Female-only positions have the potential to reinforce sexist stereotypes such as women aren't capable of getting 'real' positions.
I personally would hate to get a job via positive discrimination (unless I was absolutely desparate for money and needed a job more than I needed self-respect).
My general rule/belief is equality in all cases. If women can pass the same tests the men do to become Navy SEALs then I have no problem with them doing the job. But if they can't, standards shouldn't be lowered for them.
That said, I'd be interested to hear if anyone has an example of where positive discrimination has worked well.
I was inspired by a post in another thread.
So what's your stance: Equality in all cases, or positive discrimination can help society?
At a college here a few years back, a particular department set up one or two female-only academia positions. I could kinda see why they were doing it (to increase the number of women academics in that field) but it grated on me. IMO, it's better to look at the reasons behind severe gender imbalances in particular areas and see if they can be addressed in other ways. Female-only positions have the potential to reinforce sexist stereotypes such as women aren't capable of getting 'real' positions on merit.
I personally would hate to get a job via positive discrimination (unless I was absolutely desparate for money and needed a job more than I needed self-respect).
That said, I'd be interested to hear if anyone has an example of where positive discrimination has worked well.
This might be a bit of an extreme example, but it's an interesting story, nonetheless.
In a village in India, a quota system was instituted for women to be given a place in the local governing body. A few village women were elected to posts, much to the dismay of the local community - how could women who had spent most of their lives at home be involved in such important governing matters?
Now, there was a problem in the village regarding toilets, there weren't any. This was okay for the men, since they used the fields. But the women were unable to, as a result of which they were forced to suppress the need in the daytime and go the fields after dusk. Naturally, this brought about a lot of health problems for the women.
So, the elected women decided to spend some of the funds on building toilets, which was met with strong opposition by a lot of people who thought it was a waste of resources. The women went ahead with it anyway, as a result of which the village women are now able to use the toilets, and lead healthier and happier lives.
The entire village is happy now, even the men, once they realized the benefits. And some of the women were re-elected next term without any quota, men had a new-found respect for women, other women felt encouraged, and girls felt like they had someone to look up to.
Of course, I would personally not want to get a job through postive discrimination. But that is because I don't need it - I've been brought up by a well-off family who are educating me as much as they can. Why would people who have never faced negative discrimination need postive discrimination?
But there are other people who would need it, and those policies are for them.
So what's your stance: Equality in all cases, or positive discrimination can help society?
The goal of positive discrimination is to favor groups of people who have been historically disfavored or disadvantaged.
"Our democracy is willing to destroy any or all freedoms for the sake of equality."
--Nikolai Berdyaev
It doesn't just look like systematic discrimination, it is. Most people agree that there should be equality, but how do you get true equality in the system you described? Without introducing a positive bias into the system it will not change. Women need equal opportunity and positive discrimination (affirmative action, incentives, social pressure, whatever you want to call it) is a way to balance out the negative discrimination and create that.My views with regards to discrimination in general is quite a bit more complex. Our cognition is reliant on discrimination to make decisions. We need it to decide if something is "good" or "bad". Often, many people don't realise that they're discriminating against groups of people based on personal prejudice.
As such, when an employer is looking to hire people, he may feel a stronger connection to a male, who talks sports etc. with him as opposed to the shy female contender who has better qualifications but stutters and blushes. He's not discriminating against the female because of her sex. He's choosing the male because he feels a stronger connection to other guys.
Multiply this several-million-fold (most high-level management is male) and you have what looks like systematic, sexist discrimination.
It doesn't just look like systematic discrimination, it is. Most people agree that there should be equality, but how do you get true equality in the system you described? Without introducing a positive bias into the system it will not change. Women need equal opportunity and positive discrimination (affirmative action, incentives, social pressure, whatever you want to call it) is a way to balance out the negative discrimination and create that.
Note that I'm only advocating equal opportunity, not equal numbers.
So what's your stance: Equality in all cases, or positive discrimination can help society?