posted
Unacceptable Discrimination: -Discrimination against racial minorities -Gender Discrimination -Religious Discrimination -Cultural Discrimination -Discrimination against homosexuals -Discrimination against old people -Discrimination against people with disabilities
Acceptable Discrimination(?): -Discrimination against the ugly -Discrimination against young people -Discrimination by clothing -Discrimination based on handshake -Discrimination by wealth/social status -Discrimination by educational degree
One's beauty doesn't predict one's character any more than one's race would. Why then is racism an illegal hiring practice and considered a terrible ethical wrong, while favoring beautiful people is considered to be expected? Or, for that matter, is one's religious preferences any less reflective of one's character than one's clothing?
posted
Careful! Next we'll have hiring quotas of ugly people. And we'll all sit in our cubicles wondering "is it ME? Am I the token ugly guy?"
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I noticed the ones on the "acceptable" list are mostly traits that can be conveyed visually, or a few moments speaking with a person, or on an application (the references you made conveyed jobs).
"Good" genetics come through in physical traits, and level of financial or educational success is also subconciously conveyed as being "good" genetics. Likable, desirable traits.
What I am getting at is that its all a basis of darwinism---the most attractive (depending on the species), strongest, sharpest, quickest, and hardest working are the ones to perpetuate the species.
I am not saying this is a good thing--or agreeing with it. I am just rationalizing it.
As for young people---they are generally percieved to be irresponsible and/or inexperienced.
If you don't have a lot of money, you must not work hard enough, is the assumption. As is the assumption that if you didn't go to college, you were either lazy with school, had lazy parents who couldn't afford to send you, or you're stupid.
Clothing is a culutral thing---if you don't conform to the "acceptable" culture, then you aren't "acceptable." You have to conform to what they believe is proper.
As for the handshake---I think that's more of a blatant cultural thing too that gets opening taught to us ("If you have a strong handshake, it means you're confident"). I can't tell you how many times I conciously made the effort to squeeze someone's hand to make a good impression.
None of these are really all that acceptable, but they are accepted anyway. (edited for additions)
posted
Many of those traits are also subjective. I may think someone is "ugly", but someone else may not.
Also, when do you stop. Maybe we should discriminate against beards, or eye color, or nose size. At some point it just gets ridiculous(sp).
Posts: 98 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may get ridiculous, but it also is happening. And I'm not even blaming anyone. It could be subconscious. Also, it could go the other way.
What happens when people who are too worried about showing favoritism to the attractive people that they end up discriminating against the attractive?
Unfortunately, life is not college or a job interview, and people will always base their opinions on what they see first and what they hear (or read) second.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax, I think there are two easy answers:
1) Prejudice against changeable behavior -- like, say, handshakes -- is pretty much permitted.
2) Prejudice against completely subjective indicators -- like "ugly" -- would be impossible to prove, and at any rate would not oppress all members of a given society or culture.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Discrimination based on sexual behavior is actually fine, in my book. If someone is going to be hitting on every member of their orientation target group, be it hetero or homo, co worker or customer, I don't want them working for me. (me and my seedling business concept.)
Certain categories are protected by the constitution. Religion, race, gender. I imagine we are not too far off from an amendment instituting protection of genetically determined traits. Then the race will be on to prove the genetic transmission of sexual orientation, assymetry of eye size, that hump on your neck, and "bad hair". Also, the inability to finish what you've started. (Seriously, I know people who think this last one is genetic).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Inability to finish what you've started? Must be passed down through the woman's genes, right? I mean, if the guy can't....
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.
Looking at the second definition, pretty much anything that involves deciding between two choices based on their merits can be considered discriminating. The word discrimination has been tossed about so much in terms of racism and such that it had garnered a negative connotation. People almost never use it for it's actual definition, which is to make a distinction. If I go to the store and decide to buy one product rather than another because it is cheaper, I am discriminating based on price.
There are certain types of discrimination that are not acceptable, such as based on race. Other types of discrimination are usually unacceptable except in certain circumstances, such as choosing a physically healthy person over a physically handicapped person to be a physical education teacher. The type of acceptible discrimination in hiring should be based on whether they are qualified for the job or not. Race or gender, in most cases, should not factor in to whether they should get the job. A college degree, however, should factor in if the job requires one to effectively be done.
posted
Discrimination against fat people? Is that covered in your list under "ugly"? I know I have seen discrimination based on weight (although they would never admit that's what it was).
I also have a good friend who has good skills, but can't get a job when they learn he has a heart condition. They don't want to put him on company insurance and worry about how that would affect everyone else's rates, I suppose.
Even with anti-discrimination laws and EOE, that doesn't really do away with social stigma. Our society has a long way to go. Such as, here at work, I was mentioning a certain very nice black woman who is in the very upper-eschelon of the executive branch of our company. Right up there in the ranks with the CEO & board members. And a comment was made "no one really knows what she does (for the company) -- she is just the 'token black woman'." I was angered by that statement. Because they really don't have enough information to back that up, and it isn't true.
But I hear that all the time "Oh, that's just our 'token minority' in this department or that. It is just terrible.
I'm one of two females in my department. Do you think I haven't often wondered if I'm the "token female in IT?" And when there is a department where there is ONE guy working in an otherwise all-female department, the others guys around here all assume he's gay.
posted
Farmgirl, thank you for remembering that there is discrimination against those of us who are fat.
I'm here to tell anyone who doesn't believe that it exists that they are wrong. It is never stated that way - usually more along the lines of "You don't look professional enough" or "You're going to take too many sick days". Both of which are ridiculous.
And I'd appreciate not hearing the excuse that it's okay to discriminate against fat people becuase they can lose weight. Number one, not all of us can lose weight that easily. That doesn't mean that we should be denied the opportunity to earn a living. Number two, discrimination based on religion is a big no-no, but as far as I can see no one is forced to be a particular religion.
After a year and a half of looking for a job without result, I can only assume that I am not hired based on the fact that I am somewhat, but not hugely overweight. In other words, I'm bigger than some people, but smaller than a whole lot of other people. I have a BA. I graduated with honors, and also received departmental honors both of my upper division years. These departmental honors are not the kind that are just given to the top people in the deparment, but are only conferred if there are students that have been judged to have acheived certain academic criteria. I have the leadership experience that so many employers seem to value, having held leadership positions, including chapter president, in campus organizations. I have great recommendations from academic mentors as well as from former employers. And, significantly, I have a great work record. I get to work on time, and I actually work while I'm there. Additionally, in over two years of working for one employer, for example, I only called in sick one day. Yet I cannot managed to get hired anywhere. Gee, I wonder why.
Sigh. Sorry for the rant, but this really bugs me.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never minded being hired as the token female engineer. I just make them give me a real job that interests me, then I do my very best to excel at what I do, and pretty soon nobody remembers that I was once hired as a token. <laughs> Then they start yelling if I have to take off for any reason, and they pretend that nobody else but I can possibly do the start-up in northern Siberia that's coming up over Christmas or whatever. So sometimes I have a few pangs of regret that I can't just say, "but, but, but... I'm a girl! I was hired to look pretty! Get someone else to do all that hard work and stuff!" <laughs> Only of course I can't. Pride is a terrible thing.
At my paper mill engineering job, the president of the company, Bob, was sort of a skirt chaser, and I feel sure that affected his decision to hire me. He sort of made up a job for me to work at, a systems analyst sort of job because I didn't have much engineering experience at that time, and then we got very busy and they asked if I'd like to try some of the engineering and I said "you bet!". Anyway, his partner Pete, the technical dude, was really angry that he hired me, at first, and wouldn't speak to me hardly or give me anything to do. I believe (years later after I found out all the personal dynamics from working there six years) that Pete thought Bob was wasting company resources on me for inappropriate reasons. Bob did flirt with me some, but I deflected that fairly easily, and he was not a creep at all. He wasn't out to take advantage, in other words. He just was a man upon whom an attractive girl has a powerful effect. Anyway, Pete went with me on my first 2 start-ups, and at first tried to sideline me as much as he could (and admittedly, I was very inexperienced, so he was somewhat justified) but I just didn't take that. I made Pete explain all the ins and outs, describe what his philosophy was, asked him to please not give up on me, to teach me what I needed to know, and before that first start up was over (three grueling weeks of 13 hour days with no days off, Pete took day shift and I did nights with overlap meetings every morning and night), he and I were great friends and he was my mentor from that time on. I just adored Pete, because he was very much like me only better. Very hands on. More experienced, more determined, and harder working.
So being hired as a token is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes you get the feeling you are invisible, for a while, but that just means you are free to define what it is you want to do, and then do it. Nobody will object if you take on the hard jobs and knock them through the roof. They will be delighted. Then just watch out for your time off, because they will not want to let you take it anymore. <laughs>
posted
The discrimination you have labelled as "okay" and "accepted" is not entirely accepted.
Education as a discrimination is unfortunately unavoidable. You can't hire someone who isn't capable of doing the job.
Clothing and accesories etc. usually reflects an idea you want to protray, so being discriminated based on that is sometimes your fault. It it's not usually okay, even that way.
Since the majority of people are not supermodels, ugliness is a ridiculous thing to say is "okay". Where does "beautiful" end and "ugly" begin? it's also very subjective. Rarely do people not like other people "because they're ugly."
Wealth and social status is definately not okay.
Young people is perhaps the only one which is considered okay and shouldn't be. But compared to the past, children and youth are very powerful, so discrimination is often justified. It is undeniably true that someone ten years old has, in general, less experience than a thirty-year old.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why unpack what is true? Personally, I think the whole thread question is loaded. I have seen time and time again those that are listed as "minority" descriminate against a member of the "majority" because, well, its acceptable. This is especially the case if you are a Single White Male -- then you become a bigot perpetrator.
I like what aka's experience implies to me personally. If you want to be seen as worthwile than show you are worthwile; and don't just yell "descrimination" every time you don't get your way. I am not saying there isn't a lot of legitamate cases of bigotry going on. What I am saying is that we have become so concerned with descrimination that descrimination is all we are left with. Talent and qualification are no longer legitimate considerations.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, you forgot the implicit start of my statement. I would NEVER have gotten the chance to prove I am okay without the law and resulting trend in our society that says you OUGHT to have at least one female engineer, black vice president, or whatever. Were there no such thing as so called reverse discrimination (which is really just an attempt to partially redress the FORWARD discrimination which is still very much in effect all over), there would be no token anythings.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's important to recognize that discrimination and disparity are facts of life. As a short (5' 1") man, it's been a reality in my own life - less now, due to choices I've made in terms of occupation and associations than it has in the past.
The reasons for the real effects of seemingly irrelevant features such as weight and height are real and have been studied. It's not necessarily as easy to pin down all the factors at work.
Here's a couple of interesting articles I googled, both by Steven Landsburg on Slate:
quote: "I know what wages beauty gives," said the poet William Butler Yeats about a century ago. Modern econometricians know more precisely. In their published research, Professors Daniel Hamermesh and Jeff Biddle estimate that if you're perceived as beautiful, you probably earn about 5 percent more than your ordinary-looking counterparts.
As beauty is rewarded, so ugliness is penalized. Ugly women earn about 5 percent less than other women, and ugly men earn about 10 percent less than other men. That's right; the market punishes men more than women for being unattractive. Moreover, men's looks haunt them at every stage of their careers: Better-looking men get more job offers, higher starting salaries, and better raises. For women, good looks will get you better raises but usually not better job offers or starting salaries.
quote:Economists have known for a long time that it pays to be tall. Multiple studies have found that an extra inch of height can be worth an extra $1,000 a year or so in wages, after controlling for education and experience. If you're 6 feet tall, you probably earn about $6,000 more than the equally qualified 5-foot-6-inch shrimp down the hall.
quote: think it's important to recognize that discrimination and disparity are facts of life. As a short (5' 1") man, it's been a reality in my own life - less now, due to choices I've made in terms of occupation and associations than it has in the past.
So why is discrimination against short people just a fact of life, whereas discrimination against black people is a massive problem that we need to resort to reverse discrimination to solve? Why do people feel discrimination against short people is understandable, but racism is monsterous?
When are short people going to get their affirmative action?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So why is discrimination against short people just a fact of life, whereas discrimination against black people is a massive problem that we need to resort to reverse discrimination to solve? Why do people feel discrimination against short people is understandable, but racism is monsterous?
A few reasons come to mind: No history of banning of short people from employment, no history of "short only" facilities, "short only" schools. In short, there was a long history of policy-driven discrimination against blacks in many areas in this country - and contrary to a lot of beliefs, not limited to the South.
Added to that, the discrimination against people who are short or fat cut across cultural and racial groups. The discrimination seems to be shared across groups.
As for affirmative action for short males, it's because there is no group highlighting the impact of dicrimination related to height and working for at least a raising of awareness. It won't be me trying to do it either - I'm already working full-time in rights work in another area.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"In short, there was a long history of policy-driven discrimination against blacks in many areas in this country - and contrary to a lot of beliefs, not limited to the South."
Hey, can I be a token Mormon? We were forced out of the United States and had an extermination order leveled against us. I also know plenty of instances where Mormons were refused a job because of their religious affiliation.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I was having almost that same conversation with a co-worker (male) in my department over lunch the other day. I was wondering why he didn't get promoted to officer at the same time as three others did (with the same years worked, job duties, etc.) He said it was because all of the upper officers have a certain "look" -- and once I thought about it in our own company, I could see what he meant. Most men promoted to executive level are at least near 6 foot (I'm 5'8", and I know I look up to all of them) and have that certain attractive business flair (which I can't describe here in words). The co-worker I was talking with dresses very very nice always, always looks professional, but is shorter and doesn't have that commanding presence. I think in corporate terms they are too hung up on "image" -- they talk about company image, and professional image -- and if you don't fit into whatever their 'image' is, then your chances of promotion are slimmer.
And we are considered one of the best companies in the area to work for -- really! I think we have LESS of a problem with this than most other corporations in town.
posted
This is a loaded topic for me because of my experiences in the work place.
"We can't have people like that working here" If you are hired, the first time you have a seizure, on the job, at home, anywhere, you WILL be terminated"
Because my work performance couldn't be criticized, a supervisor went to my temp boss and told her I was doing drugs on company time and property. I took a drug test then and there and of course it was clean. Side note: This was at a ceramic chip afg. I worked in the plating room. During my tenure there as a temp worker, I redesigned the annode wash station. Designed a better funnel for the annode basket refilling (which reduced 'wasted' annodes that were dropped in the plating tanks). I designed a recycle plan for used media (carbon steel pellets that facilitaed the plating process. I also have an idea that will increase plating production by a factor of 10. Production was 3,000,000 chips at the time. My last night working could care less whether I did my job or not and plated 12,000,000 chips. You can imagine what my production record was like when I gave a damn.
"Mr. Brown's employment was terminated because of his medical condition for which he takes medication." Even with that written document, EEOC concluded I had no basis for a discrimination complaint.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
