mail from democrats: "we need more women"

[Jackrabbit]

I received such a mail from a fundraising group.

A possible response: "sorry, don't have any more; I sent all mine to Mars; they asked first, back in 1967"

[Shake]

It's worrisome that anyone thinks so simplistically. There are plenty of ways in which Congress fails to represent the general population, but I get annoyed when something is presented like this: "oh, if we only had more women in office, then things would be better." Well, not necessarily. I mean, let's think about it. We could have Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, or even someone who's been in office before and thinking about running again: Michelle Bachmann. Or you could have someone like Kim Davis decide to run.

Do women need better representation to address issues like birth control or pay inequality? Absolutely. Do I also think it'd be a good thing to just have non-male perspectives out there on any number of issues? Yes.

To me, this all relates to the idea which spawned affirmative action. That program was an attempt to force diversity at the price of, ironically, discriminating against perfectly qualified individuals who through no fault of their own, did not fit this new target demographic. The obvious problem in doino something like this is that you introduce disaffection at least, and a backlash at worst.

[Jackrabbit]

There's a difference between this and affirmative action, though.

They want to encourage the applicant to pursue a political career. The voters make the decision about whether she will get one. So she still has to have some qualifications. Some will vote for her just because she's a woman, but many will not. Winning definitely isn't guaranteed.

In affirmative action, the choice is forced on the employer. The qualifications of the candidate, or lack thereof, are not the deciding factor.

[dancer_rnb]

Like the qualifications of the candidate is ever the deciding factor when prejudice is involved.

It's an anecdote, but one black engineering contractor told me he gets better results when he only has a phone interview, and the first time the know he's black is the first day on the job.

A lot or orchestras have implemented tryouts where the judges never see the the musician. They can just hear him or her.

[Politesse]

[quote=""Jackrabbit""]In affirmative action, the choice is forced on the employer. The qualifications of the candidate, or lack thereof, are not the deciding factor.[/quote]

Example?

[Politesse]

[quote=""Shake""]To me, this all relates to the idea which spawned affirmative action. That program was an attempt to force diversity at the price of, ironically, discriminating against perfectly qualified individuals who through no fault of their own, did not fit this new target demographic.[/quote]What demographic do you believe that John Kennedy was attempting to "discriminate against", and how was this accomplished? Can you provide evidence that the demographic thus discriminated against is suffering as a result?

The obvious problem in doino something like this is that you introduce disaffection at least, and a backlash at worst.

So if a law will provoke a backlash from those in power, we should not enact it?

[Jackrabbit]

[quote=""Politesse""]

In affirmative action, the choice is forced on the employer. The qualifications of the candidate, or lack thereof, are not the deciding factor.

Example?[/QUOTE]
By definition, factors other than qualifications are taken into consideration. Maybe the affirmative candidate is more qualified and maybe he isn't.

Maybe the solution would be that all job interviews are over a comm link rather than face to face, with voices electronically altered, thus the employer would not know the race or gender of the applicant. Edit: looks like Dancer already touched on this.

Some bigots will always find a way, though. My brother once had an employer who would reject resumes because the person's name "sounded black". And he bragged about it, making a big show of tossing the resume in the trash.

[Politesse]

[quote=""Jackrabbit""]Maybe the solution would be that all job interviews are over a comm link rather than face to face, with voices electronically altered, thus the employer would not know the race or gender of the applicant. Edit: looks like Dancer already touched on this.[/quote]We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that employers make different hiring decisions when qualities of race and gender are obscured. There have been many, many studies confirming this. But employers themselves have always resisted these measures, and they also are not an alternative to affirmative action legislation. Affirmative action as defined at the federal level does not and has never implied any specific method of reaching race and gender balance, only a requirement that we must attempt to do so somehow or other. Indeed, in my state, the Supreme Court ruled against the concept of a racial quota in the very same month it also ruled that programs of affirmative action are obligatory. Since your proposal would have the effect of evening out unequal hiring practices, it would be considered affirmative action under the law.

Some bigots will always find a way, though. My brother once had an employer who would reject resumes because the person's name "sounded black". And he bragged about it, making a big show of tossing the resume in the trash.

Quite common in fact. Read a study put out by the Center for Urban Education not too long ago that demonstrated the impact of names on grading assignments; the same essay would get drastically different scores depending on the racial association of the name written in the header. And this was conducted at a university normally considered "liberal".

[MattShizzle]

Maybe they'd need to have all applications/resumes be assigned a number and not have a name on - they wouldn't even know male or female until a decision was made and also wouldn't be able to discriminate based on appearance, disability, etc.

[Jackrabbit]

[quote=""MattShizzle""]Maybe they'd need to have all applications/resumes be assigned a number and not have a name on - they wouldn't even know male or female until a decision was made and also wouldn't be able to discriminate based on appearance, disability, etc.[/quote]
The number replacing name could be added to my comm link gag, which already hides most of that, including gender. With the comm link, the employer and candidate would be in separate rooms.

Of course, employment history and references would be an issue, as they wouldn't be able to use a number for those, unless it was some type of nationwide numbering system that all companies/employees/candidates participated in.

[Shake]

[quote=""Politesse""]

The obvious problem in doing something like this is that you introduce disaffection at least, and a backlash at worst.

So if a law will provoke a backlash from those in power, we should not enact it?

If the backlash is going to hurt those the original law intended to help, then yes. That's not really what I was going for there anyway. My point was that trying to legislate equality in this way can be unfair to qualified people seeking a particular position. Ideally, an employer would hire a person best suited for the job, regardless of gender, age, or ethnic background. I was also getting at the point that we shouldn't be voting for people solely on the basis of gender. If I feel a woman who is running for a particular office is the best candidate, I'll vote for her. If I don't think she's the best choice for the job, I won't.

The system is far from ideal. Ideally, in a representative government, there would be a nearly 50-50 gender split. I realize things are changing now, but historically, it's just a fact that not as many women have even tried to run for office. Hell, we're only just coming up on the century mark of women having the vote in this country! Of course they're going to be underrepresented. I'm not defending that lack of representation. In fact, I'm proud to be associated with the Justice Democrats, among whose 51 candidates are 26 women (several are women of color, even)!

[MattShizzle]

[quote=""Jackrabbit""]

Maybe they'd need to have all applications/resumes be assigned a number and not have a name on - they wouldn't even know male or female until a decision was made and also wouldn't be able to discriminate based on appearance, disability, etc.

The number replacing name could be added to my comm link gag, which already hides most of that, including gender. With the comm link, the employer and candidate would be in separate rooms.

Of course, employment history and references would be an issue, as they wouldn't be able to use a number for those, unless it was some type of nationwide numbering system that all companies/employees/candidates participated in.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I meant along with your idea. Names can also make it rather obvious what someone's race/ethnicity/religion/etc is. Lakeisha Johnson, Ramon Diaz, Moishe Horowitz and Mohammed Al-Marri are all probably what you would guess...

[Jackrabbit]

[quote=""MattShizzle""]

Maybe they'd need to have all applications/resumes be assigned a number and not have a name on - they wouldn't even know male or female until a decision was made and also wouldn't be able to discriminate based on appearance, disability, etc.

The number replacing name could be added to my comm link gag, which already hides most of that, including gender. With the comm link, the employer and candidate would be in separate rooms.

Of course, employment history and references would be an issue, as they wouldn't be able to use a number for those, unless it was some type of nationwide numbering system that all companies/employees/candidates participated in.

Yeah, I meant along with your idea. Names can also make it rather obvious what someone's race/ethnicity/religion/etc is. Lakeisha Johnson, Ramon Diaz, Moishe Horowitz and Mohammed Al-Marri are all probably what you would guess...[/QUOTE]
Of course, if you get a name like Klomtom Rruj, you damn well better give that applicant a job, no matter what qualifications or lack thereof, because it's extremely dangerous to piss off a Klingon.