|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This does seem odd for an Equal Opportunity board. However, I think we have to decide overall whether straight quotas are the way to go, or not. Seems to me we can't have it both ways, quotas for some things and not for others... because... then who decides when quotas will be implemented and when they won't?
Do we have an board made up of statistically representative quotas of say x number of Thai women and x number of black men .... then x number of Thai homosexual men or x number of heterosexual black women ... to decide on when quotas are acceptable? It seems to me if we go the quota route there will be no end to the deliniation of "groups" wanting representation. It could get ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus, since one points out that an EEOC board is a far cry from being the paragon of diversity it purports to champion, it follows that anyone observing this must be in favor of quotas.
Peculiar how the middle steps in this series of syllogisms escaped getting posted. I mean, since that is obviously so logically unsound, being the great deductive leap that it is. Would you care to repost your reasoning to this conclusion? Since the board obviously garbled it in the formatting...
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you bring up numbers and ratios of types of people making up a group and suggest things are not "equal" then we are talking quotas.
you either believe demographic imbalance is an indicator of inequality or discrimination or something amis or you don't. Pick one.
You either believe in numerical quoatas can resolve inequality or your don't. Pick one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you bring up numbers and ratios of types of people making up a group and suggest things are not "equal" then we are talking quotas.
Wrong.
Take an extreme, hypothetical example. (This sort of thing is done all the time in science to gain insight.) Say that among EOCs there were 10,000 commissioners worldwide. If every commissioner was a white women, we would be reasonably certain that sexism and racism went into the selection process. For that matter, if 9,999 were white women and one was a black man, we would still be reasonably certain that sexism and racism went into the selection process. We could, and would, object to the use of racist, sexist standards without insisting on quotas.
Perhaps this is too subtle for you to understand.
Your statement is not only wrong. It's irrational.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you're saying numerical statistics at some point indicate that their may be racism or sexism afoot?
Who gets to decide where that point is?
And what would the remedy be? Assign more of the missing racial/sexual members? How many? At what numerical ratio point would there be a reasonable chance of the implied racism/sexism being eliminated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you're saying numerical statistics at some point indicate that their may be racism or sexism afoot?
Who gets to decide where that point is?
Each and every one of us gets to decide at what point we object.
As for the point at which I would no longer suspect the use of sexist standards, there are ranges at which sexist standards favoring women are apparent, at which sexist standards favoring men are apparent, and at which sexist standards are not apparent. There are also gray areas where these border each other.
Given its current makeup, the EOC should be investigated to see if it uses sexist standards in its hiring process. If it does, those standards should be eliminated.
It's interesting, though not surprising, that you raise a question about quotas without noting that the EOC may very well use a quota system in hiring... "Let's see. What's the minimum number of men that we can have to appear at all balanced? Three? Okay we'll have three men on the commission."
No one here has demanded the use of quotas. In fact, we may well be protesting their use by objecting to the lopsided makeup of the EOC.
If the EOC is using a quota system, that quota system should be abolished. If the EOC uses sexist standards in its hiring process, those standards should be abolished. The current makeup of this commission is so lopsided that it calls out for investigation on these matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But if you are not calling for quoatas then you have to admit there is a possibility that NO men on the commission could in fact mean no sexists standards are involved.
If you are suggesting that any a particular number of men (from 1- all) on the board (as you say it would vary under your own standards) would indicate to you that sexist standards do not exist, then you advocate quotas. If you don't, then there is some number above 0 men which would eliminate that possibility for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are suggesting that any a particular number of men (from 1- all) on the board (as you say it would vary under your own standards) would indicate to you that sexist standards do not exist, then you advocate quotas.
Nope. Try reading what I said. At some point an investigation is warranted to see if quotas or sexist standards are in place. I clearly stated that, if they are, they should be eliminated.
Again, try reading what I wrote. You're a real study in the workings of the feminist mind, Lorianne. I'll say it again, so it will be clear to other readers. (You won't get it, because it doesn't suit your agenda to understand.)
At a certain point, one has reason to suspect the use of sexist standards and/or quotas. At this point, which has been reached with the makeup of the EOC, an investigation is warranted to see if quotas or sexist standards are in place. If they are, they should be eliminated. As you well know, the commission may be chosen by misandrists.
You are insisting that a demand to eliminate sexist standards and quotas is a demand for quotas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas, no I'm not. I'm making a different argument. To get there we have to determine if it is possible that if the board was all women, is it possible that no inequality exists and no quotas exist?
If you are saying that is not possible, then you are stating that numbers indicate discrimination. Therefore, it is implied in that that numbers could also eliminated said discrimination. Either way, we are talking about quotas, either used to identify a problem "might" exist or to alleviate said problem by numbers.... otherwise, if not, then it would be possible the board could be all women (or all men, or all redheads, etc) and no discrimination exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To get there we have to determine if it is possible that if the board was all women, is it possible that no inequality exists and no quotas exist?
I'm surprised my position isn't clear. Would it be possible to have all women and no discrimination? Yes. But it's extremely unlikely.
At some point, which has been reached in the composition of the EOC, suspicion of discrimination is in order. At this point, the selection process should be investigated to see if sexist standards and/or quotas are being used. If they are, they should be eliminated.
For that matter, considering this is the EOC, if sexist standards or quotas have been employed, whoever was behind them should possibly lose his or her job. The use of sexist standards or quotas in the selection of commissioners for the EOC would be an indication of possible, gross incompetence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday September 10, @04:01PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas, no I'm not. I'm making a different argument.
Lorianne, no you're not. You're changing the subject.
To get there we have to determine if it is possible that if the board was all women, is it possible that no inequality exists and no quotas exist?
And a big "So what?" Faster than light travel is mathematically possible. It's *possible* these commissions are made up of shapechanging aliens, or ascended masters? So what?
The commission bases and premises it's existance on the supposed fact that proportional representation is not just a good thing but a necessary thing.
Apparently, though, except when it applies to males
If you are saying that is not possible, then you are stating that numbers indicate discrimination.
You are putting words into people's mouths. Thomas said no such thing.
Therefore, it is implied in that that numbers could also eliminated said discrimination.
This commision implies it. Go to their website. Read their material. Do your research.
Of course, one standard for everyone else, a different standard for them.
Either way, we are talking about quotas,
Not at all.
either used to identify a problem "might" exist
Using statistical demographics is not imposing a quota system. Itis a premise by which one may, combined with other premises, be used to support an argument.
or to alleviate said problem by numbers....
That, and only that, is the correct use of "Quota."
otherwise, if not, then it would be possible the board could be all women (or all men, or all redheads, etc) and no discrimination exists.
Again, so what? The fact that it is possible is not an indication of the truth of the matter; it bears no relevance. It's possible you're really a balding, 45 year old, white latent homosexual male from Cleveland named Bruce.
And so what if you are?
You are the one here jumping to conclusions, erecting straw men, and knocking them down.
What we have a a commission, whose raison d'etre is in civil rights, and which spends much of their time preaching about "proportional representation" and "diversity" and the like as if they are sacred writ, holy grails. They support the use of "quotas" to achieve this end.
Their practice, however, is at diametric odds with their preaching.
Thus, it is woth asking whether or not this is based from any real belief in what they push as their agenda, or is it is just self-serving, political, envy-based propaganda smokescreening a hidden agenda?
Do they really believe what they say? Or what?
It's you and your kind that are having your cherished doctrine and dogma turned around on you. Once you and your liberal buddies are on the other side of "As ye judge, so shall ye be judged" it starts to sting, doesn't it?
You don't live under the quota system, Lorianne. You're a woman. You're a protected class, a higher grade of citizen. You have more rights, and you have never walked a step, let alone the proverbial mile in a man's moccasins.
So - live by the same rules for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The commission bases and premises it's existance on the supposed fact that proportional representation is not just a good thing but a necessary thing.
If that is true, and that is what they support, then they support quotas, and their own commission is an affront to their own premises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne wrote:
If that is true, and that is what they support, then they support quotas, and their own commission is an affront to their own premises.
Kinda makes you wonder about the process for selecting commissioners, don't it?
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kinda makes you wonder about the process for selecting commissioners, don't it?
I'd bet ya kiwis to kumquats these people are corrupt misandrists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday September 11, @01:22AM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
Is it over?
Is it safe to come out, yet?
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it over?
Is it safe to come out, yet?
Lorianne will never stop spewing her distortions and lies that are designed to spread hatred and oppression against men. These are the reason for her existance. (In other words, she's a feminist.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will use an analogy.
Say one attempts to measure the relative rates of two signal generators whose outputs are changing at roughly equal rates between 0 and 5 volts. If one measures 100 signals from one signal generator in a second, and 0 signals from the other, one would be tempted to look for a flaw in the measurement instrumentation.
If one then found and fixed a break in the circuitry connected to the generator that registered no signals, one might measure 100 signals in a second from one generator and 93 signals from the other.
The fixing of the circuitry would not, however, be the imposition of a quota. Such a claim would, in fact, be comical, and anyone who made it would be laughed out of the scientific community.
Anyway, Lorianne will refuse to see this, since, by her own admission, she believes that anyone, who might question the utter dominance of society by white women, would be demanding the imposition of quotas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday September 11, @12:33PM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
I think Lorraine and others are missing the point re:quotas.
A simple mental exercise:
Turn the situation around, suppose there was evidence of discrimination and a "Women's Commission was established to try to address the discrimination (not a hard exercise). Now imagine that the committee was made up of 7 men and 3 women, and it was known that at least one of those women didn't believe there was any need for the committee to even exist.
Do you think NOW or other radical feminist organizations would sit quietly while that happened? They would (and have) use every means at there disposal to "load" the committee with people that share their view, regardless of the appearance of quotas or anything else. I mean look at the outcry whenever is nominated for a position when that person is not a member of the feminist club!
Unfortunately they have been able to do that in the opposite way with this Men's committee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
instead of mine? Do you realize how much bandwitch you use up presenting my opinions (incorrectly) for me? I have to remark this is really a weasely approach to debate and discussion. Just present your own views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I won't let you get away with lying about me, Lorianne. And get over your hatred of men and little boys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will ad to my last post that, if there were 16 commissioners including 13 women and three men, we could object to the use of sexist standards without insisting on quotas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In some ways, I agree with Lorianne on this, with one BIG caveat: Let's look at the results of this commission. Do their policies and their approach to solving the problems they are presented with depict racism/sexism? I suspect they do, and hence, there would be the reason for questioning the selection of mostly women to this commission at the outset.
It would seem reasonably obvious in this case and in the NH Men's Commission case that the person appointing the commission wants the commission to reflect their politics. Does it seem likely that the Gov. of NH could find a sufficient number of men to spin the outcome along her preferences? Well, not without looking real hard. Same thing in Great Britain.
On the one hand, a commission whose membership does not match the demographics of the population can be expected to operate in a biased manner. Just go look at DACOWITS or the DoJ panel in violence against women. On the other hand, you really can't tell at the outset that bias will really occur; things may turn out just fine. Finally, the politics of the commission are likely to be called to question in any case, so you may as well be guilty when you are hanged.
I know we don't like it, but that's the way it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In some ways, I agree with Lorianne on this
Do you believe that anyone here has called for the use of quotas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point I drew from her posts is that enforcing the ethnic/gender makeup of a commission is not necessarily an indicator or predictor of the results of their work. My point is that this is true, but it is the only indicator that we have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah but that is my point too. The difference is we should be consistent about it. And if we see ethnic/gender demographic imbalances in other areas, we should acknowledge them as an indicator that something might be amis as well.
The rabid anti-quota crowd is opposed to this concept, until it is their identity group which is underrepresented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday September 23, @05:21AM EST (#66)
|
|
|
|
|
Who is the "we" being inconsistent? the EOC perchance?
Parse it any way you like, you cannot interpret this thread as calling for quotas without retrospectively altering the definition of the words being used.
Dishonest is what I call it.
Actually, I'm not normally that polite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday September 10, @01:32PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
When you bring up numbers and ratios of types of people making up a group and suggest things are not "equal" then we are talking quotas.
How wrong you are, mon cher. We are talking statistical analysis. Quotas, as you used the term, are a proposed solution to inequality.
Now, if you wish to change your definition, that's fine, but without announcing it you commit a Fallacy of Ambiguity, namely, Equivocation.
you either believe demographic imbalance is an indicator of inequality or discrimination or something amis or you don't. Pick one.
False dilemma, sweetie. Demographics may indeed contribute to indicate that something is wrong. It is most certainly not the all or nothing proposition that small minds are prone to jump to.
You either believe in numerical quoatas can resolve inequality or your don't. Pick one.
Missing the point, specifically of the form of Irrelvant Conclusion, as well as False Dilemma once again. Because one believes that a statistical analysis can be one indicator among many that something is rotten in Denmark, it does not follow that a resolution of this inequity by the use of quotas is the solution, or even that attempting to apply a solution is desireable. The "solution" may very well be to scrap the whole thing, or to ignore it as a congenitally and irredeemably biased entity.
How terrible of us Evil Men to use things like Logic, though, as we all know how patriarchal it is. Terrible, doing that to frail, female minds, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demographics may indeed contribute to indicate that something is wrong. It is most certainly not the all or nothing proposition that small minds are prone to jump to.
And yet you just jumped onto the side of saying that democraphics may be an indicator of something wrong. Thank you. You answered the question I was asking.
Now, who gets to decide if what appears to be something wrong (as evidenced by demographic imbalance) is in fact something wrong? Or do we just let things slide?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne,
Now, who gets to decide if what appears to be something wrong (as evidenced by demographic imbalance) is in fact something wrong? Or do we just let things slide?
The "who" in the first sentence and the "we" in the next sentence has me confused about what you're asking.
Are you asking which government official/entity has the authority and responsibility for evaluating such such suspicions, initiating an investigation, drawing conclusions and enforcing reforms, if any?
or
Through your use of "we", are you asking a rhetorical question about whether those participating here have the information and moral authority to make such judgements?
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The former. Which body of persons decides what constitutes a supicious demographic imbalance and what criteria would this body of persons use to determine whether or not someont was wrong? What criteria would this body of persons use to remedy the situation if they found something amiss?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne wrote:
Which body of persons decides what constitutes a supicious demographic imbalance and what criteria would this body of persons use to determine whether or not someont was wrong?
Good question, then. *s* I'm in the wrong country to find out, but maybe someone here can research and tell us who has the authority to review this Commission's selection process.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following quote from the landmark charter of human and English Consitutional liberties, the Magna Charta, clearly indicates that the make up, the means, and ends of this EOC commission are illegal and, in fact, themselves are an intentional breach of the English Constitution and thus, treasonous and criminal. The Magna Charta was ratified on June 15, 1215 in the meadow named Runnemede located above London.
I am a member of the Somerset Chapter Magna Charta
Barons.
(39) No freeman shall be seized, or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we
commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgement of his peers, or by the laws of the land.
-
(40) To none will we sell, to none will we deny, to none will we delay right or justice.
-
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The makeup of the EOC is indeed odd and makes one wonder if it's the result of anti-male discrimination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday September 10, @12:09AM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
This reminds me a bit of some controversy I've heared concerning trial jury selection.
Some time back I remember that some blacks were angry because a black man was being tried by an almost ALL white jury.
This was changed very quickly so that the jury was either 50-50 or was made up of mostly black jurors.
This may seem like no big deal, but factor in that MOST juries are made up primearily of WOMEN. Most of the time I hear...; "the jury made up of 10 women and 2 men...".
So tell me, HOW is a MAN supposed to get a FAIR trial, when the jury of his "peers" is MOSTLY women? MANY of whom are tainted by today's anti-male mentality.
If a Man is to get a fair trial by a jury of his peers, one would presume that the jury should be made up PRIMAIRILY of men or at least half male, half female.
The reverse is not the case if the accused is FEMALE. the jury make-up is roughly the same; a Majority of WOMEN, a minority of MEN.
How this stuff always seems to pass as "EQUALITY" I'll never know.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I not an attorney, but methinks this is more the result of decisions made by individual lawyers and their clients than anything else.
If I'm not mistaken (which I may well be), defense attorneys have the ability to boot whoever they don't want on the jury.
-hobbes
---
The opposite of archetypal hate is hate itself; only in the middle ground can one transcend it to see something other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday September 10, @02:25AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not an attorney, either, Hobbes. (I don't even play one on TV.)
But to the BEST of my knowledge, what you said is true.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither am I, but I do know that lawyers like to stack the jury with folks upon whose emotions they can play, not analytical types. Men, especially engineers and scientists, are not welcome unless one side or the other has a case for which that type of jury is favorable. Women are regarded as being easier to manipulate based on "feelings." Further, it seems that maybe women are more available for jury duty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm not mistaken (which I may well be), defense attorneys have the ability to boot whoever they don't want on the jury.
I'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that they get to boot a certain number of prospective jurors. After that, they're stuck. This probably differs from state to state. Anyway, I too am not sure about this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have heard it said that a jury is made up of twelve people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Majority female juries - things that make you go, "Hmmmmmmmm...."
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you're using numbers to make a determination about possible discriminatatory practices, then you're admitting that a certain numerical ration would alleviate those suspicions. This is a quota system imlied in the very suspicicion ... as in .... if the numerical ratios were different the suspicion or appearance of discrimination would be eliminated for you. What would that numerical ratio be for you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a quota system imlied in the very suspicicion
Obvious nonsense. To say that there is a problem is not to say that quotas should be used to eliminate it. As I pointed out, the problem may well be caused by the use of quotas.
Here's a question for you (I look forward to your song and dance): Do you believe that, if and when you object to the use of quotas, you are insisting on the use of quotas to remedy the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, but you are using quoats to identify a problem, or a possible problem. Implicit in that suspicion is that numerical equivalence at some point would de-signify a problem or possible problem. Ergo, quotas, if for no other reason than to eliminate the "appearence" or lessen the potential of a problem exisitng.
Several people here (maybe not you) have said it is "highly unlikely" that an all female commission could be a non-discriminatory body. That implies that a certain differnt ratio would lessen such likelihood. So it becomes again a numbers game whereby numerical ratios are expressely intended to preclude a likely outcome (which itself was predicated by numerical ratio).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, but you are using quoats to identify a problem, or a possible problem. Implicit in that suspicion is that numerical equivalence at some point would de-signify a problem or possible problem. Ergo, quotas, if for no other reason than to eliminate the "appearence" or lessen the potential of a problem exisitng.
No, I am using statistical analysis to identify a possible problem. Since you can't tell the difference between statistical analysis and the imposition of quotas, whatever you do, don't ever pretend to be a scientist. One does not use quotas in determining whether a statistical imbalance exists, though one may suspect that quotas led to the statistical imbalance. If quotas led to the statistical imbalance, then the way to remove the imbalance may be by removing the quotas. (Sorry, that's probably too subtle for you.)
If I were betting against someone in a coin toss, someone who was tossing a coin that I'd never inspected, and that person won 100 times and I never won, I wouldn't know with absolute certainty that the coin tosser was cheating. I would, however, be suspicious.
In your confused mind, I just said that a quota system should be instituted before the coin is tossed again.
You sound straight out of 1984 (or is it 2004, "Big Sister is watching.") You say, in effect, "Opposition to the use of quotas is support of the use of quotas." You are full of feminist doublespeak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One does not use quotas in determining whether a statistical imbalance exists, though one may suspect that quotas led to the statistical imbalance. If quotas led to the statistical imbalance, then the way to remove the imbalance may be by removing the quotas.
In the abscense of a memo saying, don't nominate men to the commission... or that 3 is enough men to sate suspetion inequality ... how would one know whether quotas were in place?
Since by your own admission, it is possible that all of the commission members could be women by hapenstance, without quotas being the reason, then how would you know?
But if for example you found out that a quota system was in place (allowing only 3 men) how would that be rectified? Wouldn't you necessarily have to have more than 3 men in order to prove that 3 was not the limit? And wouldn't that be a quota?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the abscense of a memo saying, don't nominate men to the commission... or that 3 is enough men to sate suspetion inequality ... how would one know whether quotas were in place?
Even though investigating these matters is not my specialty, there are ways that seem obvious. For instance, someone might come forward and say that the decision makers spoke with each other and stated, without putting it in writing, that they wanted three men and 13 women. The whistle blower might say that the decision makers insisted upon a preponderance of women in order to, for example, keep the patriarchy from dominating the commission. If you want to know the details how these investigations are carried out, you'll have to ask someone who engages in them.
However, I do know statistical analysis. The probability of randomly selecting 13 women and 3 men, given similar qualifications, is approximately one in 1024. This probability doesn't prove anything. It does, however, call for an investigation.
Again, if you want to know the details of how these investigations are carried out, you'll have to ask elsewhere.
if for example you found out that a quota system was in place (allowing only 3 men) how would that be rectified? Wouldn't you necessarily have to have more than 3 men in order to prove that 3 was not the limit? And wouldn't that be a quota?
Puhleease. You eliminate the quotas in the same way as you would if the quotas required that every commissioner be a white male. You require that people be chosen according to their qualifications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn. I hit Submit rather than Preview. Here's a slightly modified version of my last post that I really wanted to submit.
In the abscense of a memo saying, don't nominate men to the commission... or that 3 is enough men to sate suspetion inequality ... how would one know whether quotas were in place?
Even though investigating these matters is not my specialty, there are ways that seem obvious. For instance, someone might come forward and say that the decision makers spoke with each other and stated, without putting it in writing, that they wanted three men and 13 women. The whistle blower might say that the decision makers insisted upon a preponderance of women in order to, for example, keep the patriarchy from dominating the commission. If you want to know the details how these investigations are carried out, you'll have to ask someone who engages in them.
However, I do know statistical analysis. The probability of randomly selecting 13 women and 3 men, given similar qualifications, is approximately one in 1024. This probability doesn't prove anything. It does, however, suggest that an investigation is in order.
Again, if you want to know the details of how these investigations are carried out, you'll have to ask elsewhere.
if for example you found out that a quota system was in place (allowing only 3 men) how would that be rectified? Wouldn't you necessarily have to have more than 3 men in order to prove that 3 was not the limit? And wouldn't that be a quota?
Puhleease. You eliminate the quotas in the same way as you would if the quotas required that every commissioner be a white male. You require that people be chosen according to their qualifications.
As I've stated all along, your insistance, that an objection to a lopsided Equal Opportunities Commission is a call for quotas, is pure nonsense. By your reasoning every EOC in the world could be 100% white women, and anyone who questioned this would be guilty of trying to impose quotas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Puhleease. You eliminate the quotas in the same way as you would if the quotas required that every commissioner be a white male. You require that people be chosen according to their qualifications.
Ok so in our hypothethical situation, you did the investigation you said... ok quoatas are a no-no, and you instill in everyong that people are to be chosen accofding to their qualifications. Then, let's say, new commissioners are chosen and there are still only 3 males, or let's say 4 males. Now what? Did they heed the "chosen according to qualifications" dictum? How do you know if they did or they didn't?
As I've stated all along, your insistance, that an objection to a lopsided Equal Opportunities Commission is a call for quotas, is pure nonsense.
It would be nonsense if that was what I claimed. I claimed that using numerical ratios to determine "equality" is in iteself a quota system, since numerical equivalency is embedded in the supposition that it wasn't "equal".
By your reasoning every EOC in the world could be 100% white women, and anyone who questioned this would be guilty of trying to impose quotas.
Right. Exactly. Such a request would be embedded in the suspicion which was based on a numerical ratio to begin with. If there is a potential "problem" indicative by a particular numerical ratio (such as 13:0) .... then the only logical rectification is to impose another, different numberical ratio ... or quota. How could you leave it at 13:0 and then claim there is no suspicion of inequality when you first claimed there was a reason to suspect inequality (based on numbers)?
This is the problem with the entire idea of numbers but you can't have it one way and not the other. Which is my point. I happen to agree that numerical ratios out of proportion to demographics throws up a red flag. But in order not to have constant red flags in the air and claims of "inequality" flying all over the place, a quota system might not be a bad idea.
But "quota" is a nasty word ... nevermind that everyone uses the negative quota to start yelping about "inequality" to begin with. Logically, if numerical imbalances are likely to illicit infinite investigations into "inequality", it would save time if quotas were in place. They may not make things "equal" but they would at least quel the din. But of course, it is un-PC to say such a thing. Quotas are bad... except when you need them to make a case for possible inequality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I claimed that using numerical ratios to determine "equality" is in iteself a quota system, since numerical equivalency is embedded in the supposition that it wasn't "equal".
This is nonsense. Scientists will tell you that a probability of ten to the minus one is unlikely. Ten to the minus two is highly unlikely. Ten to the minus three is extremely unlikely. If you tell them they are using quotas when they say this, they will quite correctly tell you that you are nuts.
Lorianne fully well knows that quotas are not some sort of statistical tool. She'll continue to go round and round, of course. The fact is, the makeup of the EOC is extremely suspicious and warrents investigation, no matter what nonsense a typical feminist may spew about quotas being used in statistical analysis.
Me: "By your reasoning every EOC in the world could be 100% white women, and anyone who questioned this would be guilty of trying to impose quotas."
Lorianne: "Right. Exactly."
Ah, there we have it. If white women utterly dominate the world, anyone who questioned their utter dominance would be guilty of attempting to impose quotas.
Got that folks. If Jews objected to Hitler, the Jews were trying to impose quotas. If men object to utter dominance by white women like Lorianne, those men are trying to impose quotas.
As I've pointed out, this is a classic 1984/2004, Big Sister is watching, thought process. "Opposition to the use of quotas is insistance upon the imposition of quotas."
Aren't man-haters cute?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And instead fell back on your standard tactic of saying what you think I believe (using the 3rd person I might add) rather than stating your views. You also cowardly selectively qoated me to miscontrue what I said.
Hopefully honest people with integrity will go back and read my actual posts instead of your distortions.
Why won't you answer my question. If 100% women on the board is suspicious. What would it take to not be suspicious? One man, two men, three?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You also cowardly selectively qoated me to miscontrue what I said.
This is another lie.
Why won't you answer my question. If 100% women on the board is suspicious. What would it take to not be suspicious?
I have answered your question. It's not my field of expertise. You'd have to ask someone who engages in investigations of discrimination. I do know that a probability close to ten the one is not suspicious. A probability of about ten to the minus three, as we have here, is extremely suspicious. In fact, it's outrageous. As for where in between the ratio passes from reasonable to suspicious, I'll say it for the third time, you'd have to ask someone who engages in investigations of discrimination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do know that a probability close to ten the one is not suspicious.
Typo alert. That should have been ten to the zero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah but your lack of expertise did not prevent you from starting this topic in which you imply that a ratio of 13W:3M is suspicious. So, in your opinion, at what ratio would the male/female ratio of the commission NOT be suspicious to you? (In your opinion, not aksing for a precise statistical analysis).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yo, Lorianne, read what I wrote. A probability close to ten to the zero is not suspicious. A probability of about ten to the minus three, as we have here, is suspicious.
Maybe you're not so smart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday September 11, @06:20PM EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
Not a question of him refusing to answer your question. You've presented a false dilemma, of the form "Have you stopped raping children yet?" and demanded a yes/no answer.
Ask a real question, instead of getting shrill. strident, and hysterical. Typical female.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So how many men would have to be on the commission to obviate suspicions that something was amiss? There are 3 now which prompted you to post this topic. How many more than 3 would have made you not suspicious?
I already ageed with you in the second post on this topic that the numerical imbalance does ideed raise suspicions. But the issue of how many would NOT raise suspicions is relevant, since you agreed upthread that numbers in and of themselves don't prove something is amiss and there would have to be an investigaton. So it is the suspicion of something amis that we are talking about.
Would 50/50 quel your suspicions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has begun to strike me as comical. I've answered this, though apparently my response was too subtle for you to understand. Reread my posts. If you can't understand my responses, well, you'll have to think harder (though my responses are pretty clear).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll put in my two cents' worth.
I support the imposition of quota's in the case of boards designed to selectively deal with problems faced by one racial/gender group or the other. However, my (these are pretty much the only cases) very very limited support of a "quota" system doesn't directly address the main argument.
The main argument is just this : How do you know when something is rotten in Denmark?
I say there are two ways to do so:
A. If qualifications are relevent find out what the qualifying standards are: Then (depending on the geographical area the members are selected from) do a statistical analysis of the relevent numbers of qualified members of the groups being selected from.
Once that is done, you can tell whether a disparity in numbers of members of some groups in some panel/organization/job is statistically likely or not. For instance, in all the United States somewhat over 90 percent of all physicists are men, ,and the disparity is even greater in SR level positions. Thus, a hypothetical random selection for a fictional Board of US Physics would most likely result in a ratio of at least nine males for every female, if qualifications are held standard. Something would probably be wrong if it was the other way around. If given the same population to draw from the Board consisted of over 90 percent females, one WOULD have reason to conduct an investigation into possible fraud/quotas/whatever.
B. To see if there is a political bias at play one might check the selection criteria and relevent background info on the members. If we have a Men's Commission and half the members were self-described "radical feminists", then something would be wrong with the very way the Commission was set up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne,
Maybe this would be more clear if you told us your positions on these issues. I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're trying to say.
You wrote:
I already ageed with you in the second post on this topic that the numerical imbalance does indeed raise suspicions.
You have suspicions based on a numerical imbalance. You have told us that such suspicions imply a quota. Are you saying that because you are suspicious, you want to impose a quota? Are you saying you shouldn't voice such suspicions unless you want to impose a quota?
There is an imbalance here that most here, including you, have agreed causes suspicion. As you have asked others, what specific ratios do you think would be sufficient to cause or allay suspicion?
Finally, if we can get through all that. Suppose someone comes up with the information you asked for on which entity has the relevant oversight of this Commission. What would you suggest we do with that information?
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry,
Fair question and I don't mind answering it. I'd rather though talk about the broad issues of quotas that get lambasted for my personal opinions :-)
1. I believe statistical demographic imbalances indicate their MIGHT be a problem. However, I don't believe it is logical to acknowledge that this MIGHT be cause for investigation in one area, but not in another. If statistical imbalance is to be used as a red flag indicator, then the same premise should apply across the board. For example, in a company's demographic make-up such as a few years ago Wal-Mart was in the hotseat for having many female employees, but very few females were promoted to management and higher positions. I believe this was a red flag that warranted serious investigation into Wal-Mart's promotion practices. However, at the time some people claimed that statistical imbalance presented no red-flag since women did not really want to be promoted. All the usuals were trotted out: women like part-time work, women will leave when they have kids, women didn't want to put in the time a manager or higher position would entail ... etc etc. All of which MIGHT have been true, but should not negate a serious investigation to find out.
2. I think quotas have an undeservedly nasty reputation. What would be wrong with race/sex quoatas among equally qualified people? As long as a position or opportunity were not handed over to a person soley on race/sex, disregarding qualifications, you would still get the most qualified/deserving people, but in a diverse way. I do believe there still is an undercurrent of racism sexim (both ways) in this country. IMO quotas have gotten a bad rap and confused with affirmative action.
In essense you already have a quota in place when a position opens up. Lets say an school is admitting 3 new students. There is already a "quota" of 3 to be filled, no more. Therefore if 50 people apply, 47 will be turned down. Now, lets say 25 of those people are equally qualified. How would 3 be chosen if they are all equally qualified? No matter who you choose, the others are somewhat unfairly excluded no matter the criteria used, unless you draw names out of a hat. Now the question becomes, what criteria are used to select among equally qualified persons? This is where quotas it seems to me would be no more unfair than simply drawing names out of a hat... because eventually, the more diverse society becomes, the less likely it is you are seeking to overcome a gross imbalance of one sort or another which would but applicants of the overrepresented group at risk.
But the problem is not that simple. Of course there is going to be varying interpretations on "qualifications" and it will be difficult not to let subconscious prejudices intervene. And even if you did, you have individual personality to deal with. If I have two equally qualified applicants, I'm going to choose the one I simply liked the best on a peronality basis.
This is the argument against quotas because of the potentially enourmous waste of time tracking down and proving these small inconclusive biases that are simply not worth it to prove. I'm on the fence on this because of this very valid point. However, it seems to me having the "concept" of quotas as red flags is a good one and one that might provide helpful checks and balances.
Examples: More school teachers are women. Is this because of a bias against men in education or is it that not as many men want to be schoolteachers? I don't know. But looking at the imbalances should prompt investigation.
More men are engineers than women. Is this because of a bias against women in education that makes them not qualified to pursue engineering, or is there less interest in engineering among women? I don't know. But I think its worth looking into, especially since there are so many women engineers in Russia and its former satellites.
So to me, demographic imbalances are valid red flags and at least in the ideal sense (qualifications being equal) quotas are not inherently unfair as a concept. Implementation is another matter. (I see a minefield of potential problems with implementation).
Fundementally though, I would think that a Equal Opportunity Commission should be as demographically balanced as possible and I dont' see a reason why there wouldn't be as many qualifide men as women to sit on the commission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair question and I don't mind answering it. I'd rather though talk about the broad issues of quotas that get lambasted for my personal opinions :-)
Lorianne,
Heck! You're already getting lambasted for what people infer are your opinions, might as well take flak for the actual ones. At least this way you get to share your best thinking.
I don't have a reply for what you've said because what you've presented is balanced and thoughtful and, to me, indicates your best, most disciplined thinking on the matter. It requires a thoughtful response rather than an argument.
I have a weekend of hedonism planned so I can't give that kind of response, but you have given me plenty to think about and wrestle with simply because I don't have ready answers. Apparently, neither does anyone else.
I recommend more of this. :)
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Get terms defined right, they frame the debate.
Let us say I employ you. You work on my assembly line, and I say, "Larry, you MUST make 200 widgets per shift."
I have imposed a quota.
Now lets say I impose no such quota. But most people make about 200 or more widgets a night. Except Larry. He makes 173. Then 150. Then 164. So I call you in, and I say, "Larry, what's the problem? Why are you slower than everyone else?"
There is no quota. I have analyzed, I have used numbers and statistics, compared - but there is no Quota. You might be a lazy bum. You might be a meticulous, anal retentive perfectionist. Your supply line might be slow. The machine that stamps your parts may act up. The people up line from you may be slipping out and smoking joints on break. But something is off.
"Quota" ia a perjorative term. By using it improperly, two things are accomplished - first, Lorianne gets to tar people (inaccurately and maliciously) with the "You Believe in Quotas" brush. Second, by introducing a second meaning into the debate, and in not being called on it, she gets to equivocate, and say "Well, i meant it this way here, and that way there" and have it both ways. It's like the putsz in "Through the Looking Glass" (Alice in Wonderland) who insists a word means whatever they want it to mean, and it's patently absurd.
That dog don't hunt here. And you, me bucko, are being suckered.
Consider yourself duly warned.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That dog don't hunt here. And you, me bucko, are being suckered.
Gonzo,
That's always possible, but it's not the way I see it. Lorianne didn't seem to have a coherent position so I asked her for it. She told me. I now know more about her and what she's arguing for, so I got something productive out of a thread that was otherwise a complete waste of time.
If you take the view that wasting everyone's time was her intent, then I foiled her plan. :)
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a former Mayor of New York once said, let's look at the record, from Post #1:
This does seem odd for an Equal Opportunity board. However, I think we have to decide overall whether straight quotas are the way to go, or not. Seems to me we can't have it both ways, quotas for some things and not for others... because... then who decides when quotas will be implemented and when they won't?
Pretty straightforward, no misquotation; Quotas are a thing "imposed." Are there other definitions of "quota?" You betcha. My Webster's unabridged sets 5 definitions. However, a mandated numeric ratio is the context used in this definition. But wait! From Post #11:
When you bring up numbers and ratios of types of people making up a group and suggest things are not "equal" then we are talking quotas.
And one of the alternate definitions of "quota," in a roundabout way - BUT UTTERLY DIFFERENT than the context originally used! And it goes on...
you either believe demographic imbalance is an indicator of inequality or discrimination or something amis or you don't. Pick one.
One definition...
You either believe in numerical quoatas can resolve inequality or your don't. Pick one.
Then the other!
No Lorianne - you pick one. Decide which defition of quota you wish to use - and stick with it.
Incoherent? Absolutely. It's not from being flustered, though. Crazy like a fox....
In #14, she implies that to use numeric analysis one has to imposed a solution based on numeric analysis. Wrong, wrong, wrong. In the factory example I gave you I COULD demand you increase your numbers to a quota level or be fired - or I could look at other remedies - fixing the machinery, retraining you, getting rid of your pothead co-workers, accepting it because QC never red-tagged your work - none of which require a mandate of numbers It just plain does not follow.
In nineteen she argues that the use of quota numbers can be used to alleviate suspicion. And she's absolutely correct. I can hire 5 blacks and talk about how diverse, affirmative action friendly, and warm and fuzzy my workplace is - and fail to mention that they are all wage-slave janitors who are held to a standard of perfection so that they turnover regularly and never get promoted out of the basement.
And so it goes - at several posts the emphasis on the contextual meaning of quotas shifts so if someone accepts its use in one context she begins crowing about how "You've agreed with me! Hurray!" Hogwash. By message sixty she does the same damn thing. Her point one is one definiton, point two is another, and the last portion is sheer equivocation. If you then agree with one definition, hence you must support the second. If you point out the discrepancy, she gets strident and hysterical and points to the other.
It's classic sophistry and rhetoric. I was on a debate team in HS and college. I've seen it a million times. It's weasel-speak.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo wrote:
It's classic sophistry and rhetoric. I was on a debate team in HS and college. I've seen it a million times. It's weasel-speak.
Sure it is! That's why I called it a complete waste of time. That's also why I tried to point out (evidently unsuccessfully) to Lorianne and everyone else that if she is actually interested in persuading people to her viewpoint, she would be better off presenting her position fully and being willing to defend it.
If she's not, her current, annoying efforts to score debating points are serving her just fine.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
