” (since we are making generalized assumptions and hasty generalizations).
“I’ve never voted ‘right-winger.'”
Yea, your website certainly paints you as the typical bed-wetting liberal…give me a break…
So if I am not a “bed wetting liberal” by your standards, then I therefore have to be a “right winger”? Is that what you are saying?
What is up with you and all the name calling, anyways?
3KrkN5 Excellent article, I will take note. Many thanks for the story!