The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
ermm can someone tell me why these are 2 different things? sexism is sexism no matter what sex is being discriminated against.
this also goes for all other kinds of isms floating around the world
this also goes for all other kinds of isms floating around the world
Page:
In America, Harvard used to allow Black candidates in over equally as good white ones. The reason? Well, blacks were low class, working people who were looked down on at the time. By allowing more of them to get good education and take top positions it could actually reduce the amount of racism in America.
But then again, there are now scores of people suing Harvard for not giving them a place all those years ago.
Is it wrong?
Sonic
But then again, there are now scores of people suing Harvard for not giving them a place all those years ago.
Is it wrong?
Sonic
yet that is not sexism? Does a bloke not deserve more than 3 days off to see his kid when it is born? Obviously not. But a women deserves However long (dunno the exact figure but it's more than 3 days!), and don't tell me that's because of the physical reasons, I know that a women will (and should) get longer off than the bloke when having a child, but three days?!?
Anyway, Positive discrimination is just about the government making sure business is politically correct, and doesn't appear sexist/racist, etc. when the government is actively encouraging the businesses to do so, just against the group who are traditionally not discriminated against. Why should an employer have to hire X number of women? What if no women want the job, or any women that do apply are totally unsuitable? What can the employer do then? Hire an incompetant female simply because she is a female? As far as the government are concerned that's great. I don't think it's so great for the business though.
And the games designers thing... Dunno about race, but the sex thing, just think about how many female gamers you know and how many male gamers you know, and you try to figure that one out...
Anyway, Positive discrimination is just about the government making sure business is politically correct, and doesn't appear sexist/racist, etc. when the government is actively encouraging the businesses to do so, just against the group who are traditionally not discriminated against. Why should an employer have to hire X number of women? What if no women want the job, or any women that do apply are totally unsuitable? What can the employer do then? Hire an incompetant female simply because she is a female? As far as the government are concerned that's great. I don't think it's so great for the business though.
And the games designers thing... Dunno about race, but the sex thing, just think about how many female gamers you know and how many male gamers you know, and you try to figure that one out...
funkygamer wrote:
They can take
> time off once the child is born, 3 or 4 weeks paid leave I think.
3 fudging days.
I know I've been there.
Mind you, they plan to increase that figure as of April this year, I believe.
They can take
> time off once the child is born, 3 or 4 weeks paid leave I think.
3 fudging days.
I know I've been there.
Mind you, they plan to increase that figure as of April this year, I believe.
I think, to make things fair, blokes should be able to take time off work when their missus is up the duff. That way there's equal chance of any employee taking time off for pregnancy, male or female.
Of course, the obvious disadvantage is the possibility that ugly people get preference as there's less chance they'll get laid...
Of course, the obvious disadvantage is the possibility that ugly people get preference as there's less chance they'll get laid...
Ben Hodgetts wrote:
> my point was why do companies have to have a certain
> number of women or a certain number of men in their
> company?
I suspect it is because some companies do not hire women because they would get pregnant and not work for 10 months at the companies expense. Fortunatley, we live in a society where we are trying not to penalise women for having a family. Positive Discrimination exists to redress existing inconsistency in how people are hired.
Yes, people should get a job that they are qualified and experienced for, but statistics show that white men tend to do better much than any other demographic, not because they are better for the job, but just because they are white males.
I suggest that rather than hiring two women who were not up to the job, your brothers' company should have hired the two that were, then re-advertised the job to find people better qualified.
And you totally side stepped the question I pose below.
> my point was why do companies have to have a certain
> number of women or a certain number of men in their
> company?
I suspect it is because some companies do not hire women because they would get pregnant and not work for 10 months at the companies expense. Fortunatley, we live in a society where we are trying not to penalise women for having a family. Positive Discrimination exists to redress existing inconsistency in how people are hired.
Yes, people should get a job that they are qualified and experienced for, but statistics show that white men tend to do better much than any other demographic, not because they are better for the job, but just because they are white males.
I suggest that rather than hiring two women who were not up to the job, your brothers' company should have hired the two that were, then re-advertised the job to find people better qualified.
And you totally side stepped the question I pose below.
my point was why do companies have to have a certain number of women or a certain number of men in their company? my brothers workplace has just had to hire 4 women because there wasn't enough female employees there. now from what he tells me out of the 4 only 2 should have got the job as 2 men were better qualified than the other 2 women.
so now i ask would there ever be a situation where someone tells the company they have to employ 4 men due to not enough men working there. answer is the hell they would because of course that'd be sexist wouldn't it? but it seems it's alright to do this for women so why is that called positive discrimination and not it's rightful title of sexism? same thing different sex
so now i ask would there ever be a situation where someone tells the company they have to employ 4 men due to not enough men working there. answer is the hell they would because of course that'd be sexist wouldn't it? but it seems it's alright to do this for women so why is that called positive discrimination and not it's rightful title of sexism? same thing different sex
Lets take gaming as an example.
When was the last time you saw a profile in a games mag on a black or woman game designer or programmer? I have never seen such a thing, ever. Why is that? Do they not exist? Why do they not exist?
How would you promote developing and designing games as a career that is not just the bastion of white middle class men (*background crowd gasps at this amazing revelation*)?
When was the last time you saw a profile in a games mag on a black or woman game designer or programmer? I have never seen such a thing, ever. Why is that? Do they not exist? Why do they not exist?
How would you promote developing and designing games as a career that is not just the bastion of white middle class men (*background crowd gasps at this amazing revelation*)?
The thing is, employers shouldn't have to view someone as equal when clearly they're not.
If someone has a personality which the employer believes will disrupt, or be otherwise detrimental to their business, they are allowed to discriminate. If however, the person is a male/female/disabled/homosexual, and that will disrupt the workplace, the employer must ignore that.
A person should be chosen on their suitability for the job, regardless of ANY factors which must be taken into account when deciding that overall suitability.
If you're partially sighted and have a stutter, don't apply to be a commentator. That's no different to saying that if you have no GCSE's, don't try to get a job as a brain surgeon.
It should be about your overall suitability for the job, nothing else.
If someone has a personality which the employer believes will disrupt, or be otherwise detrimental to their business, they are allowed to discriminate. If however, the person is a male/female/disabled/homosexual, and that will disrupt the workplace, the employer must ignore that.
A person should be chosen on their suitability for the job, regardless of ANY factors which must be taken into account when deciding that overall suitability.
If you're partially sighted and have a stutter, don't apply to be a commentator. That's no different to saying that if you have no GCSE's, don't try to get a job as a brain surgeon.
It should be about your overall suitability for the job, nothing else.
Positive Discrimination is about giving everybody a fair chance, no matter if you have white or black skin, are a man or a woman, have two legs or non.
I was in another forum where a budding web designer who had good skills was finding it very difficult to get a job, because he was 70% deaf or something. Positive Discrimination is about saying this man should not be discriminated against because he finds it hard to hear.
It is a fact that if you are a white male going for a job, you stand a better chance than if you are a black male (or white female even!), with the same qualifications going for the same job. I have heard examples from the people who interviewed me where a woman isn't given a job because it is a male environment and she would just disrupt it, despite the fact that she had just as good qualifications, if not better than the men she was up against.
Positive Discrimination is not about discriminating against the majority, even if it was, the "majority" already have a massive head start in life anyway.
Just the facts boys, just the facts.
I was in another forum where a budding web designer who had good skills was finding it very difficult to get a job, because he was 70% deaf or something. Positive Discrimination is about saying this man should not be discriminated against because he finds it hard to hear.
It is a fact that if you are a white male going for a job, you stand a better chance than if you are a black male (or white female even!), with the same qualifications going for the same job. I have heard examples from the people who interviewed me where a woman isn't given a job because it is a male environment and she would just disrupt it, despite the fact that she had just as good qualifications, if not better than the men she was up against.
Positive Discrimination is not about discriminating against the majority, even if it was, the "majority" already have a massive head start in life anyway.
Just the facts boys, just the facts.
Page: